America - The Official Thread

[catamount39]

First off, Amtrak is a government funded company (and government operated) that runs America's passenger services, they use entirely private rail lines owned by Class I railways. They rely on funding to operate, pay employees, buy equipment. They need government funding as passenger operations, unless commuter, are something that does not make a profit. Notice I said the Big 7, and didn't mention Amtrak.

Second, the emergency brake that you are thinking of @PeterJB is PTC, yes. All Class I's have it at this point for the most part. Unless given an exemption by Amtrak, any railway line that hosts an Amtrak is required by US law to have either PTC or CTC to maintain safe operations. PTC is supposed to immediately apply emergency braking and cut power to a locomotive which is goes over the 2mph window of the limit. However, this new bypass that the state of Washington purchased from Tacoma Rail, is not equipped with PTC signalling. However, the mainline which the bypass goes around, is equipped. Another emergency brake that is common on actual high speed services (lines where the locomotives are permitted to run at 90 or above) use what's called an ATS brake shoe. This activates immediately with any over speed at all.

Third, no, the speeding data means jack. What must be known is that this is a brand new locomotive that Amtrak had just "finished" putting through trials and non-revenue testing, and that we must look at all circumstances before actually coming to a conclusion about this derailment. The engineer is skilled man of many years and a well respected individual that is a role model. Sure, a mistake is possible, but just knowing the speeding is not helpful to the situation other than explaining the crash damage. Every locomotive cab is fitted with a camera, and that is something else to look at along with telemetry from the locomotive itself. Another thing to be noted is that both line and crew were unfamiliar with the territory, I am unaware as to when operations began over the bypass in terms of if they have run non-revenue runs over this line.

Edit: And something that is worth mentioning, the proclaimed "speed limit change" being 2 miles before the bridge is complete and udder rubbish. The speed change was at the bridge, not before it. Therefor in lies another issue. Why on earth was the posted limit not imposed within a reasonable distance of the bridge, and why was this not brought to the attention of the crew? And to clarify for those who don't know, no, the speed limit does not appear on the dash of the locomotive here in the United States unless the line being traveled upon has cab signalling or the line and locomotive are equipped with PTC.

 

[Johnnypenso]

First off, Amtrak is a government funded company (and government operated) that runs America's passenger services, they use entirely private rail lines owned by Class I railways. They rely on funding to operate, pay employees, buy equipment. They need government funding as passenger operations, unless commuter, are something that does not make a profit. Notice I said the Big 7, and didn't mention Amtrak.

Second, the emergency brake that you are thinking of @PeterJB is PTC, yes. All Class I's have it at this point for the most part. Unless given an exemption by Amtrak, any railway line that hosts an Amtrak is required by US law to have either PTC or CTC to maintain safe operations. PTC is supposed to immediately apply emergency braking and cut power to a locomotive which is goes over the 2mph window of the limit. However, this new bypass that the state of Washington purchased from Tacoma Rail, is not equipped with PTC signalling. However, the mainline which the bypass goes around, is equipped. Another emergency brake that is common on actual high speed services (lines where the locomotives are permitted to run at 90 or above) use what's called an ATS brake shoe. This activates immediately with any over speed at all.

Third, no, the speeding data means jack. What must be known is that this is a brand new locomotive that Amtrak had just "finished" putting through trials and non-revenue testing, and that we must look at all circumstances before actually coming to a conclusion about this derailment. The engineer is skilled man of many years and a well respected individual that is a role model. Sure, a mistake is possible, but just knowing the speeding is not helpful to the situation other than explaining the crash damage. Every locomotive cab is fitted with a camera, and that is something else to look at along with telemetry from the locomotive itself. Another thing to be noted is that both line and crew were unfamiliar with the territory, I am unaware as to when operations began over the bypass in terms of if they have run non-revenue runs over this line.

Edit: And something that is worth mentioning, the proclaimed "speed limit change" being 2 miles before the bridge is complete and udder rubbish. The speed change was at the bridge, not before it. Therefor in lies another issue.

