Rick GatesDeja vous.
23 17 46 11
Euclid There is nothing wrong with speculation or theories. It is not illegal, immoral, or against the forum rules. A curious public speculating about the cause of accidents such as this one is a healthy thing.
There is nothing wrong with speculation or theories. It is not illegal, immoral, or against the forum rules. A curious public speculating about the cause of accidents such as this one is a healthy thing.
Bucky, you can speculate all you want, just as soon as the professionals are done with their investigation.
No, I don't think that's the way it works Murry. I get a kick out of people who say they don't speculate. The next thing you know, they are telling others that they must not speculate either.
Euclid No, I don't think that's the way it works Murry. I get a kick out of people who say they don't speculate. The next thing you know, they are telling others that they must not speculate either.
Stay on Point Bucky. You are causing this thread to deviate.
This thread would be more fun if it really were a Bigfoot startling the driver and we finally get a Bigfoot body to prove all of the deniers wrong.
Modeling the "Fargo Area Rapid Transit" in O scale 3 rail.
edblysardBOB SCHIEFFER: But, as the investigator, you don't know? ROBERT SUMWALT: Well, I-- I do. But, of course, there is HIPAA regulations that would prohibit even-- even me from releasing those-- those sorts of information, so I'll just tell you what-- what the media sources are. But, yes, he-- he did spend some time in the hospital. Basically, he is explaining why he is allowed to lie or mislead the public.
No. He was just following the law. HIPPA (the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act) among other things protects an individual's medical chart from re-release by 3rd parties. Sumwalt would be in violation of the law had he disclosed any more than he did about the engineer's medical condition that came from the ER chart.
Interesting discussion about gunshots and laminated glass. Keep in mind that has already been ruled out by the FBI, perhaps for the points Ed brings up.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Euclid Ed, I was particularly interested in the first part of that quote about the gunfire question. When Sumwalt said he wanted to “downplay” that matter, I think that is exactly what he was doing. He was saying what was required to make it look like gunfire was not a possibility.
He said "downplay", not "discount." I interpret that as "not probable."
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
Murray Euclid No, I don't think that's the way it works Murry. I get a kick out of people who say they don't speculate. The next thing you know, they are telling others that they must not speculate either. Stay on Point Bucky. You are causing this thread to deviate.
Euclid Murray Euclid No, I don't think that's the way it works Murry. I get a kick out of people who say they don't speculate. The next thing you know, they are telling others that they must not speculate either. Stay on Point Bucky. You are causing this thread to deviate. A thread that is deviating? Say it isn’t so. I can just see Sumwalt on Face the Nation about a year from now being interviewed by Bob Shieffer. He will say, “Well Bob, we were planning on having the investigation all wrapped up by Friday, but then we learned that Euclid has been speculating.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAAqGaNCFAY
"but then we learned that Euclid has been speculating.”
Not speculating, but "telling us we are wrong".
Norm
Paul of CovingtonHe said "downplay", not "discount." I interpret that as "not probable."
Indeed - The press (and the public) love to run amok with something like that. The next thing that would "come out" would be something along the lines of the entire train having evidence of bullet holes. Or something like that.
It's not a focal point of their investigation - just one of many factors being considered.
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...
Local radio news at 5 PM today stated two railway unions were calling for two conductors. Something got hosed in transmission. Is there now a call for Amtrak to return to two man cab crew? Remember it was not that long ago either the UP or BNSF was asking for 1 man crew and a super-conductor. But, that proposal was voted down by the workforce. Any one who can clarify this "two conductor" statement?
Thought I'd add my two cents worth. As expected, the question of two men in the cab has been brought up. Granted, there have been many accidents with two crew members in the cab. What can not be tabulated, is how many accidents have been prevented by having two sets of eyes and two brains in the cab. I have been an engineer for 36 years now, mostly working interdivisional freight runs, though I did work quite a bit of passenger service prior to Amtrak manning their own trains off corrider (8/1986). I have always made it a practice of conferring with my conductor over upcoming operational events (slow orders, work authorities,etc.) and signal aspects. Even having the dullest witted, sleepy newby in the cab gives me a sense of security, in that, if nothing else, he might question "just what the @#$%@# are you doing?" The regular conductor with whom I've worked for years is an excellant man. We both feel that two half-wits are far better than one. More on topic: I don't believe the engineer of train 188 has ever said anything about getting rocked/shot at. He simply does not remember. Whether he will ever recall remains to be seen. Pure speculation here: I have not seen the cab interior of the new Amtrak electrics. Is there anything in the cab he could have inadvertantly struck his head on? You can get some pretty violent jolts in the cab of a speeding locomotive. We had quite a few locomotives equipped with radio units in the ceiling over the engineers windshield. They were stowed in a bracket which was accessed through a hinged door. If not properly secured, this door was set to come down nicely upon the thick skull of some unsuspecting hoghead. Hope Amtrak didn't make this design flaw!
So we have:
1. Paul's theory of a problem of situational awareness. Sounds quite plausible.
2. Ed's unofficial tests, exploring the possibility that gunfire contributed. Some folks have suggested that official FBI/NTSB denial of this is a calculated plan. I have no idea how plausible this is.
3. A mechanical or electrical problem, such as a stuck throttle. I don't know how plausible this is.
4. Something else, to be discovered.
I personally like the idea of two sets of eyes in the cab, with an engineer and assistant engineer each verbally confirming the observations of the other. I suspect the news reports of calls for two conductors is just another typical example of news reporters not knowing the difference between a conductor and an engineer. I realize there have been past situations in which the two crew members have distracted each other, but Mr. Bostian's past record hints that he wasn't the type to fall into that trap. Maybe PTC will make this unnecessary, but I'd feel better to have both PTC and a second crew member up front.
Until somebody comes up with new information, I think that's where we stand. Any additional comments?
Tom
ACY So we have: 1. Paul's theory of a problem of situational awareness. Sounds quite plausible. 2. Ed's unofficial tests, exploring the possibility that gunfire contributed. Some folks have suggested that official FBI/NTSB denial of this is a calculated plan. I have no idea how plausible this is. 3. A mechanical or electrical problem, such as a stuck throttle. I don't know how plausible this is. 4. Something else, to be discovered. I personally like the idea of two sets of eyes in the cab, with an engineer and assistant engineer each verbally confirming the observations of the other. I suspect the news reports of calls for two conductors is just another typical example of news reporters not knowing the difference between a conductor and an engineer. I realize there have been past situations in which the two crew members have distracted each other, but Mr. Bostian's past record hints that he wasn't the type to fall into that trap. Maybe PTC will make this unnecessary, but I'd feel better to have both PTC and a second crew member up front. Until somebody comes up with new information, I think that's where we stand. Any additional comments? Tom
Love how Sumwalt never answered any of the questions, but managed to get a plug in for "inward facing cameras" and PTC....nahhh, there is no real agenda here!
edblysard Love how Sumwalt never answered any of the questions, but managed to get a plug in for "inward facing cameras" and PTC....nahhh, there is no real agenda here!
Politician - say nothing and push an agenda.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Just watched a History Channel 'Engineering Disasters' about the Asiana Airlines plane that landed short of the runway at San Francisco last year. The conclusion of the NTSB, as identified in the segment, was that the flight crew didn't fully understand the operation of the Autopilot hardware/software that was operational on the plane and thought Autopilot was in charge at the time that the pilot was the only one in charge.
Could 188's engineer have had some confusion with when, where and how ACESSES (or whatever Amtrak calls it) actually operated in this location?
While all the talking heads are promoting PTC as the panacea of all the industry's operational failings - with the complexity I am seeing incorporated into PTC and it's operation (and the operational rules have yet to be published) I can foresee a number of accidents caused by PTC and the crews misunderstanding of how it operates.
There has already been an accident in PTC territory. In 2012 at Niles, MI in territory with Amtrak's version of PTC, a train went through an open switch into a yard track. It was determined that a jumper wire used by a signal dept. employee caused the false clear in the signal system.
Now, while it wasn't a direct failure of PTC, it was a failure in that PTC is worthless if any of the sub-systems it has to work with fail or are compromised. Stop and think for a minute all that has to work. The back-office computer, the on-board computer, all the transmitter/receivers (fixed and on equipment), all the signal imputs from the field (block occupancy, switch position, etc). A single failure in one of those can compromise the entire system. Usually, if something fails, the system should be fail-safe, but it may not always be so has the Niles accident shows.
Jeff
This is an article by someone with a background in disaster management who happened to be a passenger on train 188. In brief, it suggests the Philadelphia police and fire departments responded with the competent professionalism we hope all such organizations possess, but Amtrak performed poorly in the days following the wreck.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/05/amtrak-188-survivor-118123.html
Euclid Yet two other trains did report being hit in windshield by projectiles in the same area and almost the same time. At least one of those reports did include the possibility of the projectiles being gunfire. The appearance of the projectile damage on the two trains is fundamentally identical. And while we don’t have any crewmember report of the Amtrak train being hit by projectiles, that locomotive too has a pattern of the same fundamental damage to its windshield. If you look at close-up photos of the locomotive windshields of the three trains, the similarity is undeniable.
