Trains.com

Amtrak 501 Derail in Washington State

71290 views
1887 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,206 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, August 26, 2018 9:36 AM

243129

Herr Landwehr: Tell the 53 families of the folks who were killed in the last ten years in human error caused accidents how statistics reflect that railroads are doing much better safety wise.

I would be willing to bet that you would get more than one GFY.

 

Running out of arguments again?

May I cite Zugmann from a few pages back: Appealing to emotion is a logical fallacy.

To be clear, every fatality is one too many. Adding up accidents over ten years blur the safety development.

Read the statistic finally and you will perhaps understand. Till now you haven't even tried as you think it might collide with your beliefs.
Regards, Volker

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,206 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, August 26, 2018 9:44 AM

243129

Here is a little more reading material for you Herr Landwehr.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/amtrak-crash-workers-say-they-warned-of-inadequate-training/ar-BBIlAbk?ocid=se

 

So what?

You don't get it that the positiv statistic over last 30 years doesn't mean that everything is OK at Amtrak.

It might have given Amtrak's management the feeling their safety approach is good enough not needing coaching from a rude employee/ex-employee.

Looks like the last accidents proofed them wrong.
Regards, Volker

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,206 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, August 26, 2018 10:31 AM

Euclid
I refer to Amtrak’s new lapse in safety training as a “turnaround” or “U”-turn because it is a diametrical change in direction that is apparently quite recent. Thus there has not been enough time for many accidents resulting from the turnaround.

Why do you always need to explain what you meant?

The two most referred accidents that fit into you turnaround picture are include in the posted statistics for 2017. And there is no turnaround to be seen. And it doesn't seem a recent change in management direction. Joe sent his letters since 2012, IIRC.

Euclid
But because the turnaround seems to head in a new direction that is prone to causing accidents, I would call that new direction a “trend” even though the number of accidents so far may be only a few, and thus not seem to be a trend on a statistical basis.

To start a new trend were are those accidents in 2018?

And with commissioning of PTC the number of those high fatalities accidents caused by human error will decrease. At least that is what PTC was developed for.

Euclid
And that is the problem with statistics. In the case of 501, the statistics show only the fatal consequences of one wreck directly caused by human error. At the same time, those statistics utterly fail to show the institutional incompetence and wrongheaded safety culture of Amtrak that will be found to have played a far greater role in the cause of the accident than the engineer’s human error.

Is there institutional incompetence and wrongheaded safety culture? Where is the proof? I don't exclude it but I wait for the judgement of those with more insight, NTSB.

Euclid
I don’t have the full picture, but from widespread reporting, we have learned that Amtrak and perhaps other politicians rushed the startup of the new train in the face of inadequate crew training.

What I understood is that WSDOT scheduled the first revenue run and Amtrak didn't intervene.

Euclid
Incredibly, at the start of the first run, the engineer seems to allude to an issue of being unfamiliar with the route.

Please re-read the forward looking camera's read-out. He talk about the north end: 6:17:22 ENG they’ve been changing so much, I still get lost sometimes down
here if they send me down, like, main three down in, like, kelso
or something [laughing]

Kelso: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cowlitz_County_Washington_Incorporated_and_Unincorporated_areas_Kelso_Highlighted.svg

Euclid
It appears that this Amtrak institutional failure leading to potential accidents may be developing much faster than the statistical record of accidents. Amtrak’s internal problem is a leading indicator. The statistical record is a lagging indicator. So the news today may not be the twenty years of statistics showing everything is okay, but rather, a sudden and abrupt reversal of that trend.

Well, the statistic ends on December 31st, 2017 without reversal of the trend, it lags 8 month. But which are the Amtrak accidents in 2018 that show the reversal of the trend?

As said before, that doesn't mean everything is OK at Amtrak, but it doesn't proof otherwise.

With bad will one could read from the statistics that the safety record got better with veteran engineers retiring but that is a forbidden linking.
Regards, Volker

  • Member since
    May 2015
  • 1,817 posts
Posted by 243129 on Sunday, August 26, 2018 11:27 AM

VOLKER LANDWEHR

 

 
243129

Herr Landwehr: Tell the 53 families of the folks who were killed in the last ten years in human error caused accidents how statistics reflect that railroads are doing much better safety wise.

I would be willing to bet that you would get more than one GFY.

 

 

 

Running out of arguments again?

May I cite Zugmann from a few pages back: Appealing to emotion is a logical fallacy.

To be clear, every fatality is one too many. Adding up accidents over ten years blur the safety development.

Read the statistic finally and you will perhaps understand. Till now you haven't even tried as you think it might collide with your beliefs.
Regards, Volker

 

VOLKER LANDWEHR

 

 
243129

Herr Landwehr: Tell the 53 families of the folks who were killed in the last ten years in human error caused accidents how statistics reflect that railroads are doing much better safety wise.

I would be willing to bet that you would get more than one GFY.

 

 

 

Running out of arguments again?

May I cite Zugmann from a few pages back: Appealing to emotion is a logical fallacy.

To be clear, every fatality is one too many. Adding up accidents over ten years blur the safety development.

Read the statistic finally and you will perhaps understand. Till now you haven't even tried as you think it might collide with your beliefs.
Regards, Volker

 

Running out of arguments? No my arguments are all contained in this thread. That is how you answer when you have no reply.

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,206 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, August 26, 2018 11:46 AM

243129
Running out of arguments? No my arguments are all contained in this thread. That is how you answer when you have no reply.

And I thought I replied over 6 lines. Perhaps you have overlooked it?Surprise And there was no question!

I haven't seen one argument from you how the accident statistic and your observations fit. Such an argument I would have expected other than appealing to emotions instead.
Regards, Volker

  • Member since
    May 2004
  • 7,362 posts
Posted by 7j43k on Sunday, August 26, 2018 12:47 PM

243129

 

 
7j43k

 

 
Euclid

The 501 wreck alone looks like it will be a huge indicator of a worsening trend.

 

 

 

One wreck (or not) does not indicate anything about a "trend".

 

Ed

 

 

 

"One wreck"? Where have you been?

 

 

If you read what I said with care, you will note that the "one wreck" is in reference to Euclid's quoted statement "The 501 wreck alone...".

Could you please do that?  

 

Ed

  • Member since
    September 2017
  • 4,902 posts
Posted by charlie hebdo on Sunday, August 26, 2018 1:18 PM

 

 He can't because he hasn't a clue what statistics mean so in his "big boy" manner he tries to avoid facing his ignorance by insults and changing the topic.  Typical behavior of a narcissist.

 
243129

Herr Landwehr: Tell the 53 families of the folks who were killed in the last ten years in human error caused accidents how statistics reflect that railroads are doing much better safety wise.

I would be willing to bet that you would get more than one GFY.

 

 

 

Running out of arguments again?

May I cite Zugmann from a few pages back: Appealing to emotion is a logical fallacy.

To be clear, every fatality is one too many. Adding up accidents over ten years blur the safety development.

Read the statistic finally and you will perhaps understand. Till now you haven't even tried as you think it might collide with your beliefs.
Regards, Volker

 

[/quote]

  • Member since
    May 2015
  • 1,817 posts
Posted by 243129 on Sunday, August 26, 2018 5:05 PM

charlie hebdo

 

 He can't because he hasn't a clue what statistics mean so in his "big boy" manner he tries to avoid facing his ignorance by insults and changing the topic.  Typical behavior of a narcissist.

 
243129

Herr Landwehr: Tell the 53 families of the folks who were killed in the last ten years in human error caused accidents how statistics reflect that railroads are doing much better safety wise.

I would be willing to bet that you would get more than one GFY.

 

 

 

Running out of arguments again?

May I cite Zugmann from a few pages back: Appealing to emotion is a logical fallacy.

To be clear, every fatality is one too many. Adding up accidents over ten years blur the safety development.

Read the statistic finally and you will perhaps understand. Till now you haven't even tried as you think it might collide with your beliefs.
Regards, Volker

 

 

[/quote] I see that you are getting into the insults there Charlie. Perhaps I shall retaliate in kind when I get home and I can tell you where to put your statistics.

  • Member since
    August 2004
  • From: The 17th hole at TPC
  • 2,056 posts
Posted by n012944 on Sunday, August 26, 2018 5:15 PM

243129

 I see that you are getting into the insults there Charlie. Perhaps I shall retaliate in kind when I get home and I can tell you where to put your statistics.

