WDGF Murray Then what YOU need to you young man is to just continue to read the thread, and stop calling other people names. It makes YOU look just as JUVENILE. ^^^Spitballs
Murray Then what YOU need to you young man is to just continue to read the thread, and stop calling other people names. It makes YOU look just as JUVENILE.
It makes YOU look just as JUVENILE.
^^^Spitballs
As the ORIGINAL POSTER of this thread, I don't appreciate your comments.
My intent was to have a discussion on what happened and its results...NOT spectulation...NOT theory....NOT anything else!!!!!!!!
If it is you intent to theorize and speculate , then YOU need to start you own thread.
Euclid...If I am not mistaken, just sound can be weaponized if it is loud enough.
I would think weaponized sound would require more sonic energy than a rock hitting a windshield, even at 100. Probably of a specific set of frequecies, also. I might, however, expect shards of glass even without penetration (experienced this driving a van, once,) but am guessing the windshield may be coated on the interior to prevent that? I could also see if he were startled enough to duck, and maybe hit his head on something, but I think we've covered that.
WDGF Murray Move along if you don't like the argument...... I came here for information and speculation on what might have occurred in this wreck. That a couple of supposed adults would rather shoot spitballs like twelve-year-olds is hardly enough to make me 'go away.' It does inform me who the juveniles are, however.
Murray Move along if you don't like the argument......
I came here for information and speculation on what might have occurred in this wreck. That a couple of supposed adults would rather shoot spitballs like twelve-year-olds is hardly enough to make me 'go away.'
It does inform me who the juveniles are, however.
WDGF^^^Spitballs
Informs me, too, although perhaps not quite in the way you meant.
Euclid If I am not mistaken, just sound can be weaponized if it is loud enough.
Yes, but you evidently haven't even bothered to research what that implies. You could probably ask Dave Klepper about the type and intensity of sound that would be necessary -- neither of which would be characteristic of any impact that produced the breakage pattern observed.
The 'confusion' and 'disorientation' that are sequelae of a loud noise or shock are probably well-documented, and again we have an expert on the forums (schlimm) who can tell you about them. He can also indicate to you whether 'dissociative amnesia' could result from the sound of the associated impact.
Physical injury is extremely unlikely, even if there were any spall off the inside of the glass (which may or may not have been tested for or appear in the final report). Shock of that magnitude would not produce the reported concussion. We're not talking about that much more energy than a good baseball pitch ... tell me exactly what you mean by "rocks hit the windshield at over 100 miles per hour".
MurrayThen what YOU need to you young man is to just continue to read the thread, and stop calling other people names. It makes YOU look just as JUVENILE.
Euclid BOB WITHORN Euclid If that had been a typical vehicle windshield, fist-size rocks would have gone right through it and likely killed the engineer if the hit him at over 100 mph. But the Amtrak locomotive windshield is made to withstand impact without penetration. I don’t think it is possible to imagine what it would be like to be only a few feet away from the line of impact if rocks hit the windshield at over 100 mph. Is it possible that the shockwave and sound could cause injury even though the object does not pass through the glass? No, that's way too far out. But, the impact could easily startle someone causing an involuntary reaction away from the event and possibly hitting their head on something. Bob, Why would it be too far out? By “injury,” I do not necessarily mean broken bones and lacerations. You say it could startle a person. I get startled when birds hit my house windows. Regarding the Amtrak train, I am referring to something more than just startle; maybe something more along the lines of extreme confusion or disorientation. I am just wondering what the technical effect would be when releasing that amount of energy right in a person’s face. If I am not mistaken, just sound can be weaponized if it is loud enough.
BOB WITHORN Euclid If that had been a typical vehicle windshield, fist-size rocks would have gone right through it and likely killed the engineer if the hit him at over 100 mph. But the Amtrak locomotive windshield is made to withstand impact without penetration. I don’t think it is possible to imagine what it would be like to be only a few feet away from the line of impact if rocks hit the windshield at over 100 mph. Is it possible that the shockwave and sound could cause injury even though the object does not pass through the glass? No, that's way too far out. But, the impact could easily startle someone causing an involuntary reaction away from the event and possibly hitting their head on something.
Euclid If that had been a typical vehicle windshield, fist-size rocks would have gone right through it and likely killed the engineer if the hit him at over 100 mph. But the Amtrak locomotive windshield is made to withstand impact without penetration. I don’t think it is possible to imagine what it would be like to be only a few feet away from the line of impact if rocks hit the windshield at over 100 mph. Is it possible that the shockwave and sound could cause injury even though the object does not pass through the glass?
No, that's way too far out. But, the impact could easily startle someone causing an involuntary reaction away from the event and possibly hitting their head on something.