I know of only 1 train hit in the windshield, the SEPTA train whose engineer safely stopped at North Philly. I have read of an Amtrak Acela express which had a passenger window hit, whose outer pane shattered, but whose inner pane held.
What's the second train that you know of that got a windshield hit?
Patrick Boylan
Free yacht rides, 27' sailboat, zip code 19114 Delaware River, get great Delair bridge photos from the river. Send me a private message
MrLynnI agree with your view on having two people in the cab (engineer/conductor, engineer/fireman—might as well use the traditional term!). I'd be willing to pay a little more for my Amtrak tickets to pay the salary of the second guy.
Two guys didn't help the Crescent avoid running a stop north of Charlottesville VA a few months ago (just missed colliding with NS intermodal train)
Two guys didn't help at Chase MD in 1987, either. In fact, having only one in the Amtrak train that day, saved a life.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Dakguy201 This is an article by someone with a background in disaster management who happened to be a passenger on train 188. In brief, it suggests the Philadelphia police and fire departments responded with the competent professionalism we hope all such organizations possess, but Amtrak performed poorly in the days following the wreck. http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/05/amtrak-188-survivor-118123.html
Good article. It speaks volumes about the poor "culture" in at least some departments at Amtrak.
.
jeffhergert There has already been an accident in PTC territory. In 2012 at Niles, MI in territory with Amtrak's version of PTC, a train went through an open switch into a yard track. It was determined that a jumper wire used by a signal dept. employee caused the false clear in the signal system. Now, while it wasn't a direct failure of PTC, it was a failure in that PTC is worthless if any of the sub-systems it has to work with fail or are compromised. Stop and think for a minute all that has to work. The back-office computer, the on-board computer, all the transmitter/receivers (fixed and on equipment), all the signal imputs from the field (block occupancy, switch position, etc). A single failure in one of those can compromise the entire system. Usually, if something fails, the system should be fail-safe, but it may not always be so has the Niles accident shows. Jeff
It took two solid years from operational prototype to production to get the LSL ATC system to work right and safely. Nearly all the time was spent on software revisions. There were many critical errors discovered and corrected that would prevent the system from making a penalty brake application when it should!
And, this was a relatively simple overlay on the existing cab signal system.
I have no idea what the software testing standard for PTC is, or will be. It most certainly won't (and can't) rise to the "fail safe" standard of signal system hardware and software.
Euclid They are continually stressing that they heard no communication from the engineer saying his train was struck by projectiles. This almost seems like more of Sumwalt “downplaying” the whole projectile angle of the story as if to imply that the Amtrak train was not struck by projectiles before it derailed. Yet two other trains did report being hit in windshield by projectiles in the same area and almost the same time. At least one of those reports did include the possibility of the projectiles being gunfire. The appearance of the projectile damage on the two trains is fundamentally identical. And while we don’t have any crewmember report of the Amtrak train being hit by projectiles, that locomotive too has a pattern of the same fundamental damage to its windshield. If you look at close-up photos of the locomotive windshields of the three trains, the similarity is undeniable. I sense that this whole projectile theory is a real political hot potato, and unbearably so if the projectiles were bullets. It opens the door to a criminal cause of the wreck for a variety of possible motives.
News flash: The FBI ruled out bullet marks on the Amtrak train. But you seem intent on weaving some conspiracy of criminals and a government cover-up so I suppose the FBI's and NTSB's statements are all part of "plausible deniability" in your tale.
Euclid (1) They are continually stressing that they heard no communication from the engineer saying his train was struck by projectiles. This almost seems like more of Sumwalt “downplaying” the whole projectile angle of the story as if to imply that the Amtrak train was not struck by projectiles before it derailed. Yet two other trains did report being hit in windshield by projectiles in the same area and almost the same time. At least one of those reports did include the possibility of the projectiles being gunfire. The appearance of the projectile damage on the two trains is fundamentally identical. And while we don’t have any crewmember report of the Amtrak train being hit by projectiles, that locomotive too has a pattern of the same fundamental damage to its windshield. If you look at close-up photos of the locomotive windshields of the three trains, the similarity is undeniable. (2) I sense that this whole projectile theory is a real political hot potato, and unbearably so if the projectiles were bullets. It opens the door to a criminal cause of the wreck for a variety of possible motives.
Think real hard about number one. Something hits the windshield; are you going to talk on the radio or DUCK?
(2) It could very well be, and if so, they are not willing to make it public for valid reasons.
As Schlimm said, your conspiracy theory is getting out of hand.
[quote user="oltmannd]
[/quote]
FRA rules require 99.9... (5 9s) reliable, how can that be assured ? And why the penalty stopping distance is so capacity decreasing.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.