Do you have a link to the last part of your post?

 

[catamount39]

Don't need a link, have photo evidence.

Spoiler: Just in case there are those who wish to not view the wreckage

The yellow sign that I've circled in red, is the SPEED LIMIT POST. Its literally at the curve.
Edit: And also have an official timetable

Spoiler: As to avoid double post as a friend just sent me the photo

 

[TenEightyOne]

Don't need a link, have photo evidence.

Spoiler: Just in case there are those who wish to not view the wreckage

View attachment 700404

The yellow sign that I've circled in red, is the SPEED LIMIT POST. Its literally at the curve.

Do you have evidence that it's the only warning of the speed limit?

 

[catamount39]

Do you have evidence that it's the only warning of the speed limit?

Besides being a standard indication board of limited speed, have an official time table with speed limits and mile posts. Notice interestingly, all freight trains are limited to 10mph there, and have nearly 30-70mph differences in speed along the entirety of the route.

There is no way in hell that an engineer could change speed quickly enough with basically zero distance to slow. The only reference the crew had as to change speed was a titled "Limited Speed" board right before the curve, the one I highlighted in the photo in my previous post above. Sounder are at fault here, for not giving proper signage on the route.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Have an official time table with speed limits and mile posts. Notice interestingly, all freight trains are limited to 10mph there, and have nearly 30-70mph differences in speed along the entirety of the route.

There is no way in hell that an engineer could change speed quickly enough with basically zero distance to slow. The only reference the crew had as to change speed was a titled "Limited Speed" board right before the curve, the one I highlighted in the photo in my previous post above.

So this crew got on the train with no timetable or paperwork of any kind that references speed limits?

 

[catamount39]

So this crew got on the train with no timetable or paperwork of any kind that references speed limits?

Correction, the crew would be using the timetable to best understand a route they're unfamiliar with, and would have to assume that at milepost 19.8 to 19.9 (not even a bloody couple seconds) there would be proper warning and distance for them to bring the train down to the restricted speed posted by Sounder. They are an Amtrak crew, running on Sounder trackage in this case, and would be using the timetable as their guide as they try and keep to their schedule.

 

[TenEightyOne]

The only reference the crew had as to change speed was a titled "Limited Speed" board right before the curve, the one I highlighted in the photo in my previous post above. Sounder are at fault here, for not giving proper signage on the route.

That's evidence that the speed limit you mention is in place exactly where we know it's in place. That document doesn't state the location of warning signs as you approach the speed limit. Do you have any evidence that the speed limit sign pictured at the bridge is the only one anywhere on the approach?

Correction, the crew would be using the timetable to best understand a route they're unfamiliar with, and would have to assume that at milepost 19.8 to 19.9 (not even a bloody couple seconds) there would be proper warning and distance for them to bring the train down to the restricted speed posted by Sounder. They are an Amtrak crew, running on Sounder trackage in this case, and would be using the timetable as their guide as they try and keep to their schedule.

The speed limit is posted on your document - so are you suggesting that the driver was unaware of the train's location on the route?

The railway operators say that the speed limit signs begin 2 miles before the curve, can you disprove that?

 

[catamount39]

That's evidence that the speed limit you mention is in place exactly where we know it's in place. That document doesn't state the location of warning signs as you approach the speed limit. Do you have any evidence that the speed limit sign pictured at the bridge is the only one anywhere on the approach?



The speed limit is posted on your document - so are you suggesting that the driver was unaware of the train's location on the route?

The railway operators say that the speed limit signs begin 2 miles before the curve, can you disprove that?