No matter how unlikely your speculations are, you often revert to a typical "yes, but" response. You do make some good suggestions but doing that tends to trivialize what you say and brings on the old whiners (and we all know who he/they is/are), who seldom offer any contributions other than to belittle you (and any others whom they feel support your right to speak, such as WDGF).
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
WDGF Murray Move along if you don't like the argument...... No. I came here for information and speculation on what might have occurred in this wreck. That a couple of supposed adults would rather shoot spitballs like twelve-year-olds is hardly enough to make me 'go away.' It does inform me who the juveniles are, however.
No.
Then what YOU need to you young man is to just continue to read the thread, and stop calling other people names.
MurrayMove along if you don't like the argument......
Norm48327 Murray You appear to be incredibly alone in your support of Bucky. Could it be Bucky posting under an alias?
Murray You appear to be incredibly alone in your support of Bucky.
Could it be Bucky posting under an alias?
He used to do the same thing over on railroad.net.
MurrayYou appear to be incredibly alone in your support of Bucky.
Norm
gardendance It's not an argument. It's just a few posters who frequently use the same tired comments virtually every time Euclid posts something. We got the message a few hundred iterations ago, you want us to think Euclid's trying to pretend he's an expert and knows more than all of us, when in reality Euclid's just a regular poster like many of the rest of us, no more or less deserving of praise or condemnation. so much repetition in my opinion says lots more about your lack of civility than anything you might have hoped to say about Euclid.
It's not an argument. It's just a few posters who frequently use the same tired comments virtually every time Euclid posts something. We got the message a few hundred iterations ago, you want us to think Euclid's trying to pretend he's an expert and knows more than all of us, when in reality Euclid's just a regular poster like many of the rest of us, no more or less deserving of praise or condemnation.
so much repetition in my opinion says lots more about your lack of civility than anything you might have hoped to say about Euclid.
You appear to be incredibly alone in your support of Bucky.
Your response also flies in the face of your previous statement(s) that if you don't personally like a post, you ignore it.
At least one other poster says the locomotive side damage happened after the derailment.
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
I've advanced this theory on another forum; my apologies if it has been previously discussed here:
Back in the winter of 1999-2000, I was living in downtown Omaha, NE and working an overnight job. My personal car was kept in a lot across the street, and not far from a "Section 8" housing project with a reputation for street crime.
While walking into the lot one evening around 10:30 PM, I was attacked from behind. My next memory is of standing in the lot, discussing the incident with a police officer, who informed me that I had already been engaged in normal conversation for several minutes.
I had a bruise the size of a quarter under my right eye, and was informed that I had been mugged by three local urban savages -- none of whom appeared to be old enough to hold a driver's license; the attack was witnessed by employees from an upper-story window of a nearby utility building, but identification was not sufficient to press charges.
So the apparent damages to the right side of the loco, combined with the fact that rock-throwers had been seen in the area, raises a possibility in my mind that Engineer Bostian might have been close enough to any impact to have blacked out, if only for a few seconds, then upon regaining full control of his thoughts, believed himself to have been beyond the Port Richmond curve, and accelerated, with disastrous results.
WDGF Norm48327 ...because of our resident expert, AKA Bucky... Any chance y'all could maybe give it a rest? It seems like a hundred years old, at this point.
Norm48327 ...because of our resident expert, AKA Bucky...
Any chance y'all could maybe give it a rest? It seems like a hundred years old, at this point.
Move along if you don't like the argument......
BaltACD Electroliner 1935 If I was with you guys, I'd say, "CHILDEN, CHILDREN, STOP IT" Enough restating what you've already said and stop telling "B" that he's wrong. MOVE ON. When did children ever listen?
Electroliner 1935 If I was with you guys, I'd say, "CHILDEN, CHILDREN, STOP IT" Enough restating what you've already said and stop telling "B" that he's wrong. MOVE ON.
If I was with you guys, I'd say, "CHILDEN, CHILDREN, STOP IT" Enough restating what you've already said and stop telling "B" that he's wrong. MOVE ON.
When did children ever listen?
Did somebody say something???
[quote user="oltmannd"]
[quote user="Buslist"]
[quote user="oltmannd"
In the non-PTC world, all the safety critical stuff is in the signal bungalo and locomotive cab signal box. In the PTC world, all that safety critical stuff is now distributed all over creation. You have a braking algorithm that depends on a consist? You've just added AEI scanners and tags and hump scales to your safety system. You want transmit a movement authority? Now all the radios and dispatching system and software are part of the safety system.
You can't even begin to test this stuff "track circuit and interlocking" reliability and test every failure mode.
[/quote]
Someone must have figured it out as reportly BNSF has 10 subdivisions operational.
You can turn it on and use it, but the level of safety is going to be far below that of signal circuit, for example. There are far too many failure modes and sources of information and lines of code to have that level of certainty.
Will it help? Sure. I'd say "nearly all the time". But that's not five nines....
Example? Braking algorithm. In I-ETMS, it needs the train consist, but can make do with loads/empties/tons. Where does this info come from? Ususally the yard inventory system. There are dozens of times a day that train consists are "adjusted" after the fact for cars they have or don't have. How big is the error and what is the impact? Not zero.
In the absense of good inventories, the train crew will have to enter L/E/tons of line of road PU/SO. So, we're trusting them to get it right. If they mess up, it's on them, but that's exactly the same position currently in place for following signal indications and civil speed limits - that the PTC law has determined is insufficient.
Currently the algorithm is so conservative the crew would have to be way off to pose much of a danger. But work is underway to update the algorithm based on actual braking performance thereby eliminating this source of error.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
In addition to the speed limit sign Buslist says his Amtrak connection confirmed, and landmarks such as the Frankfor El, Children's Hospital, Delaire and Betsy Ross bridges, interstate 95, all of which should have helped the engineer figure if he was before or after the curve, there are mile marker signs on each catenary tower.
I had a chance finally a few weeks ago to ride a SEPTA Trenton line train, and saw that quite a few of those signs, particularly just before the curve, are bent so far as to be unreadable, or missing.
But thank God we're getting the expensive electronic PTC system, instead of trying to maintain signs.
Euclid It was mentioned that, although the speed limit was 50 mph, the train could make it through the curve at 80 mph. It would be natural to assume that the tip-over speed had to be under the actual speed of the train because the train derailed. But I wonder if the stress of the emergency application of the brakes after entering the curve may have contributed to the derailment. So that raises the question of whether the train could have made it through the curve had the brakes not been applied.
It was mentioned that, although the speed limit was 50 mph, the train could make it through the curve at 80 mph. It would be natural to assume that the tip-over speed had to be under the actual speed of the train because the train derailed. But I wonder if the stress of the emergency application of the brakes after entering the curve may have contributed to the derailment. So that raises the question of whether the train could have made it through the curve had the brakes not been applied.
An over speed derailment can also be caused by excessive L/V forces at the wheel rail interface resulting a flange climb situation. The position of the locomotive suggests that might have been the initial cause. But I see you touched on this in a later post.
Euclid In lieu of any automatic speed limiting system, is there any visual indication for northbound trains that warn an engineer to slow down for the curve? Are there any signal indications that would call for 50 mph maximum speed? Are there any fixed signs warning to slow down?
In lieu of any automatic speed limiting system, is there any visual indication for northbound trains that warn an engineer to slow down for the curve? Are there any signal indications that would call for 50 mph maximum speed? Are there any fixed signs warning to slow down?
A cording to my Amtrak connection there was/is a sign.
Norm48327 WDGF Norm48327 ...because of our resident expert, AKA Bucky... Any chance y'all could maybe give it a rest? It seems like a hundred years old, at this point. When he does, I will.
WDGF
Norm48327
...because of our resident expert, AKA Bucky...
When he does, I will.
When he does what? I don't see any case where Euclid claimed to be an expert, and I have seen many other posters who consistently speculate or present opinion as if it were fact far worse than anything I've ever seen Euclid post.
And I often see cases where Euclid posts questions, and folks don't answer his questions, but claim he's trying to act as 'resident expert'.
And please don't interpret my lack of participation in your crusade to rid us of the dangers of reading Euclid's posts to mean I support you, or support Euclid. I might just return to practicing what seems to be the most effective way to deal with irritating internet chatter, I ignore it. And I don't need trains.com to put an ignore button on their site.
I understood that the discussion was even older--and the question was how many angels could dance on the point of a pin.
Johnny
dehusmanIt is entirely possible for the engineer to have been completely uninjured, fully awake, thinking about his job, concerned with safety, with his actions regarding the throttle and brake fully intentional, and still have his head "not where his hands are" and result in this accident.
Agree and there are all sorts of factors that make this more or less likely.
dehusmanThat's because you don't understand the context. The Federal government requires certain periods of rest between tours of duty.
I absolutely do understand the context of being "fully rested". I don't understand the statement made by a poster that "sleepiness played no part."
They are two different things.
Never mind Federally "fully rested" - people who get a good night sleep often have a lull on the opposite side of their circadian clock. For me, that's generally between 2 and 3 PM when I am sleeping from 9:30 to 5:30.
Sensible idea. Since there really aren't any new developments from the NTSB or elsewhere of late, the "discussions" resemble those of Medieval Scholastisists alledgedly debating how many angels fit on a pinhead.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.