 

 

An "expensive model collector"

  • Member since
    May 2015
  • 1,817 posts
Posted by 243129 on Sunday, August 26, 2018 5:38 PM

n012944

 

 
243129

 I see that you are getting into the insults there Charlie. Perhaps I shall retaliate in kind when I get home and I can tell you where to put your statistics.

 

 

 

 

 

I am reactive not proactive.

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 22,333 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Sunday, August 26, 2018 6:26 PM

243129
I am reactive not proactive.

And that is your problem!  Actions take place in the future.  

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    August 2004
  • From: The 17th hole at TPC
  • 2,056 posts
Posted by n012944 on Sunday, August 26, 2018 6:58 PM

243129
 

 

 

I am reactive not proactive.

 

Keep telling yourself that, it isn't true, but whatever helps you sleep at night.

BTW

 I thought I was on your ignore list?

An "expensive model collector"

  • Member since
    May 2015
  • 1,817 posts
Posted by 243129 on Sunday, August 26, 2018 7:55 PM

n012944

 

 
243129
 

 

 

I am reactive not proactive.

 

 

 

Keep telling yourself that, it isn't true, but whatever helps you sleep at night.

BTW

 I thought I was on your ignore list?

 

You don't have to be. I don't really pay much attention to your posts, there is nothing of substance in them.

  • Member since
    May 2015
  • 1,817 posts
Posted by 243129 on Sunday, August 26, 2018 8:06 PM

VOLKER LANDWEHR

 

 
243129
Running out of arguments? No my arguments are all contained in this thread. That is how you answer when you have no reply.

 

And I thought I replied over 6 lines. Perhaps you have overlooked it?Surprise And there was no question!

I haven't seen one argument from you how the accident statistic and your observations fit. Such an argument I would have expected other than appealing to emotions instead.
Regards, Volker

 

The observations I made about the 501 disaster are there for you to dispute. Your reliance on statistics is laughable. I have worked with the results of Amtrak's hiring and training procedures and that is how I arrived at the conclusion that Amtrak is another accident waiting to happen. Statistics be damned.

So Herr Landwehr dispute my observations as to the cause(s) of the 501 disaster and tell me how electronic aids are the be all to end all. I'll wait.

  • Member since
    August 2004
  • From: The 17th hole at TPC
  • 2,056 posts
Posted by n012944 on Sunday, August 26, 2018 8:08 PM

243129

 

 
n012944

 

 
243129
 

 

 

I am reactive not proactive.

 

 

 

Keep telling yourself that, it isn't true, but whatever helps you sleep at night.

BTW

 I thought I was on your ignore list?

 

 

 

You don't have to be. I don't really pay much attention to your posts.

 

You pay enough attention to them to reply to them....

An "expensive model collector"

  • Member since
    May 2015
  • 1,817 posts
Posted by 243129 on Sunday, August 26, 2018 8:10 PM

Thank you. You have confirmed my nothing of substance observation.

  • Member since
    August 2004
  • From: The 17th hole at TPC
  • 2,056 posts
Posted by n012944 on Sunday, August 26, 2018 8:17 PM

243129

Thank you. You have confirmed my nothing of substance observation.

 

I see you have added a comment to your post after I have quoted you, cute.  I have comfirmed that I am not on your ignore list, no matter what you have said.

 

243129

 

 

 

 
243129

Present my ideas on social media so that others, possibly Amtrak, can claim as their own? This will not happen. Suffice it to say that I have a comprehensive and less expensive training regimen and should Amtrak or any other railroad be willing to listen, again in Amtrak's case, they may contact me.

 

 

 

n012944 

So in other words, you have no "ideas".

 

BTW, no response from you is required.  Please add me to your ingore list.

 

 

 243129

I could care less if you think I have no ideas. There is no need to add you to list you are already on it.

 

 

 

BTW, since you like to correct posters grammar, it's I couldn't care less.  Saying that you could care less means you care.  

An "expensive model collector"

  • Member since
    January 2014
  • 7,380 posts
Posted by Euclid on Sunday, August 26, 2018 8:35 PM

n012944
BTW, since you like to correct posters grammar, it's I couldn't care less. Saying that you could care less means you care.

 

"I could care less" is an idiom that means "I couldn’t care less."  So either one is okay. 

