BOB2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So, yes OPRRMS, it was not a signal "failure" as I
> experience on Beaumont, where we were expected to
> run at restricted speed, because all of the track
> circuit protection was down.
>
> Yes, this was a "planned" "shut down" of the same
> track circuit protections, so it was apparently
> "okay" to go at 59 mph., under the "rules" without
> that protection, because that protection was shut
> doen "on purpose".....
>
> That is the logic I am hearing babbled by some
> "old heads": When it is an unplanned failure you
> it is only safe to operate at restricted speed,
> but when we shut it down on purpose it is okay to
> do 59 mph, with a passenger train, because the
> "rule" said it was okay"....... And, I see that
> one of you thinks that is a reasonable and logical
> thing to think, because "you can't prevent all
> accidents'...... WTF?
>
> I don't know if some of you might have noticed, we
> have just done that "experiment". And, that it
> should be obviously apparent from the
> "observation" of the results of that "experiment",
> based on my "observed" "body count", that this
> train could not miraculously somehow stop faster
> for a "switch not properly lined", just because we
> turned off the protective track circuits and
> signals....."on purpose".....
>
> But, in the opinion of some of you bright lights,
> my logic on this fact and this result, is somehow
> flawed, of course.

Thanks for admitting that you're wrong.