 |
Re: John Bruce and other dips
Author: OPRRMS
Date: 12-05-2008 - 22:44
John Bruce Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> OPRRMS, did it occur to you that that was sarcasm?
Nope. That's certainly not obvious. You should label it as such.
> It does still seem to me that you're trying to
> find reasons to rehabilitate Sanchez.
OK, you've stumped me. What do you mean by "rehabilitate Sanchez?" You've mentioned that in two posts now. If you mean it in the literal sense, it would be literally impossible to do - you know he's dead, right? Or was that more sarcasm?
> Other than
> a few people still insisting there was a false
> clear -- which the NTSB, as far as I can see,
> ruled out -- then the best anyone can come up with
> is that the signal had some other kind of bad or
> dim indication.
Well, it wasn't the NTSB that ruled out the false clear possibility. It was the computer download from the relay house. The NTSB just included it in their press releases. As to your "bad or dim indication" theory, the NTSB hasn't mention that in their releases at all. Rather, it was in some recent newspaper stories, same as "the signal was green" accounts.
> But if that was the case, Sanchez
> shouldn't have passed the signal, and he should
> have notified the dispatcher. That was my point.
Ah, but he did pass the signal. Why? He also could've clearly seen that the dual control switch was lined against him, but took no action. Why?
> No matter if the signal was flashing rotating
> lights, this doesn't absolve Sanchez in any way.
Exactly!!! So why'd he do it? There were a lot of things he could've done to prevent (or at least minimize) this accident, yet he did . . . nothing. Not even place his train in emergency, although the UP engineer (who had less of a clear view of the impending collision than Sanchez did), was able to place his train in emergency. Why? Please let me know. But be sure to mark the sarcastic parts as such, so I'll know. I'm just a dumb railroad employee, afterall.
-------------------------------------------------------
> OPRRMS, did it occur to you that that was sarcasm?
Nope. That's certainly not obvious. You should label it as such.
> It does still seem to me that you're trying to
> find reasons to rehabilitate Sanchez.
OK, you've stumped me. What do you mean by "rehabilitate Sanchez?" You've mentioned that in two posts now. If you mean it in the literal sense, it would be literally impossible to do - you know he's dead, right? Or was that more sarcasm?
> Other than
> a few people still insisting there was a false
> clear -- which the NTSB, as far as I can see,
> ruled out -- then the best anyone can come up with
> is that the signal had some other kind of bad or
> dim indication.
Well, it wasn't the NTSB that ruled out the false clear possibility. It was the computer download from the relay house. The NTSB just included it in their press releases. As to your "bad or dim indication" theory, the NTSB hasn't mention that in their releases at all. Rather, it was in some recent newspaper stories, same as "the signal was green" accounts.
> But if that was the case, Sanchez
> shouldn't have passed the signal, and he should
> have notified the dispatcher. That was my point.
Ah, but he did pass the signal. Why? He also could've clearly seen that the dual control switch was lined against him, but took no action. Why?
> No matter if the signal was flashing rotating
> lights, this doesn't absolve Sanchez in any way.
Exactly!!! So why'd he do it? There were a lot of things he could've done to prevent (or at least minimize) this accident, yet he did . . . nothing. Not even place his train in emergency, although the UP engineer (who had less of a clear view of the impending collision than Sanchez did), was able to place his train in emergency. Why? Please let me know. But be sure to mark the sarcastic parts as such, so I'll know. I'm just a dumb railroad employee, afterall.