 

  • Member since
    May 2015
  • 1,817 posts
Posted by 243129 on Sunday, August 26, 2018 8:48 PM

n012944

 

 
243129

Thank you. You have confirmed my nothing of substance observation.

 

 

 

I see you have added a comment to your post after I have quoted you, cute.  I have comfirmed that I am not on your ignore list, no matter what you have said.

 

 

 
243129

 

 

 

 
243129

Present my ideas on social media so that others, possibly Amtrak, can claim as their own? This will not happen. Suffice it to say that I have a comprehensive and less expensive training regimen and should Amtrak or any other railroad be willing to listen, again in Amtrak's case, they may contact me.

 

 

 

n012944 

So in other words, you have no "ideas".

 

BTW, no response from you is required.  Please add me to your ingore list.

 

 

 243129

I could care less if you think I have no ideas. There is no need to add you to list you are already on it.

 

 

 

 

 

BTW, since you like to correct posters grammar, it's I couldn't care less.  Saying that you could care less means you care.  

 

This is my last response in this pi$$ing match.

My idiom is accepted. Your spelling of "comfirmed" and your punctuation error, "posters grammar" should read posters' grammar are not acceptable.Smile, Wink & Grin

  • Member since
    August 2004
  • From: The 17th hole at TPC
  • 2,056 posts
Posted by n012944 on Sunday, August 26, 2018 8:50 PM

Euclid

 

 
n012944
BTW, since you like to correct posters grammar, it's I couldn't care less. Saying that you could care less means you care.

 

 

"I could care less" is an idiom that means "I couldn’t care less."  So either one is okay. 

 

 

Euclid

 

 
n012944
BTW, since you like to correct posters grammar, it's I couldn't care less. Saying that you could care less means you care.

 

 

"I could care less" is an idiom that means "I couldn’t care less."  So either one is okay. 

 

 

Stick to the yea but...

 

 

http://www.writersdigest.com/editor-blogs/questions-and-quandaries/grammar/i-could-care-less-or-i-couldnt-care-less

"When taken literally, the two phrases have opposite meanings. “I couldn’t care less” means that it’s impossible for me to care any less about the subject at hand than I already do. If I say, “I couldn’t care less about hockey,” I mean that on a scale of one to 10—with 10 suggesting that I’m the most enthusiastic hockey fan this side of Canada, and one meaning I don’t give a flip about the sport—I’m a one. I don’t care about hockey at all. 

On the other hand, “I could care less” literally means “I care more than I might seem to.” If you could care less, you’re saying that you care some, which is the opposite of not caring at all."

https://brians.wsu.edu/2016/05/31/could-care-less/

"But here’s the entry in The American Heritage Dictionary of Idioms:

This expression originated about 1940 in Britain and for a time invariably used couldn’t. About 1960 could was occasionally substituted, and today both versions are used with approximately equal frequency, despite their being antonyms.

“I could care less” just isn’t logically ironic. The people speaking feel irony, but their words don’t convey it. “I’d buy those jeans” could be ironic if you really meant the opposite: you wouldn’t buy those jeans if they were the last pair in the world. But “I could care less” isn’t used to imply its opposite: that you care more. Thus it is not ironic.

“Couldn’t care less” is a strong statement because it says you don’t care at all, zero!

“Could care less,” whatever meaning you take it to have, does not have that crucial message of zero interest which gives the original saying its sting."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/lifestyles/ct-tribu-words-work-care-less-20130313-story.html

"Could care less" is the Taylor Swift of idioms.

Is it perfect? Hardly. Is it elegant? Not especially. Is it grammatically correct? Well, no."

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=I%20could%20care%20less

"Wrong slang. It's supposed to be "I couldn't care less" - because I have no interest. "I could care less" means there is some interest."

"an expression that idiots use when they don't care about something or have no interest in something. what they really mean is "i couldn't care less"

An "expensive model collector"

  • Member since
    August 2004
  • From: The 17th hole at TPC
  • 2,056 posts
Posted by n012944 on Sunday, August 26, 2018 8:54 PM

243129
 

 

 

This is my last response in this pi$$ing match.

My idiom is accepted. Your spelling of "comfirmed" and your punctuation error, "posters grammar" should read posters' grammar are not acceptable.Smile, Wink & Grin

 

So I am still not on your ignore list, no matter what you have said?  Imagine that, you talking out of your rear, I am shocked!

