G
Guest
Guest
Bingo, conductor is now reporting something hit the train. Abcnews is now reporting this as well. I figured as much, unfortunately.
Thanks George-I haven't been able to keep up with all the Posts here as they come in.No, TrainOrders.CNN just reported on posts the Engineer made to a "train enthusiast site;" I wonder if that was here?
http://discuss.amtraktrains.com/index.php?/topic/64182-amtrak-derailment-philadelphia-512/?p=600733
It does if the throttle is bumped while the engineer is ducking, or was set to accelerate and not pulled back because the engineer is otherwise occupied trying to not get shot.But something hitting the train doesn't alone explain the rapid increase in speed. The alleged projectile would not cause the train to speed up.
Unlike driving a car, the engineer doesn't need to actively continue pressing anything to move the engine. To use a bad pun, you set it and forget it. The legal speeds between North Philly and the derailment site are 60, 80, 65, 80, 50. We now know the engineer overheard the Septa engineer saying they were possibly shot at. Knowing this was directly ahead most certainly played into his psyche. If and when his windshield was hit, I'm sure his main concern became his own survival, and he definitely wasn't thinking about slowing down! I can't say I would've done any different. Unfortunately this could've distracted him long enough to forget about the 50 curve until he heard the frogs under him at Shore.But something hitting the train doesn't alone explain the rapid increase in speed. The alleged projectile would not cause the train to speed up.
Now, it's possible that the engineer was hit by a bullet and slumped over onto the throttle. [but wouldn't there be a bullet wound?] Or that the
engineer panicked and wanted to get his train out of harm's way. Etc. But even if it's proven that the train was hit by bullets or rocks, there is
still more to the story.
Indeed. Or many other possible scenarios.It does if the throttle is bumped while the engineer is ducking, or was set to accelerate and not pulled back because the engineer is otherwise occupied trying to not get shot.But something hitting the train doesn't alone explain the rapid increase in speed. The alleged projectile would not cause the train to speed up.
49 Seconds is also a reasonable amount of time to duck while dodging projectiles, remember the curve up ahead, get back to the controls and put the train into emergency.So here's another question: Is 70mph - 106mph in 49 seconds just about max acceleration in an ACS-64 with a loaded train?
"On average in 2012, 92 people were killed on the roadways of the U.S. each day in 30,800 fatal crashes."How many people died in motor vehicle accidents since the start of this discussion?
I hadn't read that. If so, it puts a very different perspective on things.In that time, it is reported that he reported the attack over the radio.
At a news conference on Friday, Robert L. Sumwalt, the safety board official who is leading the investigation, said an assistant conductor had reported that she believed she heard a radio transmission in which an engineer on a regional line said his train had been struck by a projectile and the engineer on the Amtrak train replied that his had been struck, too.
Mr. Sumwalt said that investigators had found a fist-size circular area of impact on the left side of the Amtrak train’s windshield and that they had asked the Federal Bureau of Investigation to analyze it. He said that the F.B.I. had been called in because it has the forensics expertise needed for the investigation, but that it had not yet begun its analysis.
He said that investigators had also interviewed the engineer and found him “extremely cooperative,” and that the engineer had said he was not fatigued or ill at the time of the accident. But he could not remember anything about the derailment.
I got the letter sent to my AGR email address.I wonder if everyone who ever bought a ticket (and gave an e-mail address) got Boardman's letter.
I did - then again, I have an upcoming trip. (I was nervous when I saw A Message From Amtrak, I thought at first, oh, are they bustituting me?)
He may feel that there is still some residual responsibility that Amtrak has for having decided not to use the Signal Speed Control mechanism to regulate the speed on the curve or some such, irrespective of what else happened. I don;t know that to be the case for sure since I am not good at remote mind reading. But it is is just a possibility that comes to mind. The exact level of allocated responsibility will come out of the investigations and is unlikely to create a different result due to what Mr. Boardman or anyone else says as a general statement. Also, the way the insurance things work for these Amtrak has to be the primary insurer. It may be able to collect some from someone else, but that does not remove its responsibility to its customers. I am sure anyone that knows otherwise will correct me almost before I have hit "post" on this one.Re Boardman's email: Isn't it far too soon for him to be accepting responsibility on Amtrak's behalf?
I know the public likes it when someone accepts responsibility, but the investigation is incomplete. There are possible (I'm not saying they happened) scenarios that would in no way be Amtrak's fault, such as manufacturing defects or sabotage and other criminal acts. Isn't this legally dangerous and also very foolish at this point?
I was surprised when I read that in a post the other day, and more surprised when I got the email statement.
Enter your email address to join: