Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I remember reading somewhere that engineers are required to lock their cell phones in a bag they can't access. So unless he smuggled in a 'burner' up his ass, I highly doubt a cell phone was the issue.
I dont see why though. He is his own boss on that train. No one will know what he's doing. In fact, no one knew what he was doing right before the train crashed. And if they do know, they're not telling.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leisesturm
the projectile will still be in the cab of the train
I bet quite a few people walked by the front of the train. Maybe what the eingineer thought was an ojbect hitting the train was actually the train beginning to derail. Did they remember seeing a broken windshield? Was it the last 5 out of 7 cars that were affected the most?
Can you spell out what the above means? I'm not familiar with the lingo.
T +/- a number, means Time of event plus or minus time. Commonly used for countdowns for rocket launches, but also for other similar events. In this case T is when crashed happened or T = 0.
i.e. T - 65 sec., means 65 seconds before crash. It doesn't come through well here because of limitations of formatting of forum software.
---------------------
Related to what I posted, here is a test video of how fast this locomotive can accelerate. It had one more carriage attached than the train that derailed.
I don't know. If he had severe head trauma, wouldn't he at least have been admitted into the hospital? What about all the others who are still in the hospital who have severe head trauma? Do they also have amnesia?
The question is, how did the throwing of the object cause head trauma? I wonder if he got hit in the head with the object? Maybe that's what caused him to pass out! But I don't think the object went through the window. Great, now I'm giving ideas to the defense lawyers (if indeed, they read CD)! Anything that can't be proven is up for grabs!
Would the cinder block derail the train? Admittedly, that would give the engineer quite a shock, but afterwards, how would that shock cause the engineer to derail the train?
A 2nd cell phone would come in handy for rules like this!
Dectectable by what type of equipment though?
Someone would have to throw an elephant off a bridge in order to derail that train.
Bostian has 15 staples in his head, stitches in a leg, and the other leg immobilized. Presumably this was done at a hospital.
Apparently 3 trains were hit by projectiles that evening. Obviously it was a deliberate action to disrupt or destroy a train. Without more details it's impossible to determine exactly how it affected the train and/or the engineer.
Defense lawyers don't need to read Internet forums to develop conspiracy theory to defend their clients. They deal in facts. One fact at the moment, nobody has been charged with crime.
Have you ever been in a vehicle where something hit the windshield hard enough to break it while driving at speed? If the object doesn't kill you by direct impact, the shock alone can cause you to run off the road.
Absolutely no need to imply the engineer had 2nd phone to break rules. This is only done if you have already decided his is guilty.
Simple, they examine the phone and records at the phone company.
Elephant needed to derail train? - This is hyperbole. You have already admitted, through your questions, that you have no technical knowledge concerning derailments.
If so, the projectile will still be in the cab of the train when they reduce it to its component atoms in the investigation to follow. There will also be a significant contusion on the engineers head. I was mugged in my twenties and had significant head trauma. I have no memory of the actual attack, but I remember everything leading up to it. They are giving the engineer the benefit of the doubt for now. He will be able to claim "no memory" for only so long. It's not like expert witnesses on brain functioning and head trauma won't be called in to give testimony on how likely it is given the lack of lasting injuries that a "no memory" situation is likely.
The engineer has 15 staples in his head. I'd say that it would take a "significant contusion" to require such a wound to be created.
There is no "benefit of the doubt". That suggests automatic guilt. What they are doing is waiting for all the facts to come in before conclusions are drawn. The engineer is complying will all requests and procedures being put to him so there is nothing to suggest wrong doing on his part at this point.
People here have already blamed the crash on Republicans before it speed issue was known, then they blamed the engineer before the projectiles were known, now they develop conspiracy theory about engineer's "excuses" when they know absolutely nothing about it. Best to wait on facts.
I don't know. If he had severe head trauma, wouldn't he at least have been admitted into the hospital? What about all the others who are still in the hospital who have severe head trauma? Do they also have amnesia?
Two.
The question is, how did the throwing of the object cause head trauma? I wonder if he got hit in the head with the object? Maybe that's what caused him to pass out! But I don't think the object went through the window.
Three.
Great, now I'm giving ideas to the defense lawyers (if indeed, they read CD)! Anything that can't be proven is up for grabs!
Four.
Would the cinder block derail the train? Admittedly, that would give the engineer quite a shock, but afterwards, how would that shock cause the engineer to derail the train?
Five.
A 2nd cell phone would come in handy for rules like this!
Six.
Dectectable by what type of equipment though?
