I just saw an Internet posting by someone calling themselves "FEMA Lawyers" which says a NS train derailed in Indiana and collided with a semi. Further checking on other sites showed that the train hit the semi and then derailed. Is their anybody out there who would feel confident with a lawyer who doesn't understand that the order of events can be important?
You are assuming that the person identified as "FEMA Lawyers" is actually a lawyer? Or connected in any way to FEMA (which usually stays out of little things like rail accidents - especially with the business going down in Colorado?) Big assumption.
Consider that I could, with equal validity, sign myself Fleet Admiral USNR. You can count the Fleet Admirals (now all deceased) on one hand, and NONE of them were reserve officers.
OTOH, Maybe he stayed at a Holiday Inn...
Chuck
All very true. We don't know who actually wrote that story I guess the real point is that carelessness with facts is all too common in news stories that involve railroads, often implying that accidents are caused by the train, rather than being caused by the thing that the train ran into (which shouldn't have been fouling the tracks in the first place).
FEMA or FELA? FELA is the Federal Employer's Liability Act. FELA lawyers represent injured railroad workers when seeking compensation for on duty injuries
Jeff.
The problem is generally the source.
Consider that most reporting on the FRA crossing site is by non railroaders when filling out crossing accident reports. The reports are frequently wrong and frought with misconceptions.
Any professional that has to advertise like what you saw isn't a professional (IMHO) and has already lost my vote/consideration.
I do wish I had saved the article, in a major newspaper, that reported that a train driver "was unable to steer the train" to avoid an accident. I wonder how many people with that level of ignorance get to serve on juries ... or are elected judge for that matter.
Dave Nelson
Love it!
While working in the Auto Train's dining car a few months ago, I had occasion to ask a lady which car her accommodations were in. I don't remember the reason. She responded by giving me her automobile's number, used for claiming the auto at the end of the trip. I said "No, I meant your railroad car number," and she said she was in the second boxcar from the lounge. I kid you not. She said "boxcar" and I couldn't suppress a laugh. In the very recent past, I've also been asked if our locomotives burn coal!
The modern public just doesn't speak the Railroad-ese language.
Tom
Tom, I did not know that any of those boxcars with triple-deck bunks (used for military transport) were still around.
Johnny
Hello again, Johnny!
I guess they must be! Which brings up another sore spot: People saying "bunk" when they mean "berth". However, I think you used the correct term. From the photos I've seen of those Army cars, I'd call them bunks too. But I've seen that 4-letter word on Amtrak-printed materials & it makes me cringe. Another sore spot is the notion of referring to our Economy sleepers as Roomettes. I've slept too many nights in real roomettes and made up too many roomettes when I worked on the old Heritage sleepers to buy that one. I know what a Roomette is & that ain't it.
Tom, I agree with you about the terminology used to describe the place where you sleep on board; they were called berths in the old days, and they are still better than bunks, even though they do not have what I consider to be real mattresses. As to the high-volume cars used for military transport, the pictures I have seen give me the impression that the beds are not better than a double-decker bunk bed.
Roomettes? Despite the inconvenience if you had to get up in the night (I had to, once, but I made it in time), I preferred the original roomettes, and I think that Amtrak is imposing upon the ignorant in calling the small (formerly "economy") rooms "roomettes." VIA calls them "cabins for one," and sells duplex roomettes for the same price as it charges for roomettes--and charges the same for the compartment in a Maison car as it charges for a bedroom.
I miss the old roomettes too, Johnny. I remember riding in one in 10&6 SILVER SUMMIT on the old CZ in 1969, plus many trips on the old B&O. As I've said many times, I'm not a spokesman for Amtrak so what I say isn't necessarily Amtrak Gospel. But my understanding is that the Company decided they had to increase revenue by putting two berths in each room, much like the old section sleepers except with a sliding door instead of a curtain. Then they decided the plumbing would be too extensive and expensive and maintenance-intensive* if every section had sinks and toilets, so they eliminated those things. I understand B&O (and probably others) had some improved sections in the 1950's. They may have been a lot like the Economies with less plastic, but I don't know for sure. I always thought it was easier to make a comfortable Heritage bed than a Superliner bed. And I sleep in 'em two nights every trip.
That being said, have you ever compared Superliner wreck photos with wreck photos of old Heritage or Heavyweight cars? I have because I have a personal interest in my own safety. I've seen a lot of photos of really twisted and dismembered older cars; but rarely does a Superliner body really get totally destroyed. You certainly would get bounced around in a derailment in any car, but I suspect your chances are better in a Superliner. Now let's drop that unpleasant subject.
*Unintentional poetry. No charge.