Norm48327When you were posting as Bucyrus you went running to one of the moderators to have posts that disagreed with you deleted. I have that information from two former volunteer moderators.
Norm,
Since you brought this up here, I must respond to set the record straight. You say that, in that earlier thread, I had the moderators remove all the posts that disagreed with me.
What moderator is going to agree to remove posts that disagree with one person in a thread just because that person wants them removed? That claim has no credibility to anyone with common sense.
Whoever told you that is either misinformed or lying. Just on the face of it, the lack of credibility should be obvious. Besides that, I don’t want posts that disagree with me to be removed. I believe in the substance of the debate, and I want it to stand as complete documentation. If you remove half of it, the other half makes no sense.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Deggesty My solution: that everyone else stop posting on this thread, and let Euclid/Bucyrus/Bucky/etc. answer his own posts.
My solution: that everyone else stop posting on this thread, and let Euclid/Bucyrus/Bucky/etc. answer his own posts.
23 17 46 11
Johnny
Euclid BigJim Euclid As a former locomotive engineer, I sir take exception to your idiotic statement and take offense that you think that the human brain cannot make such a decision quicker than the blink of an eye! I've been there and done that! So, just shut the heck up!!! What I said has nothing to do with how quickly the decision is made. I said make the decision "with any certainty," referring to the certainty of the results of either dumping the air or not.
BigJim Euclid As a former locomotive engineer, I sir take exception to your idiotic statement and take offense that you think that the human brain cannot make such a decision quicker than the blink of an eye! I've been there and done that! So, just shut the heck up!!!
Euclid
As a former locomotive engineer, I sir take exception to your idiotic statement and take offense that you think that the human brain cannot make such a decision quicker than the blink of an eye! I've been there and done that! So, just shut the heck up!!!
What I said has nothing to do with how quickly the decision is made. I said make the decision "with any certainty," referring to the certainty of the results of either dumping the air or not.
For crying out loud Ron, GIVE IT UP! Stop acting like a ten year old who will not take no for an answer. You've been told the realities by those who actually run the trains and you continue to challenge them with inane nonsense.
When you were posting as Bucyrus you went running to one of the moderators to have posts that disagreed with you deleted. I have that information from two former volunteer moderators. You can't deny facts but you are persistent in attempting to do so. It make people question your mental state. Get off the computer for a day or two and go outside and check out the real world. You're living in your own fantasyland.
Norm
BigJim Euclid I think the idea is a bogus proposition and never actually carried out. I also think it is absurd to presume that such a complex decision could be made with any certainty. If the collision did kill or injure someone on the crossing, there will be no convincing explanation for withholding the brake application. Any engineer would know that.
Euclid I think the idea is a bogus proposition and never actually carried out. I also think it is absurd to presume that such a complex decision could be made with any certainty. If the collision did kill or injure someone on the crossing, there will be no convincing explanation for withholding the brake application. Any engineer would know that.
+2!!
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
EuclidI think the idea is a bogus proposition and never actually carried out. I also think it is absurd to presume that such a complex decision could be made with any certainty. If the collision did kill or injure someone on the crossing, there will be no convincing explanation for withholding the brake application. Any engineer would know that.
.
My answer is no.
Euclid The question here is whether it is proper to withhold an emergency application for a likely grade crossing collision because the application might derail the train and cause a larger catastrophe.
The question here is whether it is proper to withhold an emergency application for a likely grade crossing collision because the application might derail the train and cause a larger catastrophe.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Bogus is the critical word in this entire thread.
zugmann As an engineer, there may come a time where you have to explain your actions to: The FRA A state PUC or other regulators management a lawyer or judge (god forbid) maybe even a congressional committee? But an anonymous poster on a generic train site is NOT on that list. And I would caution others, as motives from the OP are not clear. It seems to go beyond simple curiosity. Fair warning - do with it as you wish.