 

Here is the thing, jellybean.  I have never said I have perfect grammar, I really don't care.  I don't go around correcting ones grammar on the internet, as it is the battle of the weak and used when they run out of anything of substance to say. But when the grammar police come in, and make a mistake in grammar, I will point it out.

 

 

An "expensive model collector"

  • Member since
    May 2004
  • 7,362 posts
Posted by 7j43k on Sunday, August 26, 2018 8:57 PM

He is challenged by statistics.  Rationality is not his strong point.

 

Ed

  • Member since
    August 2004
  • From: The 17th hole at TPC
  • 2,056 posts
Posted by n012944 on Sunday, August 26, 2018 9:03 PM

7j43k

He is challenged by statistics.  Rationality is not his strong point.

 

Ed

 

I doubt he has a strong point.

An "expensive model collector"

  • Member since
    May 2015
  • 1,817 posts
Posted by 243129 on Sunday, August 26, 2018 9:05 PM

EEEKKK!!! The 'mob' assembles.Indifferent

  • Member since
    December 2017
  • From: I've been everywhere, man
  • 3,935 posts
Posted by SD70Dude on Sunday, August 26, 2018 9:10 PM

n012944

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=I%20could%20care%20less

"Wrong slang. It's supposed to be "I couldn't care less" - because I have no interest. "I could care less" means there is some interest."

"an expression that idiots use when they don't care about something or have no interest in something. what they really mean is "i couldn't care less"

This seems relevant:  

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8Gv0H-vPoDc

But we are living in an age where truth isn't truth, so perhaps none of this matters...

Am I worthy of this Nixonian 'ignore list' yet?

Greetings from Alberta

-an Articulate Malcontent

  • Member since
    January 2014
  • 7,380 posts
Posted by Euclid on Sunday, August 26, 2018 9:11 PM

I used to be a stickler that it should be I could not care less or I couldn't care less.  I could care less is not logical.  But then I learned that it is an idiom, so it does not have to be logical.  It is a group of words that mean I could not care less, even though it is not logical as a properly constructed phrase. 

I have come to see I could care less as somehow having a lot more punch than I could not care less.  I could care less has that brevity that gives it its power, and besides, everyone knows what it means.  It has snap.  I could not care less suffers from its negative, "couldn't."  It is stuffy and too logical.  It would be much better to say, "I don't care."  Say it plain. 

  • Member since
    July 2008
  • 1,918 posts
Posted by rdamon on Sunday, August 26, 2018 9:57 PM

1:05  :)

 

  • Member since
    December 2017
  • From: I've been everywhere, man
  • 3,935 posts
Posted by SD70Dude on Sunday, August 26, 2018 10:06 PM

"He who is tired of Weird Al is tired of life."

- Homer Simpson

Greetings from Alberta

-an Articulate Malcontent

  • Member since
    May 2004
  • 7,362 posts
Posted by 7j43k on Sunday, August 26, 2018 11:20 PM

243129

EEEKKK!!! The 'mob' assembles.Indifferent

 

 

As I said above, not good with rationality.  Awfully good at self-importance, though.

 

Ed

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,206 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Monday, August 27, 2018 4:01 AM

243129
The observations I made about the 501 disaster are there for you to dispute...............
So Herr Landwehr dispute my observations as to the cause(s) of the 501 disaster and tell me how electronic aids are the be all to end all. I'll wait.

Since when do you own this thread and can determine what we discuss? You not even started it.

You don't realize, when we talk about the FRA accident statistic we discuss your observations too. There are the impartial FRA numbers and there are your very biased personal observations that doesn't seem to fit together.

The statistic doesn't say, there is no room for improvement.

Let me say it this way, the Amtrak procedures were good enough to get the number of human error accidents down but apparently not good enough to avoid Amtrak #188 and #501.

It seems to me that Amtrak, backed by the statistic, felt they were good enough when "243129" approached them in 2012 long before the cited accidents.

The style of the letters and leaving before lunch didn't help to open doors.

I don't rely on statistics, I work with them. The statistic looks into the past to control the success of efforts taken to reduce human error accidents. It doesn't stop accidents from happening in the future and it will not eliminate human error. Nothing can eliminate human error totaly.

Damning statistics means giving away a valuable control tool.

I'll better wait for the NTSB Final Report, to get an unbiased view.

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy