OPRRMS, I'm fully aware there isn't a computer that "drives" the train, but cajon and Extra Board have been pushing the idea that there is, and it was this computer's fault, not Sanchez. I was referring to this.

I've also been making the point for days that, while calling signals doesn't always help -- no rule solves everything in every situation, does it? Nevertheless, calling signals, or the expectation of calling signals, would have helped at CP Topanga. In several ways. If Sanchez had known he'd been expected to call the signal at Topanga -- which he didn't -- but if he'd called it, he might have noticed it was red and stopped texting. Just maybe. But if Hillenbrand, the conductor, had expected a call at Topanga -- he was qualified on the route and should have -- and didn't hear it, well, then, he could have contacted Sanchez and maybe woken the guy up before the trains collided.

It's kinda dense to say this is moot because it wasn't done. It appears there was a general culture at Veolia, in which we may assume supervisors participated, of ignoring rule violations.

Even at Lilac, the conductor ignored the rule -- after hearing the yellow called -- that the engineer had to slow imediately to 40. Again, live and let live, huh?