As an engineer, there may come a time where you have to explain your actions to:
But an anonymous poster on a generic train site is NOT on that list. And I would caution others, as motives from the OP are not clear. It seems to go beyond simple curiosity. Fair warning - do with it as you wish.
I think the idea is a bogus proposition and never actually carried out. I also think it is absurd to presume that such a complex decision could be made with any certainty. If the collision did kill or injure someone on the crossing, there will be no convincing explanation for withholding the brake application. Any engineer would know that.
But of course, everybody else here insists that I am dead wrong. They all agree that this practice is acceptable, legitimate, proper, and normal—just part of an engineer’s job.
Well if it is a legitimate part of the engineer’s job, why worry about admitting it on the forum? Why act like it’s something to hide?
Electroliner 1935Euclid, I think you are trying to say that the engineer faced with hitting an occupied vehicle will apply an emergency brake application every time (BLACK) and not consider the effect it might have on the train he is operating. But I think you are agreeing that there are circumstances (unoccupied, ???) where an engineer might make an exception. If so, do we have to keep what seems to be unnecessary hair splitting that goes back and forth. I think this has been beaten to death.
As schlimm said, it's what hes does [best]. If your were reading the forum when the Lac Megantic wreck occured you are famaliar with his infamous "yes, but". Twists and turns to get people to agree with him were far too common. He attempts to rationaize his answers with more "yes, but" that only alienates other posters.
His horse died a horrible death several years ago but he's still beating it. The carcass is beginning to stink.
Electroliner 1935Euclid, I think you are trying to say that the engineer faced with hitting an occupied vehicle will apply an emergency brake application every time (BLACK) and not consider the effect it might have on the train he is operating. But I think you are agreeing that there are circumstances (unoccupied, ???) where an engineer might make an exception. If so, do we have to keep what seems to be unnecessary hair splitting that goes back and forth. I think this has been beatrn to death. Thanks
It's what he does.
Schlimm,
You mentioned dichotomous thinking being applied indiscriminately.
If you are referring to my yes or no question, it is not a case of dichotomous thinking being applied indiscriminately. It is focused on just one question. There are legitimate yes or no questions, right? A yes or no question is designed for specificity and to confine the answer from wandering all over the place and evasively taking refuge in the shades of gray.
zugmann As someone with an engineer's license in his wallet, I will remind others so qualified: There may come a time where you have to explain your actions to: The FRA A state PUC or other regulators management a lawyer or judge (god forbid) maybe even a congressional committee? But an anonymous poster on a generic train site is NOT on that list. And I would caution others, as motives from the OP are not clear. It seems to go beyond simple curiosity. Fair warning - do with it as you wish.
As someone with an engineer's license in his wallet, I will remind others so qualified:
There may come a time where you have to explain your actions to:
I've seen that on another forum. Someone wishing to get another pilot in trouble with the FAA succeded. The end result wasn't pretty.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
Semper Vaporo These ATTACKS on this man have got to stop. If you don't agree with what he says, refute it if you can, but STOP the attacks. If you don't like him, don't read his posts, but STOP the name calling and aspersions. All if it is against the rules of this forum.
These ATTACKS on this man have got to stop. If you don't agree with what he says, refute it if you can, but STOP the attacks. If you don't like him, don't read his posts, but STOP the name calling and aspersions. All if it is against the rules of this forum.
When I signed on today and read this, I was about to respond with an Amen, but after reading the following resonses I saw that it went on and on. Remember that if someone makes you mad, then you are letting him control your mind.
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
In the old story about the lawyer asking the defendent, "Have you stopped beatng your wife, YES or NO" and the defendent tells the judge that he can't answer yes or no. If I answer No, you will say why am I still beating her, and if I say yes, then I'm saying I did beat her. Having NOT beaten her I can't have stopped so I can't answer Yes or No.
