 |
Responding Part III
Author: Holly Gibson
Date: 02-20-2009 - 05:12
comments by OldPoleBuner in italics
repsonses by Holly Gibson in normal font
Why bother reading anything from such an obviously biased source.
How is my postion on this issue any more biased at one end of the spectrum than yours and that of OPRRMS is at the other end of the spectrum?
How would you know what was truth, or what was mere ax grinding?
So you’re saying that my advocacy of having a second person in the cab of a locomotive of a train carrying hundreds of commuters is "ax grinding"? Excuse me?
For example, the claim that the conductor at the Chatsworth accident saw that the signal was green, is patently and obviously bogus - as he was not at any time ever in position where he could have seen the signal, after departure from Chatworth - about a mile away.
You’re entirely wrong here. In point of fact, if a person (this COULD include a Metrolink conductor) is standing on the platform at Chatsworth, IT IS possible to look up the ruler-straight track and observe the signal at CP Topanga. While his train was stopped at Chatsworth, conductor Hildenbrand could have very easily looked up the track, along with his engineer, and observed the signal at CP Topanga. Hopefully the NTSB will present that fact in their final report, because they’ve had their inspectors on the platform looking at the signal at CP Topanga for a prolonged period of time. My suggestion would be for YOU to make a field trip to the Chatsworth station, see for yourself, and report back to us.
No conductor is ever in such position while the train is moving, unless he is in the cab or other place with a forward view. And no such forward view existed on that train - except to the cab's sole occupant.
See above. Go to Chatsworth. Report back to us.
This conductor's supposed report also contradicts another "nice try" claim, that the signal was too dim. That was in fact one of the very first thing the investigators checked out - it wasn't so. And it still wasn't so when the NTSB conducted their formal signal sighting tests a few days later. I question whether the conductor ever even made such an obviously bogus claim.
Wrong again. The NTSB is claiming that the RED signal aspect at CP Topanga was / is dimmer than the YELLOW and GREEN aspects. This was mentioned in a Los Angeles Times article. The NTSB is singling out the RED aspect.
A more reliable source would be the F.R.A., which regularly compiles all sorts of statistics about accidents and their causes, as proven by FRA, NTSB, and other investigations. And yes, they have statistical reports on "false clears" - even those where no accident resulted. You could probably purchase their most recent five year statistical report - but it is dry reading.
My suggestion would be to examine this compilation of "false clears" that has been compiled by an independent consulting firm.
[www.ironwoodtech.com]
They had to obtain this information through the Freedom of Information Act, because the FRA and the railroad industry would just as soon have the public believe that there's no such thing as a signal displaying a "false clear." Interestingly, the 1999 records for BNSF, CSXT, NS and UP are mysteriously missing. A request is pending for those records to be produced, so far with no success. It kinda reminds me of those missing 18.5 minutes of tape that Richard Nixon recorded during his Watergate discussions.
BTW - "it was a false clear" is probably the oldest dodge in the book. It has been claimed in nearly every single incident since the signal was invented. But as an actual cause of accident - it is extremely rare, less than a dozen times in the last sixty years.
Where did you come up with that "less than a dozen times in the last sixty years" fact? According to the URL I’ve furnished above, I think it's happened a little more than a what you claim. See for yourself.
If you want to believe in wild conspiracy theories, be my guest. But to avoid coming off like a desperate fool, at least try to account for some motivation as to why a dis-interested third party, such as the NTSB or the FRA, would care to join in such a cover-up. What skin is it off their noses who did it!
Well, like I said earlier, the FRA has a much-too-cozy relationship with the industry it’s supposed to be policing. The FRA isn’t the only governmental watchdog agency that has dropped the ball in what it’s supposed to be doing. Where was the Securities and Exchange Commission when Bernard Madoff was doing his thing? Where was the FDA when that peanut plant in Georgia was supposed to be operating a clean and sanitary operation? Where has the Federal Trade Commission been when all those toys from China containing lead paint continue to be stocked on the shelves at Wal-Mart? Maybe you can tell me why we should expect a higher degree of competency and integrity from the FRA.
And our Government WILL lie to us if they feel it's in their best interest to lie. I don't know how old you are, but if you were alive when Dwight Eisenhower was president, he wanted you to believe that Francis Gary Powers’ U-2 SPY PLANE was really just a WEATHER RESEARCH AIRCRAFT.
[en.wikipedia.org]
As a patriotic American, I assume you still obediently cling to that belief. You'd be un-American if you questioned what he wanted you to believe.
But I don't see why we continue to argue this.
Uh, because that's what computer bulletin boards are all about!
That it in fact was not a false clear in this case has already been satisfactorily proven.
Maybe for you. Not for me.
The only open question is why did the engineer run the red.
If it WAS red. There are four witnesses who say it wasn’t. How many witnesses would have to come forth before you and the NTSB would start to take them seriously? A dozen? A hundred? This reminds me of the Warren Commission and how it concluded that all the witnesses at Dealy Plaza who heard shots from other directions were all "mistaken."
What human error or frailty led to that happening? That is all that really matters now.
Here’s a possibility. The bean counters wanted to see how much productivity they could wring out of a two-man train crew. They found out. So did the people who were killed and injured.
Answering that question to the best of our ability is critical to the prevention of similar accidents in the future. And whatever can be done to prevent inevitable human error and frailty of any sort, from causing injury and death, is certainly of more worth than worrying about who's fault it was.
Remember, too, that we have to keep an eye on labor costs. Once upon a time, not so long ago, there were TWO people in the cabs of locomotives. But that was deemed too expensive. I submit that we're paying a very high price in having just one man up there. That’s just my opinion. The last time I checked, it was still legal to have an opinion in this country.
That MetroLink is reportedly doing something about it without regard to who's fault is was, is good - if they really are.
