 |
Re: A Rush To Judgement?
Author: OPRRMS
Date: 02-17-2009 - 06:49
Holly Gibson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So we're subscribing to the theory that all of
> this hardware and software is 100 per cent fail
> safe and never can offer misleading information?
Nothing is 100% fail safe. For example, the rear-end collision at Bertram referenced on page 1 involved a train with a two-person crew, yet they still struck the train ahead at 28 MPH. The train responsible for the collision at Iris (four sidings east of Bertram) had a three-person crew. But enough is known about Chatsworth to make the claims of a "false clear" rather far-fetched.
> Here's an interesting comment or two from an
> electronics engineer culled from a discussion of
> this topic from TRAINORDERS.COM:
If Trainorders.com is your "authority" about things... well, maybe you'd like to buy a bridge.
In response, I'll simply refer you to posts to the this thread and others made by "Ole Pole Burner."
>snip<
> You're going on the erroneous assumption that all
> engineers visually inspect the switchpoints of
> every switch that they operate over to see if the
> switch is lined in their favor. That's an
> unrealistic assumption. Not every engineer does
> that. I would say that any engineer who DOES do
> that is in the minority. There's just too much
> else going on up in the cab to focus on and, at
> some point, an engineer has to prioritize and
> separate the "important" stuff from the "not so
> important" stuff. Trying to observe which way
> hundreds of switch points are lined as you're
> barreling down on them at high rates of speed is
> just unrealistic.
Not only would the position of the switch have been easy to see (broad daylight, no other switches in the area), it would've been audible when it was run-through.
-------------------------------------------------------
> So we're subscribing to the theory that all of
> this hardware and software is 100 per cent fail
> safe and never can offer misleading information?
Nothing is 100% fail safe. For example, the rear-end collision at Bertram referenced on page 1 involved a train with a two-person crew, yet they still struck the train ahead at 28 MPH. The train responsible for the collision at Iris (four sidings east of Bertram) had a three-person crew. But enough is known about Chatsworth to make the claims of a "false clear" rather far-fetched.
> Here's an interesting comment or two from an
> electronics engineer culled from a discussion of
> this topic from TRAINORDERS.COM:
If Trainorders.com is your "authority" about things... well, maybe you'd like to buy a bridge.
In response, I'll simply refer you to posts to the this thread and others made by "Ole Pole Burner."
>snip<
> You're going on the erroneous assumption that all
> engineers visually inspect the switchpoints of
> every switch that they operate over to see if the
> switch is lined in their favor. That's an
> unrealistic assumption. Not every engineer does
> that. I would say that any engineer who DOES do
> that is in the minority. There's just too much
> else going on up in the cab to focus on and, at
> some point, an engineer has to prioritize and
> separate the "important" stuff from the "not so
> important" stuff. Trying to observe which way
> hundreds of switch points are lined as you're
> barreling down on them at high rates of speed is
> just unrealistic.
Not only would the position of the switch have been easy to see (broad daylight, no other switches in the area), it would've been audible when it was run-through.
