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 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.
Rick GatesDeja vous.
23 17 46 11
Electroliner 1935 For those advocating for two men in the cab, I remember reading about the case where there were two mem in the cab on a passenger train. They both died after running past two signals and went off a bridge that was in between full open and full closed. Full open and they would have hit the counterweight, so two men don't always add to safety. The Newark Bay rail accident occurred on September 15, 1958 in Newark Bay, New Jersey. A Central Railroad of New Jersey (CRRNJ) morning commuter train, #3314, ran through a restrictive and a stop signal, derailed, and slid off the open Newark Bay lift bridge. Both diesel locomotives and the first two coaches plunged into Newark Bay and sank immediately, killing 48 people.
For those advocating for two men in the cab, I remember reading about the case where there were two mem in the cab on a passenger train. They both died after running past two signals and went off a bridge that was in between full open and full closed. Full open and they would have hit the counterweight, so two men don't always add to safety. The Newark Bay rail accident occurred on September 15, 1958 in Newark Bay, New Jersey. A Central Railroad of New Jersey (CRRNJ) morning commuter train, #3314, ran through a restrictive and a stop signal, derailed, and slid off the open Newark Bay lift bridge. Both diesel locomotives and the first two coaches plunged into Newark Bay and sank immediately, killing 48 people.
Human beings are not fool proof - in any number - the fool can cause an incident - some are catastrophic.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
For those advocating for two men in the cab, I remember reading about the case where there were two mem in the cab on a passenger train. They both died after running past two signals and went off a bridge that was in between full open and full closed. Full open and they would have hit the counterweight, so two men don't always add to safety. The Newark Bay rail accident occurred on September 15, 1958 in Newark Bay, New Jersey. A Central Railroad of New Jersey (CRRNJ) morning commuter train, #3314, ran through a restrictive and a stop signal, derailed, and slid off the open Newark Bay lift bridge. Both diesel locomotives and the first two coaches plunged into Newark Bay and sank immediately, killing 48 people. To read more see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newark_Bay_rail_accident
BOB SCHIEFFER: But it could have been somebody fired a shot at the train?
ROBERT SUMWALT: You know I would like to downplay that part. I've—I have seen the fracture pattern. It looks like something about the size of a-- of a grapefruit, if you will. And it did-- did not even penetrate the entire windshield.
BOB 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.
Has no one thought of the possibility of a second gunman on a grassy knoll yet?
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
And accomplishes nothing but increase your post count.
Norm
erikem Rick Gates Deja vous. Spoken with experience. Curious about whether it's the blame game or rampant speculation that seems so familiar. - Erik
Rick Gates Deja vous.
Spoken with experience.
Curious about whether it's the blame game or rampant speculation that seems so familiar.
- Erik
erikemCurious about whether it's the blame game or rampant speculation that seems so familiar.
Or both ... and then some. To add to the French, plus ca change...
Boyd I have an idea: people are now arguing to the level that the mods could delete this thread. We might as well be arguing about the Kennedy assassination. Take a deep breath, turn off the computer and go for a walk or focus on something that lowers your blood pressure.
I have an idea: people are now arguing to the level that the mods could delete this thread. We might as well be arguing about the Kennedy assassination. Take a deep breath, turn off the computer and go for a walk or focus on something that lowers your blood pressure.
There is no need to delete this thread at all.
However, I would respectfully request that anyone contributing to this thread kindly stop sniping at each other.
Lets discuss the accident and its ramifications, rather than theories and non-supportive speculation.
Now, back to the discussion at hand.
Wanswheel,
Did you notice Sumwalt is smart enough to not get suckered into answering leading questions?
Modeling the "Fargo Area Rapid Transit" in O scale 3 rail.
It’s interesting how Robert Sumwalt speaks carefully. Transcript from CBS.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/face-the-nation-transcript-may-17-2015-walker-nunes-gates/
BOB SCHIEFFER: Good morning, first the train. Investigators say they have asked the FBI to investigate the possibility of a projectile hitting Amtrak 188 just before it derailed Tuesday night. So we begin with Robert Sumwalt who is a member of the National Transportation Safety Board, the point man on this investigation. There-- is it possible that this thing that hit the train windshield that we now know about is it possible somebody shot at that train?
ROBERT SUMWALT (NTSB): Bob, we're certainly going to be looking at that. As you pointed out, we are going to have the FBI providing their technical assistance to help us analyze exactly what sort of fracture pattern may be on that windshield.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Well, is there any way that that could have been connected to the crash in some way?
ROBERT SUMWALT: And, you know, that's a great point. It could be completely coincidental or it could be causal and that's exactly what we intend to find out.