The timetable marks exactly where the speed limits are, they are where the posts are located and as you can see at the bridge there is the speed limit change is at the curve. Sound Transit's (the co-operator of the line with freight carrier Tacoma Rail) spokeswoman only told us that "warnings" are posted in advance of the limit like usual. However, this is a line that based on OPB's (Oregon Public Broadcasting) article was literally having its first Amtrak run yesterday. The crew could have easily mistaken the warnings for Tacoma Rail speed limits or not even seen the posts due to poor placement. But, it should be reiterated that it's a joke the actual speed limit itself is posted at the entrance to a corner. It should have been posted as 30 at the supposed warning posts and not at the bridge.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Correction, the crew would be using the timetable to best understand a route they're unfamiliar with, and would have to assume that at milepost 19.8 to 19.9 (not even a bloody couple seconds) there would be proper warning and distance for them to bring the train down to the restricted speed posted by Sounder. They are an Amtrak crew, running on Sounder trackage in this case, and would be using the timetable as their guide as they try and keep to their schedule.

The drop in speed limit on the timetable is glaring and hard to miss. A reasonable person would make note of it before leaving the station and be on the lookout for appropriate signage I would think. If the signage is missing, and that's not proven, a reasonable person would slow the train anyway.

 

[catamount39]

I'm not going to make any further judgement until the investigation continues further and the actual consist is analyzed.

Here is a quote from Ted Curphey regarding the situation:

Per Ted Curphey via Facebook: "A new day and new information of this terrible tragedy at Dupont, WA. Still feeling sick to my stomach knowing that several friends and acquaintances are dead or in the hospital with serious life altering injuries. And now a friend and member of the railfan community will likely have his name dragged through the mud as comparisons are made to the Amtrak wreck in Philadelphia. Still holding out hope that there is a explanation beyond that old human failing of losing situational awareness. Between this yet unexplained claim that the train hit an object or a truck prior to derailing, and various groups unhappy with the railroads such as the anti-coal and oil train people in Olympia or the anti-bypass people in Lakewood. Even the Anti-Fa group saw fit to remove a webpage promoting the derailing of trains after this tragedy. My mind wonders if debris placed on the track could disable the braking system so completely as to not even allow for a slight reduction in speed on the 1.4% downhill grade leading to the curve. Perhaps something grabbed the trainline just behind the lead unit and yanked it back such as to kink the line and bottle the air. But pretty much every scenario sees some reduction in speed. Guess we will have to await the announcement by the NTSB if any action was taken by the crew prior to leaving the rails. At this point, it seems doubtful. And what of the people that were on the train, supposedly several members of the media, WashDOT, Amtrak and various state offices were on board this Inaugural run. Seems several of these people were lucky enough to have disembarked at Lakewood, only to learn minutes later the trip had turned to tragedy. NTSB's confirmation that the train indeed was traveling at the full 80mph speed as it entered the curve, along new images of the scene showed that I was wrong to have assumed the short distance from the track to the lead locomotive indicated a lesser speed. The Charger left the rails much sooner than I had suspected, right near the start of the curve. It tipped over and slid along the side of the cut taking out a signal. It then went into some trees where parts of the roof were sheared off. In descending the embankment toward I-5 it rolled back onto it's wheels by the time it hit the roadway. What kept it from rolling further was that it impacted vehicles on the freeway including a SUV and a semi truck."

 

[TenEightyOne]

The timetable marks exactly where the speed limits are, they are where the posts are located

I can accept that the first part is true but it's a bigger stretch to say that it also marks the only location of speed limit signs. You don't have any evidence for the second being the case.

But, it should be reiterated that it's a joke the actual speed limit itself is posted at the entrance to a corner. It should have been posted as 30 at the supposed warning posts and not at the bridge.

Again, that relies on your claim being accurate and that this is the only speed limit sign. Why wouldn't one of the speed limit signs be there? What's difficult to grasp is your ongoing insistence that this is the only warning sign of the speed limit.

Interestingly you can "drive" alongside the track on Google Maps, there are lots of yellow rectangular signs some way before the approach to the bridge. Speed limits?

 

[TexRex]

Again, that relies on your claim being accurate and that this is the only speed limit sign. Why wouldn't one of the speed limit signs be there? What's difficult to grasp is your ongoing insistence that this is the only warning sign of the speed limit.

