 |
Re: Would A Simple Switch Stand target... Thanks OPRRMS... Wow!
Author: BOB2
Date: 08-06-2019 - 17:56
A reflective red visible target may well have even saved the life of the Amtrak crew. They would have been able to see it much further in advance, and they might have had enough time to slow the train down considerably more, before impact.
This was a "trap" for the Amtrak crew, who, at the speed they were authorized to operate at, would have been right on top of the switch, before they could have seen that the switch was "not properly lined".
Which is why we now no longer allow trains to go cruising on at 3 times restricted speed, when we put the "lights out" in the signals, on purpose, and disable all of the protection against a mainline switch that is "not properly lined". This is because, as the rule specifies, at "restricted speed" you must be able to stop short of "a switch not properly lined"....
Another multiple f##k-up fatality accident that. Yes, the freight crew, screwed up. But, this also included an excellent example of an inconsistent, even contradictory, and clearly illogical interpretation of what it means to operate at a "safe" speed under such circumstances, when signal systems are out of service, "for any reason".
Now some of you can chime in and tell me that the rules authorized them to do this.... And, how "real" railroad men do this in dark territory all the time, and blah, blah, blah... Tell it to the widows and children of the Amtrak crew...
Which is why we've changed how you are to operate when you take the signal system down on purpose, and now operate at "restricted speed", just like when they are out, when they've gone down. You see, it is true, the rules are actually written in blood.
I wish they would require reflective tall "large" target switch stands, like we had on the SP mainlines. But, we live in the age of corporate greed which can buy a lot of influence, and that would be a costly investment. So I won't be holding my breath waiting for that change to be published in the Federal Register....
This was a "trap" for the Amtrak crew, who, at the speed they were authorized to operate at, would have been right on top of the switch, before they could have seen that the switch was "not properly lined".
Which is why we now no longer allow trains to go cruising on at 3 times restricted speed, when we put the "lights out" in the signals, on purpose, and disable all of the protection against a mainline switch that is "not properly lined". This is because, as the rule specifies, at "restricted speed" you must be able to stop short of "a switch not properly lined"....
Another multiple f##k-up fatality accident that. Yes, the freight crew, screwed up. But, this also included an excellent example of an inconsistent, even contradictory, and clearly illogical interpretation of what it means to operate at a "safe" speed under such circumstances, when signal systems are out of service, "for any reason".
Now some of you can chime in and tell me that the rules authorized them to do this.... And, how "real" railroad men do this in dark territory all the time, and blah, blah, blah... Tell it to the widows and children of the Amtrak crew...
Which is why we've changed how you are to operate when you take the signal system down on purpose, and now operate at "restricted speed", just like when they are out, when they've gone down. You see, it is true, the rules are actually written in blood.
I wish they would require reflective tall "large" target switch stands, like we had on the SP mainlines. But, we live in the age of corporate greed which can buy a lot of influence, and that would be a costly investment. So I won't be holding my breath waiting for that change to be published in the Federal Register....