ROBERT SUMWALT: You know I would like to downplay that part. I've-- I've seen the fracture pattern. It looks like something about the size of a-- of a grapefruit, if you will. And it did-- did not even penetrate the entire windshield.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Well, what is it? I mean that could have-- that there was a connection, what could it have been that it distracted the engineer or something of that sort?
ROBERT SUMWALT: And, certainly, everything is on the table in that respect. We're really looking at everything. And this is just another piece of the investigation.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Well, the-- the engineer says he has no memory of anything. Does that make sense to you?
ROBERT SUMWALT: It certainly does. As we know, people can be in an automobile crash and they will say I don't-- I don't even remember the crash. I just woke up in the hospital. And so that's-- that's typical in some-- some traumatic event like this.
BOB SCHIEFFER: But was he actually injured?
ROBERT SUMWALT: Yes, Sir, he was injured.
BOB SCHIEFFER: And was it a head injury?
ROBERT SUMWALT: The-- the media sources are reporting that he had a concussion and had staples, so that's what the media reports are.
BOB SCHIEFFER: And you are satisfied that he's cooperating now?
ROBERT SUMWALT: Yes, Sir. We met with him on Friday and he's-- he was very cooperative and provided us with information of what he did know.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Do you think that this in any way is connected with Amtrak being underfunded?
ROBERT SUMWALT: Well, we're certainly not going to get at that at the NTSB, getting into that political fray. But we will say that we have long called for positive train control. And we believe that positive train control if installed and operational, it would have prevented this accident.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Well why wasn't it?
ROBERT SUMWALT: Well, that's a question that we intend to find out. Of course, it's not required to be installed by the end of the year, but we do want to know what the management decisions were at Amtrak, which-- those decisions were to install positive train control in certain parts of that track but not in others.
BOB SCHIEFFER: All right. Well, Mister Investigator, we want to thank you for joining us this morning.
Euclid On Sunday, I heard two news reports that said that the NTSB has determined that projectiles had struck the train; and that they had no effect on causing the accident
On Sunday, I heard two news reports that said that the NTSB has determined that projectiles had struck the train; and that they had no effect on causing the accident
Think there's a possibility they are withholding information they do not want made public at this time?
Nah. Our federal government would never do that would they?
wanswheel Euclid 6) The projectiles had no effect on the cause of the accident. NTSB hasn't said that much about it yet. https://twitter.com/NTSB/status/600400668705366016
Euclid 6) The projectiles had no effect on the cause of the accident.
6) The projectiles had no effect on the cause of the accident.
NTSB hasn't said that much about it yet.
https://twitter.com/NTSB/status/600400668705366016
On Sunday, I heard two news reports that said that the NTSB has determined that projectiles had struck the train; and that they had no effect on causing the accident.
Euclid BaltACD When it comes to facts - the only facts released have been that the train attained 106 MPH just before the derailment and that after an Engineer initiated emergency brake application the train was traveling 102 MPH at the time of derailment. Basically everything else is speculation - by the NTSB and us. I consider what the NTSB asserts to be a “fact.” If they only say they are looking into it, then it is not a fact. So we do have a few other facts besides the ones you mention: 1) The engineer made no radio contact about his train being hit by projectiles. 2) The engineer said he was not fatigued. 3) The engineer does not recall anything between the time of passing the previous station and the point of exiting the wrecked locomotive. 4) Projectiles did hit the windshield. 5) The projectiles were not bullets. 6) The projectiles had no effect on the cause of the accident.
BaltACD When it comes to facts - the only facts released have been that the train attained 106 MPH just before the derailment and that after an Engineer initiated emergency brake application the train was traveling 102 MPH at the time of derailment. Basically everything else is speculation - by the NTSB and us.
When it comes to facts - the only facts released have been that the train attained 106 MPH just before the derailment and that after an Engineer initiated emergency brake application the train was traveling 102 MPH at the time of derailment. Basically everything else is speculation - by the NTSB and us.
1) The engineer made no radio contact about his train being hit by projectiles.
2) The engineer said he was not fatigued.
3) The engineer does not recall anything between the time of passing the previous station and the point of exiting the wrecked locomotive.
4) Projectiles did hit the windshield.
5) The projectiles were not bullets.
And, the source of your information is.....................
Got a direct phone line to the NTSB?
If you're relying on the media, consider the fact that they've been known to be wrong a time or two.
tomikawaTT...Do you think a 7.62/39mm round might do that kind of damage? If so, it could implicate the terrorist/gangbanger's favorite piece, the AK-47...
The SKS also feeds that round, and I would think absolutely, yes (though I'm no ballistics expert.) There's at least tens of thousands of these rifles in the U.S. (I shoot three,) in addition to all the AKs and its variants.
That's not to discount the terrorist angle, but normally, they like to claim credit pretty quickly, if they were involved.
Caseys Brakeman...Bullet residue in the glass?...
Copper and/or lead. The bullet could very possibly have imbedded bits of either in with the fractured glass, and even traces of burned powder.
(EDIT: Now apparently tested and ruled out.)
Norm48327The conspiracy theories will abound until the NTSB final report is made public.
And likely, for years to come, if past history is any indication.
Euclid1) The engineer made no radio contact about his train being hit by projectiles.
We know this?
The engineer states that he has no memory about the portion of the trip in question, but the conductor onboard states to have heard something to that effect.
Just because the crew of the other train or the base station that was recording radio conversations didn't pick up on this possible response about his locomotive also being struck, doesn't mean that it didn't happen and wasn't broadcast on his radio in the cab.
As far as I've seen from the news reports I've read, all they know is what I said above. I don't think that necessarily proves that such a statement wasn't made. It just confirms that they didn't receive it over their radios.
Did I miss something? Does the event recorder on the locomotive record radio conversations and they were able to conclusively determine this fact from that data, perhaps?
EuclidThe engineer does not recall anything between the time of passing the previous station and the point of exiting the wrecked locomotive.
Wouldn't it be more correct to state that the engineer claims to not recall anything for that period of time?
Some are obviously thinking the worst here, particularly in light of a recent aviation incident. Plus, even if he merely made a terrible mistake and wasn't out to harm himself or others, it wouldn't be at all uncommon to feign ignorance of the incident.
Unfortunately, I doh't think this one can be proven conclusively.
EuclidThe projectiles had no effect on the cause of the accident.
edblysard Schlimm: Seems to me many here simply cannot accept the simple likelihood that the engineer was recklessly responsible. Schlimn, Not trying to absolve the engineer, but not trying to blame him either… All I posted was a simple experiment.
Schlimn, Not trying to absolve the engineer, but not trying to blame him either… All I posted was a simple experiment.
Ed: My comments weren't concerning your post, which, BTW, corresponded generally with the observations a friend (very familiar with firearms of various types) made.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimm Most of us like to speculate and have done so on this thread and others.
Most of us like to speculate and have done so on this thread and others.
I do plenty of speculation. But I try to not present it as facts.
In fact, I've speculated in this very thread. While I don't feel as if I'm in a position to make a guess about what happened based off what we know at this time and my level of expertise, I've posted wondering about the status of the locomotive itself.
I'll let the fate of the engineer and what is able to be learned from this incident that can hopefully make the system safer in the future, to the experts.
schlimmApparently you do not or had nothing to say, but you chose only to complain about mine
Because you presented it as something beyond mere speculation, while attacking those that are trying to keep an open mind and haven't leaped to the conclusion that he has to be guity of a heinous crime.
It's tiring that not only do you always think the worst, but you always think that the opinion you're presenting is an accurate portrayal of the facts.
Post like this classic that I reread the other day when posting positive news much to the contrary to your post, seem to be the rule for you rather than the exception.
schlimm When all the coal ash settles, the shoestring outfit running the Badger will get its extension through deception and later suspend services after one more season, leaving the gulled folks of Ludington to figure out what to do with the abandoned hulk. LMC is simply another business. In this case they are simply exploiting legitimate nostalgia to circumvent the law and obfuscate the issue, which is that they agreed to the findings in a legal proceeding..
When all the coal ash settles, the shoestring outfit running the Badger will get its extension through deception and later suspend services after one more season, leaving the gulled folks of Ludington to figure out what to do with the abandoned hulk. LMC is simply another business. In this case they are simply exploiting legitimate nostalgia to circumvent the law and obfuscate the issue, which is that they agreed to the findings in a legal proceeding..
Like I said, I'll wait for the facts to come in before assuming the worst.