Interestingly you can "drive" alongside the track on Google Maps, there are lots of yellow rectangular signs some way before the approach to the bridge. Speed limits?

I'm curious...what's your aim here? It would seem you've debunked the claim that there are no additional speed limits posted prior to the one shown, unless those yellow rectangular signs depicted on Google Maps aren't that, which isn't likely. So what are you getting at? It looks an awful lot like: "Say you're wrong...come on, say it...admit you made a mistake...say it...say it..."I'm wrong"...say it." Is that what this is?

 

[TenEightyOne]

I'm curious...what's your aim here? It would seem you've debunked the claim that there are no additional speed limits posted prior to the one shown, unless those yellow rectangular signs depicted on Google Maps aren't that, which isn't likely. So what are you getting at? It looks an awful lot like: "Say you're wrong...come on, say it...admit you made a mistake...say it...say it..."I'm wrong"...say it." Is that what this is?

No, I'm just questioning the seemingly-repeated assertion that the timetable represents the only locations of speed limit signs and that no other sign pertaining to the speed limit exist before the bridge. The claims I'm questioning and seeking to inform further are "the proclaimed "speed limit change" being 2 miles before the bridge is complete and udder rubbish. The speed change was at the bridge, not before it", "Don't need a link, have photo evidence" and "the timetable marks exactly where the speed limits are, they are where the posts are located".

The claims weren't supported by the offered evidence. I'd be perfectly willing to believe they were true if evidence supporting them was provided, but it wasn't. I have no idea if the signs pictured are speed limit signs hence my last question.

 

[TexRex]

No, I'm just questioning the seemingly-repeated assertion that the timetable represents the only locations of speed limit signs and that no other sign pertaining to the speed limit exist before the bridge. The claims I'm questioning and seeking to inform further are "the proclaimed "speed limit change" being 2 miles before the bridge is complete and udder rubbish. The speed change was at the bridge, not before it", "Don't need a link, have photo evidence" and "the timetable marks exactly where the speed limits are, they are where the posts are located".

The claims weren't supported by the offered evidence. I'd be perfectly willing to believe they were true if evidence supporting them was provided, but it wasn't. I have no idea if the signs pictured are speed limit signs hence my last question.

Well that's just...reasonable.

 

[photonrider]

First off, Amtrak is a government funded company (and government operated) that runs America's passenger services, they use entirely private rail lines owned by Class I railways. They rely on funding to operate, pay employees, buy equipment. They need government funding as passenger operations, unless commuter, are something that does not make a profit. Notice I said the Big 7, and didn't mention Amtrak.

Second, the emergency brake that you are thinking of @PeterJB is PTC, yes. All Class I's have it at this point for the most part. Unless given an exemption by Amtrak, any railway line that hosts an Amtrak is required by US law to have either PTC or CTC to maintain safe operations. PTC is supposed to immediately apply emergency braking and cut power to a locomotive which is goes over the 2mph window of the limit. However, this new bypass that the state of Washington purchased from Tacoma Rail, is not equipped with PTC signalling. However, the mainline which the bypass goes around, is equipped. Another emergency brake that is common on actual high speed services (lines where the locomotives are permitted to run at 90 or above) use what's called an ATS brake shoe. This activates immediately with any over speed at all.

Third, no, the speeding data means jack. What must be known is that this is a brand new locomotive that Amtrak had just "finished" putting through trials and non-revenue testing, and that we must look at all circumstances before actually coming to a conclusion about this derailment. The engineer is skilled man of many years and a well respected individual that is a role model. Sure, a mistake is possible, but just knowing the speeding is not helpful to the situation other than explaining the crash damage. Every locomotive cab is fitted with a camera, and that is something else to look at along with telemetry from the locomotive itself. Another thing to be noted is that both line and crew were unfamiliar with the territory, I am unaware as to when operations began over the bypass in terms of if they have run non-revenue runs over this line.

