BOB2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> How many of these were you ever issued? Yeah,
> this is there, I've never seen that used.
>
> We did have a major signal failure on Beaumont one
> long night back when I was working helpers in the
> early seventies, and we were given the dispatchers
> permission to stop and pass every A signal, and
> then were allowed run every ABS signal "at
> restricted speed", and this was a complete mess on
> the hill, including a knuckle or two as I recall.
> But, I've never been given that order.
>
> It was an unsafe and obsolete rule then, and it is
> still now, if this is what resulted in an
> avoidable, very dangerous likelihood of setting
> this lethal trap.
>
> If this train had been operating under restricted
> speed, we'd only be having a company
> investigation, and not likely an NTSB
> investigation, or coroners inquest, would we?
>
> This rule, and exception, if that was in effect,
> just happened to result in a fatal head on into a
> standing train because of speed in excess of
> stopping distance. That could be from human
> failure, or could even be deliberate, we don't
> know, but the crew is just as dead.
>
> But, what if they had only hit a 9 inch break in
> the rail at that speed and derailed, from winter
> cold contraction?
>
> This rule, if it was in effect (or a similar
> exemption), from this resulting outcome, would
> appear to be a practice that is inherently
> dangerous and an unnecessary risk to both
> employees and passengers.
>
> Back when I was a kid fireman, hot to run, the old
> hogger I was working for told me, "hell kid, any
> damn fool can run one of these things. But. what
> they pay us the really big money for, is being
> able to stop them".
>
> I saw personally what happens when signals aren't
> working properly at El Monte, from human error
> creating a wrong signal indication, when I was on
> the first train past where Earl Nall bought it on
> the BSMFF.
>
> I'll stick with the essentials: Being able to
> "stop short" of impending disaster "good", signals
> working to prevent such disasters "good" (that
> "new fangled" technology has even saved me had I
> been operating at that speed without them), and
> "flying blind" at this speed(in this day and age)
> a very-very "bad" practice, in my best
> professional opinion.
>
> As I said, in my only SP experience with a major
> signal failure or outage, we flagged and ran those
> signals on Beaumont, at restricted speed, which is
> a bitc# and screws up everything. And, I don't
> recall anything like this happening with Sunset
> that night.
>
> Maybe, there are a one or two bad rules like this
> one, that may have allowed this "observably"
> unsafe practice, that are maybe "written in
> blood", too.

Apparently you don't understand the difference between a signal failure and a signal system suspension.