Seven.
Someone would have to throw an elephant off a bridge in order to derail that train.
One
Quote:
Originally Posted by WaldoKitty
Bostian has 15 staples in his head, stitches in a leg, and the other leg immobilized. Presumably this was done at a hospital.
Those injuries were due to the crash, not the projectile. I hope it was done at a hospital! But he was an outpatient (not admitted).
Two.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WaldoKitty
Apparently 3 trains were hit by projectiles that evening. Obviously it was a deliberate action to disrupt or destroy a train. Without more details it's impossible to determine exactly how it affected the train and/or the engineer.
Three.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WaldoKitty
Defense lawyers don't need to read Internet forums to develop conspiracy theory
Why not? They can't think of everything! I'm sure the media reads forums to get story ideas and angles and you can bet government closely montiors forums.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WaldoKitty
...to defend their clients. They deal in facts...
The problem is, no one knows all the facts.
Four.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WaldoKitty
Have you ever been in a vehicle where something hit the windshield hard enough to break it while driving at speed? If the object doesn't kill you by direct impact, the shock alone can cause you to run off the road.
If he was driving at the correct speed, the impact would have been far less than it was. Also, if it's known fact that the trains get hit with projectiles, then he would have been somewhat prepared for this possibility.
None of us, except one or two, really knows how a train is driven. Totally different than a car. Sure he would be distracted and shocked, but you can't run a train off the road (usually .
Five
Quote:
Originally Posted by WaldoKitty
Absolutely no need to imply the engineer had 2nd phone to break rules.
Why not? Anything's possible.
Six.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WaldoKitty
Simple, they examine the phone and records at the phone company.
2nd trick op had said "unauthorized calls and/or texting should easily be detectable." I said 'Dectectable by what type of equipment though?' You said, "Simple, they examine the phone and records at the phone company."
'Detectable' doesn't mean research or records request, it means electronic means. So I'm asking 2nd trick op what kind of equipment is used in this detection.
Seven.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WaldoKitty
Elephant needed to derail train? - This is hyperbole.
Not much can derail a train except the weight of an elephant or maybe a tree on the tracks?
Quote:
Originally Posted by WaldoKitty
You have already admitted, through your questions, that you have no technical knowledge concerning derailments.
Everything...EVERYTHING in there is digitally control, except the brakes. (red lever)
Quote:
This action sounds like it would increase the train speed, thereby increasing the impact. Or are you saying that increasing speed would have been beneficial for some reason?
I believe what he's saying, is had the engineer been able to increase the throttle as it derailed, it would have lessened the impact off all the other cars inertia on the leading car behind the locomotive. It could have possibly prevented that first car from being crushed the way it was. It would have likely ended up on it's side intact like the two behind it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by calculator
What's inductive communication?
The train itself is communicating it's speed, position, etc to equipment on the side of the tracks via radio or what have you. If you think of them as traffic lights, it would be like your car being in communication with a traffic light ahead of you. If the light is warning you to come to a complete stop, or to slow down, and you don't...................the light sends a signal to your car slamming on the brakes,
Quote:
Can you rephrase this? What do you mean by aspect?
There are wayside signals, again think of them almost like traffic lights, instructing the engineer on what actions are expected of his train in the upcoming segment of track. So, the "aspect" would be: clear (go), stop, slow, etc, etc......here is an example:
So this inductive communicatoin displays something about the next signal, even if the that signal is not in the engineer's view?
Basically. Look at the photo of the cab controls above. Above the red lever, you will see the word "restrict" next to a red or amber light. I'm sure there are different combinations to interpret.
Quote:
Trains signal? They don't turn left or right, so this must mean something else.
Those injuries were due to the crash, not the projectile. I hope it was done at a hospital! But he was an outpatient (not admitted).
Two.
Three.
Why not? They can't think of everything! I'm sure the media reads forums to get story ideas and angles and you can bet government closely montiors forums.
The problem is, no one knows all the facts.
Four.
If he was driving at the correct speed, the impact would have been far less than it was. Also, if it's known fact that the trains get hit with projectiles, then he would have been somewhat prepared for this possibility.
None of us, except one or two, really knows how a train is driven. Totally different than a car. Sure he would be distracted and shocked, but you can't run a train off the road (usually .
Five
Why not? Anything's possible.
Six.
2nd trick op had said "unauthorized calls and/or texting should easily be detectable." I said 'Dectectable by what type of equipment though?' You said, "Simple, they examine the phone and records at the phone company."
