Nah. NEvermind.
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
So tell us about your time 'in the trenches'. What did that consist of?
243129 BaltACD I wouldn't expect you to understand. a training program for engineers seeing as how you have no experience 'in the trenches'. I have had time in the trenches - just didn't spend most of my career there. I also have had time in negotiations for the purchase and/or licensing of training programs - I wasn't the decision maker but I was a part of the conversations and making or withholding recommendations. I might add that among the members of this forum that have had actual rail experience - no one considers what happened in the 501 incident was because the engineer was 'properly' trained in accordance with any of our real world experiences, and in accordance with Amtrak's admitting that the training did not include all the engineers actually having any experience handling actual trains So tell us about your time 'in the trenches'. So now you say/admit that poor training is a factor? WTF?
BaltACD I wouldn't expect you to understand. a training program for engineers seeing as how you have no experience 'in the trenches'. I have had time in the trenches - just didn't spend most of my career there. I also have had time in negotiations for the purchase and/or licensing of training programs - I wasn't the decision maker but I was a part of the conversations and making or withholding recommendations. I might add that among the members of this forum that have had actual rail experience - no one considers what happened in the 501 incident was because the engineer was 'properly' trained in accordance with any of our real world experiences, and in accordance with Amtrak's admitting that the training did not include all the engineers actually having any experience handling actual trains
I wouldn't expect you to understand. a training program for engineers seeing as how you have no experience 'in the trenches'.
I have had time in the trenches - just didn't spend most of my career there. I also have had time in negotiations for the purchase and/or licensing of training programs - I wasn't the decision maker but I was a part of the conversations and making or withholding recommendations.
I might add that among the members of this forum that have had actual rail experience - no one considers what happened in the 501 incident was because the engineer was 'properly' trained in accordance with any of our real world experiences, and in accordance with Amtrak's admitting that the training did not include all the engineers actually having any experience handling actual trains
So tell us about your time 'in the trenches'. So now you say/admit that poor training is a factor? WTF?
Never said poor training wasn't a factor. Just said your lack of specificity was BS and it is still BS as a 'training program'.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
The 501 disaster is directly attributable to loss of situational awareness due to inexperience, poor training, poor supervision, poor vetting of engineer candidates.
14.5 miles of 79mph railroad with a 30 mph curve to learn and you blow it???
An experienced supervisor is able to assess a candidate's acumen for the position of locomotive engineer. Amtrak has no supervisors with that capability as is in evidence by the rash of operator error disasters over the last 20 years.
charlie hebdo Euclid How about this: It is obvious to everyone looking at this accident that it was most likely caused by the engineer being inadequately trained. No. Read Balt's remark in context.
Euclid How about this: It is obvious to everyone looking at this accident that it was most likely caused by the engineer being inadequately trained.
How about this: It is obvious to everyone looking at this accident that it was most likely caused by the engineer being inadequately trained.
No.
Read Balt's remark in context.
That was not an attempt to translate Balt's remark. That was just me clarifying the point that I think he might have been getting at. The crew was lost and was apparently inadequately trained for the route. Most poeple seem to agree with that. I have no idea why Balt made his comment which appears to be stating the obvious. For as much disagreement as there seems to be in this thread, I am now unable to see what the disagreement is about.
Balt,
You very neatly sumarized what the NTSB report will say if they are honest.
Mac
charlie hebdo Euclid BaltACD I might add that among the members of this forum that have had actual rail experience - no one considers what happened in the 501 incident was because the engineer was 'properly' trained in accordance with any of our real world experiences, and in accordance with Amtrak's admitting that the training did not include all the engineers actually having any experience handling actual trains on the route. I don't quite understan your point above. How could the accident have been because the engineer was properly trained? Is that another way of saying that everyone here with experiance believes the accident happened because the engineer was inadequately trained? It seems obvious that he omitted the word 'not.'
Euclid BaltACD I might add that among the members of this forum that have had actual rail experience - no one considers what happened in the 501 incident was because the engineer was 'properly' trained in accordance with any of our real world experiences, and in accordance with Amtrak's admitting that the training did not include all the engineers actually having any experience handling actual trains on the route. I don't quite understan your point above. How could the accident have been because the engineer was properly trained? Is that another way of saying that everyone here with experiance believes the accident happened because the engineer was inadequately trained?
