In this feud I am on the side of the NTSB. The best way to troubleshoot is to go into the investigation with a completely agnostic mindset. Too many times I’ve seen people let themselves get led down the wrong path by starting out with a guess based on past experience or what somebody told them. They wind up paying attention to anything that supports their theory and discounting what doesn’t.
Choice A: Admit to making an error (done), admit to being sloppy and vow to run a much tighter ship (blown off).
Choice B: Get defensive and angry (and not do A).
GOOD choice!
Ed
It does not give any rational for why he did not trigger the EOT but the brake pipe pressure reduction is reflected in the times given. And it is NOT instantanious. While it would have reduced the damage, the accident was under way.
I’m still in agreement with Chuck that this is very similar to the Florida case. Track on a curve on a fill. Heavy previous train. Rails subjecf to temperature strains.
I wonder what if any is indicated by the two rails being bowed apart that are above the three cars on their sides . They have obviously been pulled out of their spikes and are not held to their ties
Some people need to remember that this is a hobby forum and that is why we are here. Too many think that this is their professional engineering forum and are driving people away because of it.
Delete
So it’s OK with you if people make things up and present them as facts?
It THAT a “hobby”?
Is that what you do in your hobby?
Ed
I don’t argue with people who can spot a low spot in a rail by holding a ruler up to their computer screen.
PS–People give “opinions” all the time. There’s no law against it. This isn’t a court with sworn testimony and expert credentials.
Interesting. I’ve found that being able to do that trick doesn’t go very far with most people.
Yes. But when you present something as fact that is not, don’t expect not to get called on it. Even if it’s a hobby.
Ed
Some people sure are full of themselves, among other things.
“Never argue with a fool; onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.” – Mark Twain.
They also tend to drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.
Now that everybody is bickering at each other… or worse… and we’ve jumped backward and forward between quite possibly unrelated wrecks without discrimination, can we stop this?
Euclid made some bonehead academic mistakes, but the point remains that someone qualified enough to have BEEN on the NTSB, and who therefore fully understood ‘how the NTSB works’, made a statement to the media in which he stated he thought sun kink was an explanation for the recent wreck. Claiming that this is somehow a bogus opinion because current NTSB staffers aren’t saying so ‘for attribution at this time’ is sophistry.
If there is any point whatsoever in continuing with this sun-kink supposition let it revolve around the ex-NTSB guy’s credentials, with the actual track guys around here chiming in on the actual practice that would support or question what he said and how likely it might apply here.
At this point I suspect there is very little we’ll hear about this until the NTSB actually reports something… and that may be a relatively long time. If someone wants a thread on sun kink, or stability and accident safety of high-level cars, or how to extract shaming confessions out of recalcitrant erring posters, it would be better to start a new topic with appropriately monitory title and leave this thread until more is actually known and established.
OM: I largely agree, but Euclid should have been honest enough to admit he misattributed a comment to the NTSB. The former NTSB staffer’s comment carries weight, but not nearly as much as that of an actual investigator.
Yesterday, I said this: “The information I cited was not on behalf of the NTSB, but rather by apparently qualified experts commenting on the investigation seeking the cause of the wreck.”
Of course it was a mistake.
My comments about misattribution:
Many news articles describe an investigation by the NTSB. Then they quote experts by name, professional title, and employer. Mixed in are similar statements actually by the NTSB. Some of these experts make statements about what investigators will look for, and then go on to make the same kind of speculative statements that any member of an investigation would make.
So my perception was that these quoted experts are actually contributing to the investigation on behalf of the NTSB. Granted, that was not made explicit, but it was not ruled out either. But it was my mistake to attribute the statements by experts to the NTSB without having proof.
So that is my explanation and I have edited the post (on the previous page) where I directly attributed the professional speculation to the NTSB.
I include that professional speculation here with the identification of the people who actually stated it. I have no idea how or if they have any relationship to the NTSB or will contribute to this NTSB investigation.
COMMENTS IN NEWS COVERAGE OF THE WRECK:
(all of this is in many news articles to varying extents)
Railroad safety expert D
Thank you for the correction and the summaries of expert opinions.
You’re welcome.
I am reminded of the expression about "If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, does it make a noise. Amtrak derails in a sparsly populated area with no news peope around and while there was a couple of days of speculation, it has become very quiet here. How can we learn what the Engineer (assuming he has been interviewed) has said. Has anyone seen the locomotives forward facing camera video? Awfully quiet hear.
I just think we have to wait until the preliminary report comes out within a few weeks. Then we’ll have more to chew on.