'Detectable' doesn't mean research or records request, it means electronic means. So I'm asking 2nd trick op what kind of equipment is used in this detection.
Seven.
Not much can derail a train except the weight of an elephant or maybe a tree on the tracks?
That's WHY I'm asking questions!
I generally don't bother read or respond to line by line rebuttal posts as they are impossible to read and often picked apart as to have no context, but I'll indulge you again with this exception.
We do not know what cause the injuries. So non sequitur. Whether or not he was an outpatient is irrelevant.
you gave no response
A response such as this is known as FUD. Only the facts matter.
This is why one waits until all facts are known before drawing conclusion.
As you said, you don't know know how a train is driven. Yet you then go to imply that it was his driving and state of mind that caused the crash because somehow he wasn't doing it properly. This is supposition on your part.
If you have to ask why hearsay is irrelevant, then you waste our time here.
Yet train derailed and there are no elephants.
IMO, you are asking questions in a fallacious manner to perjure the engineer. Anyone who is serious would not be making up conspiracy theory about 2nd telephones, elephants, how the engineer drove the train, where he was treated and how, etc. etc.
[*]IMO, you are asking questions in a fallacious manner to perjure the engineer. Anyone who is serious would not be making up conspiracy theory about 2nd telephones, elephants, how the engineer drove the train, where he was treated and how, etc. etc.[/list]
I agree.
Quote:
[*]Yet train derailed and there are no elephants.
Hey, you never know. The guy who didn't like the engineers blogs about railway safety could have cut the brake lines, placed said elephant on the tracks, along with placing a 2nd cell phone in which he was on porn hub while the train was in motion in the engineers pocket, before removing the elephant from the scene.
I dont see why though. He is his own boss on that train. No one will know what he's doing. In fact, no one knew what he was doing right before the train crashed. And if they do know, they're not telling.
I bet quite a few people walked by the front of the train. Maybe what the eingineer thought was an ojbect hitting the train was actually the train beginning to derail. Did they remember seeing a broken windshield? Was it the last 5 out of 7 cars that were affected the most?
You mean destroy the evidence?
I don't think he would have done that, based on everything I've read about him. This man LOVED trains, he loved being an engineer, it's all he wanted to do since he was a little kid...he took it very seriously. It wasn't just a job to him it was a passion, and I don't think he would have broken the rules deliberately, I just don't.
Thanks to Mr. Megatomic Flux for addressing most of the questions while I was unavailable.
"Inductive train communication" was pioneered by the Pennsylvania Railroad during the Thirties. "Cab signals" were the first development. The process involved analog transmission of data between cables running parallel to the railroad and a transmitter / receiver mounted on the locomotive. (In honesty, I can't describe exactly how this was accomplished in the steam era, but photos of many Pennsylvania Railroad Diesel locomotives show the antennae as two parallel conduits running along the roof of the locos.) The process later morphed into what were called "Trainphones" which were networked to connect the train crews, dispatchers and operators in lineside signal towers. And in a handful of instances, commercial telephone service was offered on passenger trains. By the 1970's, railroad radio had improved its reliability to a point where the Trainphone network could be abandoned as superfluous.
As I've tried to outline in an earlier post, the railroads were one of the first large and capital-intensive enterprises, and as such, they borrowed from the military in running on a strict, and extremely codified set of rules. Signal systems also evolved over a very long time, in a variety of forms, and they in turn supplanted, but did not completely replace, a system built around strict scheduling, with written orders, dictated and delivered in a precise syntax. (The dispatchers and operators who worked this system -- by Morse code a century ago -- were required to spell out any digits as an additional safety measure, for example).
In rail parlance, employees don't "throw switches" or "set signals" -- the official terms are to align a route and to display signal aspects; and those aspects can vary depending upon whether a switch beyond the signal is lined for a particular routing, or whether movement is authorized by the next signal. Amtrak closed all but a handful of its signal towers ("signal boxes" to the British) back in the 1990's, and controls almost of its dispatching from one location. and the remaining few freight companies are even more heavily concentrated.
The only point I seek to emphasize is that, as one of the single most important components of a modern industrialized society, the railroads operate via a very complicated set of rules, and the people participating in this have to answer to a strict set of disciplines that can't begin to be explained or understood in 30-second sound bytes. Amtrak has operated with one man in the cab for over twenty years, but perhaps that policy needs to be evaluated in the light of how the stresses faced by those employees have been brought to light in a particularly nasty fashion.
Last edited by 2nd trick op; 05-17-2015 at 08:47 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