BaltACD I might add that among the members of this forum that have had actual rail experience - no one considers what happened in the 501 incident was because the engineer was 'properly' trained in accordance with any of our real world experiences, and in accordance with Amtrak's admitting that the training did not include all the engineers actually having any experience handling actual trains on the route.
I might add that among the members of this forum that have had actual rail experience - no one considers what happened in the 501 incident was because the engineer was 'properly' trained in accordance with any of our real world experiences, and in accordance with Amtrak's admitting that the training did not include all the engineers actually having any experience handling actual trains on the route.
I don't quite understan your point above. How could the accident have been because the engineer was properly trained? Is that another way of saying that everyone here with experiance believes the accident happened because the engineer was inadequately trained?
It seems obvious that he omitted the word 'not.'
not not needed - the 501 crew on THAT route had NO IDEA of where they were or what had been required of them as directed by signage two miles in advance of I-5.
What has been described of Amtrak's 'training' for this route consisted of having qualified freight crews take multiple engineers at a time over the route at freight speeds as a 'ride along', because the line had yet to be OK'd for passenger train speeds. Amtrak engineers had NEVER operated a passenger train over the route until 501 made it's maiden voyage and ended it like the Titanic.
Amtrak's engineers were worse than not qualified. Know how a little knowledge is more dangerous than no knowledge at all - that was Amtrak's engineers on the day that 501 operated. They 'thought' because the company said they were qualified that they were in fact qualified - they weren't.
Red and comprehend much? Those on the head end had no idea of where they were.
243129 BaltACD 243129 cx500 And how could you be certain that one of the participants was not moonlighting as an undercover Amtrak spy to steal your intellectual property? You obviously feel it is worth big money, but nobody on the forum has seen enough to even start window shopping. A purchaser requires proof of value before committing to spend money. Are you a potential buyer? Haven't seen anything that resembles anything that would entice any buyer to even looke in your directions. Were I in need of 'purchasing' a training program - from your comments in this thread, you would be that absolute LAST place I would EVER consider looking at. I wouldn't expect you to understand. a training program for engineers seeing as how you have no experience 'in the trenches'.
BaltACD 243129 cx500 And how could you be certain that one of the participants was not moonlighting as an undercover Amtrak spy to steal your intellectual property? You obviously feel it is worth big money, but nobody on the forum has seen enough to even start window shopping. A purchaser requires proof of value before committing to spend money. Are you a potential buyer? Haven't seen anything that resembles anything that would entice any buyer to even looke in your directions. Were I in need of 'purchasing' a training program - from your comments in this thread, you would be that absolute LAST place I would EVER consider looking at.
243129 cx500 And how could you be certain that one of the participants was not moonlighting as an undercover Amtrak spy to steal your intellectual property? You obviously feel it is worth big money, but nobody on the forum has seen enough to even start window shopping. A purchaser requires proof of value before committing to spend money. Are you a potential buyer?
cx500 And how could you be certain that one of the participants was not moonlighting as an undercover Amtrak spy to steal your intellectual property? You obviously feel it is worth big money, but nobody on the forum has seen enough to even start window shopping. A purchaser requires proof of value before committing to spend money.
And how could you be certain that one of the participants was not moonlighting as an undercover Amtrak spy to steal your intellectual property? You obviously feel it is worth big money, but nobody on the forum has seen enough to even start window shopping. A purchaser requires proof of value before committing to spend money.
Are you a potential buyer?
Haven't seen anything that resembles anything that would entice any buyer to even looke in your directions. Were I in need of 'purchasing' a training program - from your comments in this thread, you would be that absolute LAST place I would EVER consider looking at.
When Keolis took over the operating contract for VRE from Amtrak. Keolis contracted with Amtrak to provide 'pilot engineers' to Keolis training runs with VRE equipment for approximately three months before the effective date of the Keolis takeover. I am not aware of how many training trips each Keolis engineer got, however they were operating 3 or 4 trains each night between the VRE night layover points and Union Station for approximately three months. Once Keolis started performing service on their own, I am not aware of any incidents where 'lack of training' could be pointed to as the cause of the incident.
243129 charlie hebdo 243129 Show me how and from what you deduced I do not wish to discuss the 501 incident. Have you discussed the 501 incident on here beyond blaming it on insufficient training and experience? No, and with no other explanation.Have you given even a series of TPs about your proposed program for hiring and training? Again no. You offer to discuss it, but only privately on a phoe, because you say Amtrak would steal it. Not likely. First of all, a series of TPs would be insufficient for Amtrak to steal it and construct such a program. Second, if you showed us a completed, detailed proposal without securing Intellectual Property protection, and then Amtrak largely adopted it, you'd have an easy suit. Third, if your program was so good, why did Amtrak reject it? And then why would they turn around and steal it? Logic, logic. Reading comprehension, reading comprehension. As I stated previously Amtrak did not reject it I never submitted it. I called an end to the meeting because I sensed their disinterest. They only wanted to talk about the present program they have in effect and how good it was .When I told him how insufficient it was they took umbrage. TFB.
charlie hebdo 243129 Show me how and from what you deduced I do not wish to discuss the 501 incident. Have you discussed the 501 incident on here beyond blaming it on insufficient training and experience? No, and with no other explanation.Have you given even a series of TPs about your proposed program for hiring and training? Again no. You offer to discuss it, but only privately on a phoe, because you say Amtrak would steal it. Not likely. First of all, a series of TPs would be insufficient for Amtrak to steal it and construct such a program. Second, if you showed us a completed, detailed proposal without securing Intellectual Property protection, and then Amtrak largely adopted it, you'd have an easy suit. Third, if your program was so good, why did Amtrak reject it? And then why would they turn around and steal it? Logic, logic.
243129 Show me how and from what you deduced I do not wish to discuss the 501 incident.
Have you discussed the 501 incident on here beyond blaming it on insufficient training and experience? No, and with no other explanation.Have you given even a series of TPs about your proposed program for hiring and training? Again no. You offer to discuss it, but only privately on a phoe, because you say Amtrak would steal it. Not likely. First of all, a series of TPs would be insufficient for Amtrak to steal it and construct such a program. Second, if you showed us a completed, detailed proposal without securing Intellectual Property protection, and then Amtrak largely adopted it, you'd have an easy suit. Third, if your program was so good, why did Amtrak reject it? And then why would they turn around and steal it? Logic, logic.
Reading comprehension, reading comprehension. As I stated previously Amtrak did not reject it I never submitted it. I called an end to the meeting because I sensed their disinterest. They only wanted to talk about the present program they have in effect and how good it was .When I told him how insufficient it was they took umbrage. TFB.
Their negative reaction is understandable. Even though anything is possible, I would think it would be very hard to get agreement over your ideas from a big public sector organization full of yes-men having everything invested in the status quo, and no desire to stick they neck out and take risks. This is especially true when you consider that your ideas force them to admit that they have failed.
I think it would be better for you to make your pitch to the public or to the government, or to both. Even if your ideas are very good, you will still have to explain them in a convincing way. That is the challenge I see--communicating the problem and the solution, and directing that at the right people.
243129Given the recent posts it's safe to assume that you don't wish to discuss the reasons for the 501 disaster.
So discuss it.
I stand corrected! Amtrak didn't reject your plan, they rejected YOU!
Given the recent posts it's safe to assume that you don't wish to discuss the reasons for the 501 disaster.
243129The 501 disaster was caused by a loss of situational awareness coupled with poor supervision ,poor training and poor vetting.
And how do *you* propose to fix those issues? Since you want to talk about 501 so bad...
243129 zugmann So he has a plan that nobody has ever seen. Ok. You are quite annoying but I'm sure you already know that.
zugmann So he has a plan that nobody has ever seen. Ok.
So he has a plan that nobody has ever seen. Ok.
You are quite annoying but I'm sure you already know that.
Thank you. But I've been called worse by far better.
The 501 disaster was caused by a loss of situational awareness coupled with poor supervision ,poor training and poor vetting.
So what do you(pl) think caused the disaster?
243129Show me how and from what you deduced I do not wish to discuss the 501 incident.
BaltACD 243129 So I take the above responses to mean that you don't wish to discuss the 501 matter but you would rather have a back and forth replete with the snarky asides,sarcasm etc. much like a bunch of prepubescent schoolgirls. I take from your above responses to mean that you don't wish to discuss the 501 matter either. Glittering assertions are nothing to build a program around.
243129 So I take the above responses to mean that you don't wish to discuss the 501 matter but you would rather have a back and forth replete with the snarky asides,sarcasm etc. much like a bunch of prepubescent schoolgirls.
I take from your above responses to mean that you don't wish to discuss the 501 matter either. Glittering assertions are nothing to build a program around.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.