 |
Responding Part I
Author: Holly Gibson
Date: 02-20-2009 - 03:39
Comments by OPRRMS in italics
Responses by Holly Gibson in regular font
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.
They were probably asleep. Yes, ALL of them. Crewmembers falling asleep, regardless of the number of crewmembers in the cab, has been a problem for decades. The NTSB has been screaming for that length of time for reforms regarding crew rest and fatigue issues, but, of course, the Industry and the FRA have politely ignored those recommendations for decades. Recall my previous comments about the FRA being in bed with the industry it's supposed to be policing. Let's call the rest and fatigue controversy (and the lack of any meaningful reforms) "Exhibit A".
But enough is known about Chatsworth to make the claims of a "false clear" rather far-fetched.
I disagree. There have been some other engineers working areas maintained by MassElectric who have complained about signaling abnormalities. Remember, MassElectric is the lowest bidder. You get what you pay for. Too bad that the NTSB has to confine their investigation to what happened solely on September 12, 2008. There has been some weird stuff happening involving those signals prior to that date --- and since.
If Trainorders.com is your "authority" about things... well, maybe you'd like to buy a bridge.
Man, that sounds an awful lot like an insult directed at the people who post contributions to Trainorders.com. Is the discussion forum on Altamontpress.com somehow on a higher plane? So, what, exactly, are you saying about the integrity / intelligence level(s) of your fellow railfans / friends?
In response, I'll simply refer you to posts to the this thread and others made by "Ole Pole Burner."
So, like Metrolink, you're subcontracting out your response(s)?
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.
Well, again, you're assuming that all engineers visually inspect every switch they're about to run over (they don't), and you also have to remember that, with a lot of the more modern locomotives, sound proofing in the cab has been improved and it's much harder to hear outside noises.
Responses by Holly Gibson in regular font
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.
They were probably asleep. Yes, ALL of them. Crewmembers falling asleep, regardless of the number of crewmembers in the cab, has been a problem for decades. The NTSB has been screaming for that length of time for reforms regarding crew rest and fatigue issues, but, of course, the Industry and the FRA have politely ignored those recommendations for decades. Recall my previous comments about the FRA being in bed with the industry it's supposed to be policing. Let's call the rest and fatigue controversy (and the lack of any meaningful reforms) "Exhibit A".
But enough is known about Chatsworth to make the claims of a "false clear" rather far-fetched.
I disagree. There have been some other engineers working areas maintained by MassElectric who have complained about signaling abnormalities. Remember, MassElectric is the lowest bidder. You get what you pay for. Too bad that the NTSB has to confine their investigation to what happened solely on September 12, 2008. There has been some weird stuff happening involving those signals prior to that date --- and since.
If Trainorders.com is your "authority" about things... well, maybe you'd like to buy a bridge.
Man, that sounds an awful lot like an insult directed at the people who post contributions to Trainorders.com. Is the discussion forum on Altamontpress.com somehow on a higher plane? So, what, exactly, are you saying about the integrity / intelligence level(s) of your fellow railfans / friends?
In response, I'll simply refer you to posts to the this thread and others made by "Ole Pole Burner."
So, like Metrolink, you're subcontracting out your response(s)?
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.
Well, again, you're assuming that all engineers visually inspect every switch they're about to run over (they don't), and you also have to remember that, with a lot of the more modern locomotives, sound proofing in the cab has been improved and it's much harder to hear outside noises.
