John Bruce Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I think we're moving past "oblivious"
> and heading toward "seriously impaired", as in
> drunk or stoned.

FRA mandates post-incident alcohol and drug testing in an event such as this. In all of the information the NTSB has released to date they haven't indicated the Metrolink crew tested positive, but if you have some other information, please share it with it.

> A commenter on the trainorders
> thread, sounding like he or she is in train
> service, said that to flunk the banner test, you
> had to be either asleep or texting.

And that makes sense to you?

> I'm reminded of scholarly books on the UP by Maury
> Klein and the EL by H. Roger Grant which both made
> the point that in spite of the rules, alcoholism
> is widely tolerated on the railroads.

EL disappeared in 1976. Mandated alcohol testing began as a result of the Gunpow incident of January 1987. Data since then would conflict with what's in their books.

> Given the
> Tri-Rail/Amtrak incident you discuss, "asleep or
> texting" (or whatever) episodes seem to be
> extremely common. Wha?

Well, let's see. In the Chatsworth incident the Metrolink engineer allegedly failed to operate his train in accordance with signal indication due to loss of situational awareness caused by test messaging. If the Amtrak engineer had been "asleep or texting" as you suggest, he or she would've likely not stopped before striking the Tri-Rail train.