Those are the operative words. "If they really are."
repsonses by Holly Gibson in normal font
Why bother reading anything from such an obviously biased source.
How is my postion on this issue any more biased at one end of the spectrum than yours and that of OPRRMS is at the other end of the spectrum?
How would you know what was truth, or what was mere ax grinding?
So you’re saying that my advocacy of having a second person in the cab of a locomotive of a train carrying hundreds of commuters is "ax grinding"? Excuse me?
For example, the claim that the conductor at the Chatsworth accident saw that the signal was green, is patently and obviously bogus - as he was not at any time ever in position where he could have seen the signal, after departure from Chatworth - about a mile away.
You’re entirely wrong here. In point of fact, if a person (this COULD include a Metrolink conductor) is standing on the platform at Chatsworth, IT IS possible to look up the ruler-straight track and observe the signal at CP Topanga. While his train was stopped at Chatsworth, conductor Hildenbrand could have very easily looked up the track, along with his engineer, and observed the signal at CP Topanga. Hopefully the NTSB will present that fact in their final report, because they’ve had their inspectors on the platform looking at the signal at CP Topanga for a prolonged period of time. My suggestion would be for YOU to make a field trip to the Chatsworth station, see for yourself, and report back to us.
No conductor is ever in such position while the train is moving, unless he is in the cab or other place with a forward view. And no such forward view existed on that train - except to the cab's sole occupant.
See above. Go to Chatsworth. Report back to us.
This conductor's supposed report also contradicts another "nice try" claim, that the signal was too dim. That was in fact one of the very first thing the investigators checked out - it wasn't so. And it still wasn't so when the NTSB conducted their formal signal sighting tests a few days later. I question whether the conductor ever even made such an obviously bogus claim.
Wrong again. The NTSB is claiming that the RED signal aspect at CP Topanga was / is dimmer than the YELLOW and GREEN aspects. This was mentioned in a Los Angeles Times article. The NTSB is singling out the RED aspect.
A more reliable source would be the F.R.A., which regularly compiles all sorts of statistics about accidents and their causes, as proven by FRA, NTSB, and other investigations. And yes, they have statistical reports on "false clears" - even those where no accident resulted. You could probably purchase their most recent five year statistical report - but it is dry reading.
My suggestion would be to examine this compilation of "false clears" that has been compiled by an independent consulting firm.
[www.ironwoodtech.com]
They had to obtain this information through the Freedom of Information Act, because the FRA and the railroad industry would just as soon have the public believe that there's no such thing as a signal displaying a "false clear." Interestingly, the 1999 records for BNSF, CSXT, NS and UP are mysteriously missing. A request is pending for those records to be produced, so far with no success. It kinda reminds me of those missing 18.5 minutes of tape that Richard Nixon recorded during his Watergate discussions.
BTW - "it was a false clear" is probably the oldest dodge in the book. It has been claimed in nearly every single incident since the signal was invented. But as an actual cause of accident - it is extremely rare, less than a dozen times in the last sixty years.
Where did you come up with that "less than a dozen times in the last sixty years" fact? According to the URL I’ve furnished above, I think it's happened a little more than a what you claim. See for yourself.
If you want to believe in wild conspiracy theories, be my guest. But to avoid coming off like a desperate fool, at least try to account for some motivation as to why a dis-interested third party, such as the NTSB or the FRA, would care to join in such a cover-up. What skin is it off their noses who did it!
Well, like I said earlier, the FRA has a much-too-cozy relationship with the industry it’s supposed to be policing. The FRA isn’t the only governmental watchdog agency that has dropped the ball in what it’s supposed to be doing. Where was the Securities and Exchange Commission when Bernard Madoff was doing his thing? Where was the FDA when that peanut plant in Georgia was supposed to be operating a clean and sanitary operation? Where has the Federal Trade Commission been when all those toys from China containing lead paint continue to be stocked on the shelves at Wal-Mart? Maybe you can tell me why we should expect a higher degree of competency and integrity from the FRA.
And our Government WILL lie to us if they feel it's in their best interest to lie. I don't know how old you are, but if you were alive when Dwight Eisenhower was president, he wanted you to believe that Francis Gary Powers’ U-2 SPY PLANE was really just a WEATHER RESEARCH AIRCRAFT.
[en.wikipedia.org]
As a patriotic American, I assume you still obediently cling to that belief. You'd be un-American if you questioned what he wanted you to believe.
But I don't see why we continue to argue this.
Uh, because that's what computer bulletin boards are all about!
That it in fact was not a false clear in this case has already been satisfactorily proven.
Maybe for you. Not for me.
The only open question is why did the engineer run the red.
If it WAS red. There are four witnesses who say it wasn’t. How many witnesses would have to come forth before you and the NTSB would start to take them seriously? A dozen? A hundred? This reminds me of the Warren Commission and how it concluded that all the witnesses at Dealy Plaza who heard shots from other directions were all "mistaken."
What human error or frailty led to that happening? That is all that really matters now.
Here’s a possibility. The bean counters wanted to see how much productivity they could wring out of a two-man train crew. They found out. So did the people who were killed and injured.
Answering that question to the best of our ability is critical to the prevention of similar accidents in the future. And whatever can be done to prevent inevitable human error and frailty of any sort, from causing injury and death, is certainly of more worth than worrying about who's fault it was.
Remember, too, that we have to keep an eye on labor costs. Once upon a time, not so long ago, there were TWO people in the cabs of locomotives. But that was deemed too expensive. I submit that we're paying a very high price in having just one man up there. That’s just my opinion. The last time I checked, it was still legal to have an opinion in this country.
That MetroLink is reportedly doing something about it without regard to who's fault is was, is good - if they really are.
Those are the operative words. "If they really are."
