 |
Re: Nisqually Junction question-It's your job to control the train, not the trains job to control you....and dangerous cars???
Author: BOB2
Date: 05-27-2019 - 15:18
Railbaron,
I know the stretch of I-5 well and RR well, I was stationed at Madigan Army Hospital back before dust was invented, when they still had the rows of bungalows.
Dupont and this old stretch of I-5, with the lower bases siding and spur in Dupont when I was there. So yeah, he missed the only major speed restriction on this new segment, while letting his speed run away on slight a downhill grade, tripping the overspeed, and missing both the siding, and the golf course, and not calling the speed board, on the very first train on a brand new line...
So, given that stretch paralleling I-5, approaching the curve and bridge, was this simpleton maybe "pacing" the traffic on I-5 and not paying attention?
As to the Talgos, despite the issues with the trucks and the failed mitigation tests, a whole lot less folks were killed a Nisqually, than died at Philadelphia, at a similar speed accident and derailment, without going off of a bridge.
So there appears to be a wee bit of a real double standard at work here. Talgo sets are "bad cars" because of any and all FRA "waivers" (despite that really being a failure of the mitigation subsystem due to lack of testing to specifications), any others are "good cars" (regardless of fatality rate????), if said cars are FRA "compliant", as though that equals "safer" in terms of fatality risks?
It may just be me again, but that sounds like a pretty iffy standard of "risk" analysis to me... But hey....
As I've noted, some kinds of folks seem to learn from their mistakes, others just bury them, and seem to try as hard as they can to "forget"... then, wonder why it happened the next time.
I know the stretch of I-5 well and RR well, I was stationed at Madigan Army Hospital back before dust was invented, when they still had the rows of bungalows.
Dupont and this old stretch of I-5, with the lower bases siding and spur in Dupont when I was there. So yeah, he missed the only major speed restriction on this new segment, while letting his speed run away on slight a downhill grade, tripping the overspeed, and missing both the siding, and the golf course, and not calling the speed board, on the very first train on a brand new line...
So, given that stretch paralleling I-5, approaching the curve and bridge, was this simpleton maybe "pacing" the traffic on I-5 and not paying attention?
As to the Talgos, despite the issues with the trucks and the failed mitigation tests, a whole lot less folks were killed a Nisqually, than died at Philadelphia, at a similar speed accident and derailment, without going off of a bridge.
So there appears to be a wee bit of a real double standard at work here. Talgo sets are "bad cars" because of any and all FRA "waivers" (despite that really being a failure of the mitigation subsystem due to lack of testing to specifications), any others are "good cars" (regardless of fatality rate????), if said cars are FRA "compliant", as though that equals "safer" in terms of fatality risks?
It may just be me again, but that sounds like a pretty iffy standard of "risk" analysis to me... But hey....
As I've noted, some kinds of folks seem to learn from their mistakes, others just bury them, and seem to try as hard as they can to "forget"... then, wonder why it happened the next time.
