Between this weekends power outage at ATL (seriously, one switch room for ALL the electrical power to the worlds busiest airport??!) and today's Amtrak crash (sounds really bad). We just need a boat wreck to complete the trifecta. Anyone traveling by ferry soon?
200 cases of nautical norovirus not good enough? Link
I know it sounds terrible, but I really wish these things would happen when I have more money available, I love the cheap tickets and super special care that comes after these things. (To clarify, I mean specifically people getting sick on cruises, I realized how dark that comment was without clarification)
I live about 10 miles from the train derailment. That line passes within a tbousand feet of my house, so it's been a big topic of discussion around here. A lot of people are casting blame already. Fact is, it's too soon to tell anything.
One thing is for sure. Every event like this makes transit safer as new safety regulations are generally put into effect afterwards.
The dark humor in that train crash is they want to run oil tankers down same or similar tracks through Seattle.
In reply to AClockworkGarage :
NPR just said on the way into work that the train was doing nearly 80 mph in a 30 mph area. I thought they had GPS assisted speed controls on them?
In reply to The0retical :
Positive Train Control (PTC), they also said in the interview I heard on NPR that it gets installed AFTER each fatal wreck. Being proactive isn't our strong suit as a nation.
I am hearing conflicting information that the train was either going too fast or that it was the first trip of a speed increase. If the latter, well, some people should go to jail. If it's the former, we have to figure out why.
I have learned that that area of the track had no automatic train control.
PTC was in place, but the ON button had not been pushed yet.
KyAllroad (Jeremy) said:In reply to The0retical :
Positive Train Control (PTC), they also said in the interview I heard on NPR that it gets installed AFTER each fatal wreck. Being proactive isn't our strong suit as a nation.
Gotcha. I thought after that incident in France that either the rollout had been accelerated or that they were already in place in the US. Trains aren't my area of expertise.
Yea proactive isn't what we do best...
Must be like FAA policy. FAA policy is written in blood.
The0retical said:In reply to AClockworkGarage :
NPR just said on the way into work that the train was doing nearly 80 mph in a 30 mph area. I thought they had GPS assisted speed controls on them?
This stretch of track didn't have it yet.
tuna55 said:I am hearing conflicting information that the train was either going too fast or that it was the first trip of a speed increase. If the latter, well, some people should go to jail. If it's the former, we have to figure out why.
I think the confusion arises from the fact that it was the first trip on a new, faster *route*. It had previously taken a more scenic route, and this was supposed to be more direct and ten minutes faster (between Seattle and Portland, I think?). As opposed to a speed increase on a segment already in use.
Natelliab said:As far as I know traveling by ferry is little bit time consuming. Because ferry isn't speedy enough.
Is ferry speedier than canoe?
PTC isn't as easy as hitting "on". Every locomotive (and car with locomotive controls) has to be outfitted with $$$,$$$ equipment. Then every mile of track has to be equipped with $$,$$$ sensors. its a HUGE implementaton and we're doing it as fast as we can, given time and money and manpower.
Not only was this a new stretch of route, but they were running brand new locomotives (Siemens SC-44 "Charger") on it. So, unfamiliar route, unfamiliar locomotive. Last I heard the limit was 30 over that stretch of track. If you google it you'll see it makes a pretty good "S" right there. 8000+ Hp worth of locomotives (it was double-headed) and the operator trying to pull a Casey Jones on his new "High Speed" run. That's my guess.
Ransom said:tuna55 said:I am hearing conflicting information that the train was either going too fast or that it was the first trip of a speed increase. If the latter, well, some people should go to jail. If it's the former, we have to figure out why.
I think the confusion arises from the fact that it was the first trip on a new, faster *route*. It had previously taken a more scenic route, and this was supposed to be more direct and ten minutes faster (between Seattle and Portland, I think?). As opposed to a speed increase on a segment already in use.
25 minutes faster actually and the new route was to get away from the freight traffic that would cause lots of delays and other issues by parking themselves in the tunnels among other issues. The drawback being that one of the reasons for taking the train between Portland and Seattle is for the scenery along the water, but ever since WWII the train companies have been racing to the bottom with Amtrak being drug along like some drunk friend on their 21st birthday.
KyAllroad (Jeremy) said:Between this weekends power outage at ATL (seriously, one switch room for ALL the electrical power to the worlds busiest airport??!) and today's Amtrak crash (sounds really bad). We just need a boat wreck to complete the trifecta. Anyone traveling by ferry soon?
FWIW, there is not one switch room. There are two independent circuits coming in from Georgia Power with massive redundancy and a multitude of failover generators. I know a master electrician who spent years working at ATL and he can't imagine a scenario where what happened on Sunday takes place. I look forward to the release of further details from official channels.
The0retical said:In reply to AClockworkGarage :
NPR just said on the way into work that the train was doing nearly 80 mph in a 30 mph area. I thought they had GPS assisted speed controls on them?
I heard this too. The original report said the limit was 127kph (80mph) and it was going 130 kph- no big deal. If it was supposed to be doing 30 and was doing 80, thats a pretty big deal.
You'll need to log in to post.