And I always wondered what I would do if a ball rolled out in front of me. Back in the fifties, I was driving down a street in Cincinnati with a can of coke on the seat beside me in the crevase between the two seat backs (no can holders back then) and a ball came out of between parked cars about five car lengths in front of be. I stomped on the brake and stopped short of the kid that came out of between the cars. And the coke went all over the floor. I felt that was a small price to pay for doing the right thing. And had a following car struck me, he woud have been guilty of following to closely. Not a factor. Had I been on a highway with many large semitrucks, I wonder if I would consider the mismatch of being rear ended. Fortunately, never has happened.
Euclid, I think you are trying to say that the engineer faced with hitting an occupied vehicle will apply an emergency brake application every time (BLACK) and not consider the effect it might have on the train he is operating. But I think you are agreeing that there are circumstances (unoccupied, ???) where an engineer might make an exception. If so, do we have to keep what seems to be unnecessary hair splitting that goes back and forth. I think this has been beatrn to death. Thanks
Absolutist thinking or dichotomous reasoning, applied indiscriminately, is often inaccurate, as many have pointed out here, and often linked to emotional disturbances and authoritarian personalities.
My error.
Norm48327 Euclid No, there is a black and white answer to the question I posed originally as follows: In a case where making an “Emergency” air brake application would slow or stop the train to mitigate or prevent colliding with a vehicle at a grade crossing; is it ever advisable, proper, or permissible for an engineer, to refrain from making that “Emergency” application because of the danger arising from the possibility of the application causing the train to derail? The answer is no. There are no shades of gray and several people are not hearing that. Read your post again. You said there is a black and white answer. Now you're saying there are shades of grey. Make up your mind.
Euclid No, there is a black and white answer to the question I posed originally as follows: In a case where making an “Emergency” air brake application would slow or stop the train to mitigate or prevent colliding with a vehicle at a grade crossing; is it ever advisable, proper, or permissible for an engineer, to refrain from making that “Emergency” application because of the danger arising from the possibility of the application causing the train to derail? The answer is no. There are no shades of gray and several people are not hearing that.
In a case where making an “Emergency” air brake application would slow or stop the train to mitigate or prevent colliding with a vehicle at a grade crossing; is it ever advisable, proper, or permissible for an engineer, to refrain from making that “Emergency” application because of the danger arising from the possibility of the application causing the train to derail?
The answer is no. There are no shades of gray and several people are not hearing that.
Read your post again. You said there is a black and white answer. Now you're saying there are shades of grey. Make up your mind.
If you read what I said, the sentence begins with: "There are no shades of gray..."
That is not the same thing as saying there are shades of gray.
But I guess you see what you want to see.
Euclid CSSHEGEWISCH If I've been following this thread reasonably accurately, Bucky is looking for a black-or-white answer and everybody is telling him that there are various shades of gray involved (not that he's hearing it). No, there is a black and white answer to the question I posed originally as follows: In a case where making an “Emergency” air brake application would slow or stop the train to mitigate or prevent colliding with a vehicle at a grade crossing; is it ever advisable, proper, or permissible for an engineer, to refrain from making that “Emergency” application because of the danger arising from the possibility of the application causing the train to derail? The answer is no. There are no shades of gray and several people are not hearing that.
CSSHEGEWISCH If I've been following this thread reasonably accurately, Bucky is looking for a black-or-white answer and everybody is telling him that there are various shades of gray involved (not that he's hearing it).
If I've been following this thread reasonably accurately, Bucky is looking for a black-or-white answer and everybody is telling him that there are various shades of gray involved (not that he's hearing it).
No, there is a black and white answer to the question I posed originally as follows:
tree68Is it likely that in the vast majority of cases, an engineer will make an emergency application when faced with a near-certain collision at a crossing. The legendary "99 44/100%" of Ivory soap fame. But to say unequivocably that it will always be the case is wrong.
I have never said that it will always be the case. Anything is possible.
There is a truism - "never ask a question if you won't like the answer."
And another - "never say never."
Is it likely that in the vast majority of cases, an engineer will make an emergency application when faced with a near-certain collision at a crossing. The legendary "99 44/100%" of Ivory soap fame. But to say unequivocably that it will always be the case is wrong.
Just like your claim that highway warning signs "take effect," your assumption that there is one set answer to your question is, in and of itself, wrong.
And you've been told that over and over again, by a variety of people in a position to know.
It's time you accept that as fact.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
dehusman Euclid This is not about whether the emergency application will stop the train before hitting the vehicle. It is about whether the emergency application will derail the train by causing in-train stresses. Read my DECISION PART “A” and DECISION PART “B” in the third post down from the top of this page. Part A is many shades of gray and includes the examples you describe. Part B is black and white. I tried to explain this to you earlier. There is NO two step decision process. There is a one step decision process. Do I apply the emergency brakes? As the factors are considered, as soon as the engineer hits a point that says, yes plug it, he does. If the consideration on whether the train will derail is part of that decision, and it may or may not be, its typically towards the bottom of the list, so the engineer in almost every case hits a "plug it" decision at the top. Its not like they have a checklist they run down, its a decision made in a second or two.
Euclid This is not about whether the emergency application will stop the train before hitting the vehicle. It is about whether the emergency application will derail the train by causing in-train stresses. Read my DECISION PART “A” and DECISION PART “B” in the third post down from the top of this page. Part A is many shades of gray and includes the examples you describe. Part B is black and white.
I tried to explain this to you earlier.
There is NO two step decision process. There is a one step decision process. Do I apply the emergency brakes? As the factors are considered, as soon as the engineer hits a point that says, yes plug it, he does. If the consideration on whether the train will derail is part of that decision, and it may or may not be, its typically towards the bottom of the list, so the engineer in almost every case hits a "plug it" decision at the top.
Its not like they have a checklist they run down, its a decision made in a second or two.
I am not saying there actually are two steps. There is only step, and that is DECISION PART “A”. I only mention two steps to separate out factoring in whether an emergency application would derail the train. So I add DECISION PART “B” to make that distinction. I don’t believe that PART B legitimate, so that leaves only the one step that you refer to. So the distinction of two steps is only for illustration purposes.
However, (as highlighted in red) you do include the factoring of a possible derailment into your one step. So let me ask you what I asked Big Jim: Can you give me an example of what would cause you to choose to withhold an emergency application that is called for because it might derail the train? Anybody can say they would consider it. I want to know what it would take to actually do it.
Norm48327So; you've already forgotten about that tank truck full of gasoline?
Euclid BigJim ...there is a black and white answer to the question I posed originally as follows: In a case where making an “Emergency” air brake application would slow or stop the train to mitigate or prevent colliding with a vehicle at a grade crossing; is it ever advisable, proper, or permissible for an engineer, to refrain from making that “Emergency” application because of the danger arising from the possibility of the application causing the train to derail? The answer is no. There are no shades of gray and several people are not hearing that. The correct answer is...YES!!! Can you give me an example of a circumstance where you would decide "yes"?
BigJim ...there is a black and white answer to the question I posed originally as follows: In a case where making an “Emergency” air brake application would slow or stop the train to mitigate or prevent colliding with a vehicle at a grade crossing; is it ever advisable, proper, or permissible for an engineer, to refrain from making that “Emergency” application because of the danger arising from the possibility of the application causing the train to derail? The answer is no. There are no shades of gray and several people are not hearing that. The correct answer is...YES!!!
...there is a black and white answer to the question I posed originally as follows: In a case where making an “Emergency” air brake application would slow or stop the train to mitigate or prevent colliding with a vehicle at a grade crossing; is it ever advisable, proper, or permissible for an engineer, to refrain from making that “Emergency” application because of the danger arising from the possibility of the application causing the train to derail? The answer is no. There are no shades of gray and several people are not hearing that.
The correct answer is...YES!!!
Can you give me an example of a circumstance where you would decide "yes"?
So; you've already forgotten about that tank truck full of gasoline?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.