o
ricktrains4824 Schlimm, You say it is true the engineer was reckless and negligent. Where is your proof of his recklessness? Where is the proof of negligence? These are criminal offences, when death of another is involved. You need proof of this. You have ZERO proof, just like the rest of us. It funny, you disagreed with every theory presented, bullets, chemicals, anything that would mean it was not the engineers fault. What about MY theory, mechanical issue with the throttle? IF as I theorize, the throttle got stuck open, it was indeed not the engineers fault. How could it get stuck? Mechanical issues and/or software/electrical issues. These are retatively new units, is there a bug/issue? This theory, is, as you say, "designed to exonerate the engineer." Should it be struck down now as well? Improbable? Impossible? It seems that the only logical answer for you, is that it MUST be the engineers fault. He was driving the train, so it HAS to be his fault. Lets stop bashing the engineer. It is possible that things beyond his control contributed to the crash, meaning that there was ZERO recklessness/negligence on his part. You were complaining that we are on here speculating that it may not be his fault, yet you are speculating it is his and only his fault. And, as I said earlier, the "projectile" issue was ruled out by investigators, as not contributing, yet even they do not know for sure (at least not saying publicly) what did contribute. Until you know for sure what did contribute, you cannot rule out that this one thing (projectiles) did not. Therefore, the "projectile" issue is indeed being prematurely discredited. It was discredited that the "projectile" was possibly from a gun by the NTSB BEFORE the FBI even finished their own investigation into if it was or was not. Why, if it is not, did you (NTSB) even ask the FBI in? That, to me, reeks of a "keep this quiet" statement. Was the spokesman instructed to, under no uncertain terms, to even insinuate that a gun may have been involved? Was he instructed, by the FBI and/or NTSB to say that it was not possible? Even though they know it was? Is this a "keep it quiet so as not to scare away the perp"? We simply do not know. Is it possible? Yes. Is it the answer? It is not rational, on your part, to so quickly blame solely the engineer.these are not rational statements at all. I will also state, it is not rational statements that I am taking issue with here, but the statement you are making that "likely he was handling the train in a reckless or negligent fashion (true)", as there is no proof it is true. Not one "theory designed to exonerate the engineer" have any of us stated is "true." Yet you state, as a fact, that your theory, which I will say is designed to condemn the engineer, is true, when it may not be. That is what I am taking issue with. Yes, rationally, it Might be the engineers fault, but, just as rationally, it might not be. Okay, I've ranted enough..... And, no offense is meant, or is being taken, in this or prior (nor future) posts.
Schlimm,
You say it is true the engineer was reckless and negligent. Where is your proof of his recklessness? Where is the proof of negligence? These are criminal offences, when death of another is involved. You need proof of this.
You have ZERO proof, just like the rest of us.
It funny, you disagreed with every theory presented, bullets, chemicals, anything that would mean it was not the engineers fault.
What about MY theory, mechanical issue with the throttle? IF as I theorize, the throttle got stuck open, it was indeed not the engineers fault. How could it get stuck? Mechanical issues and/or software/electrical issues. These are retatively new units, is there a bug/issue? This theory, is, as you say, "designed to exonerate the engineer." Should it be struck down now as well? Improbable? Impossible?
It seems that the only logical answer for you, is that it MUST be the engineers fault. He was driving the train, so it HAS to be his fault.
Lets stop bashing the engineer. It is possible that things beyond his control contributed to the crash, meaning that there was ZERO recklessness/negligence on his part.
You were complaining that we are on here speculating that it may not be his fault, yet you are speculating it is his and only his fault.
And, as I said earlier, the "projectile" issue was ruled out by investigators, as not contributing, yet even they do not know for sure (at least not saying publicly) what did contribute. Until you know for sure what did contribute, you cannot rule out that this one thing (projectiles) did not. Therefore, the "projectile" issue is indeed being prematurely discredited. It was discredited that the "projectile" was possibly from a gun by the NTSB BEFORE the FBI even finished their own investigation into if it was or was not. Why, if it is not, did you (NTSB) even ask the FBI in? That, to me, reeks of a "keep this quiet" statement. Was the spokesman instructed to, under no uncertain terms, to even insinuate that a gun may have been involved? Was he instructed, by the FBI and/or NTSB to say that it was not possible? Even though they know it was? Is this a "keep it quiet so as not to scare away the perp"? We simply do not know. Is it possible? Yes. Is it the answer?
It is not rational, on your part, to so quickly blame solely the engineer.these are not rational statements at all.
I will also state, it is not rational statements that I am taking issue with here, but the statement you are making that "likely he was handling the train in a reckless or negligent fashion (true)", as there is no proof it is true.
Not one "theory designed to exonerate the engineer" have any of us stated is "true." Yet you state, as a fact, that your theory, which I will say is designed to condemn the engineer, is true, when it may not be. That is what I am taking issue with.
Yes, rationally, it Might be the engineers fault, but, just as rationally, it might not be.
Okay, I've ranted enough.....
And, no offense is meant, or is being taken, in this or prior (nor future) posts.
I offered opinions, as did others. I also offered an opinion about the possible neurological causes for the engineer's neglect of his duties. Let me explain my use here of the term neglect: "to fail to carry out or perform orders, duties, etc." Whether he was distracted by a gunshot (not, according to FBI) or a rock (still no definitive answer, though appears from statements not) or rendered unresponsive from some other cause (ADD, stroke, alcohol, drugs -- and there is ZERO evidence of these four, BTW) the consequence would be that he neglected his duties. Some of the causes would excuse the neglect, i.e., not his fault. Others, not so much, so it would then be some form of avoidable, culpable neglect.
Your theory about the controls is a good one and the answer should come soon from the black box.
Ricky W.
HO scale Proto-freelancer.
My Railroad rules:
1: It's my railroad, my rules.
2: It's for having fun and enjoyment.
3: Any objections, consult above rules.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.