Edit: And something that is worth mentioning, the proclaimed "speed limit change" being 2 miles before the bridge is complete and udder rubbish. The speed change was at the bridge, not before it. Therefor in lies another issue. Why on earth was the posted limit not imposed within a reasonable distance of the bridge, and why was this not brought to the attention of the crew? And to clarify for those who don't know, no, the speed limit does not appear on the dash of the locomotive here in the United States unless the line being traveled upon has cab signalling or the line and locomotive are equipped with PTC.

I can't understand a word of what you're saying, but if it's about trains I'm going to agree.

*runs off without arguing.

______________________

And once again . . . the reformed Tax Reform Bill passes after the Conference Report on the House floor - 207 Yea to 186 Nay (10 of those 'Nays' were GOP), which means the GOP Tax Bill passes Senate on Party-line Vote. Senate approves it 51-48.
House procedure vote tomorrow and then . . .
Pretty much ready for the Don's Hancock.

How do you 'average' Americans feel about this? Have you studied this Tax Bill enough to make an informed opinion about something that will surely affect your reality - its effects probably affecting the rest of the world, too?

 

[catamount39]

No, I'm just questioning the seemingly-repeated assertion that the timetable represents the only locations of speed limit signs and that no other sign pertaining to the speed limit exist before the bridge. The claims I'm questioning and seeking to inform further are "the proclaimed "speed limit change" being 2 miles before the bridge is complete and udder rubbish. The speed change was at the bridge, not before it", "Don't need a link, have photo evidence" and "the timetable marks exactly where the speed limits are, they are where the posts are located".

The claims weren't supported by the offered evidence. I'd be perfectly willing to believe they were true if evidence supporting them was provided, but it wasn't. I have no idea if the signs pictured are speed limit signs hence my last question.

The only people with detailed information about that route and where signs are posted are the railway themselves, it's such a new route that there isn't going to be a public source to grab route diagrams of where signals and signs are posted along the right of way. That yellow sign is a restricted speed limit enforcement post, that's a looking standard thing, there's nothing special about it its just a speed limit post. There is no diagrams that can be found publicly about this route, that's all stuff Tacoma Rail and Sounder.

Either way like I said the NTSB investigation is what will really unveil the truth. For example, new facts have been uncovered already. The line was indeed PTC signalled, but Amtrak was running the locomotive without it installed on the locomotive. Also, emergency braking had been automatically applied by the locomotive, odd because without PTC that means there was a mechanical or air line failure potentially.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/20/us/amtrak-derailment-washington/index.html

 

[TenEightyOne]

The only people with detailed information about that route and where signs are posted are the railway themselves, it's such a new route that there isn't going to be a public source to grab route diagrams of where signals and signs are posted along the right of way. That yellow sign is a restricted speed limit enforcement post, that's a looking standard thing, there's nothing special about it its just a speed limit post. There is no diagrams that can be found publicly about this route, that's all stuff Tacoma Rail and Sounder.

So now you can't say that there are no other speed limit signs before the curve, just to be clear?

Also, emergency braking had been automatically applied by the locomotive, odd because without PTC that means there was a mechanical or air line failure potentially.

It depends on when that braking was applied. If it was due to events sensed as part of the derailment then it's to be expected as a result rather than as a diagnostic.

The line was indeed PTC signalled, but Amtrak was running the locomotive without it installed on the locomotive.

The NTSB have said to several outlets that PTC wasn't available on the line. We'll have to wait for the prelim, I guess.

 

[DDastardly00]

I can't understand a word of what you're saying, but if it's about trains I'm going to agree.

*runs off without arguing.

______________________

And once again . . . the reformed Tax Reform Bill passes after the Conference Report on the House floor - 207 Yea to 186 Nay (10 of those 'Nays' were GOP), which means the GOP Tax Bill passes Senate on Party-line Vote. Senate approves it 51-48.
House procedure vote tomorrow and then . . .
Pretty much ready for the Don's Hancock.

How do you 'average' Americans feel about this? Have you studied this Tax Bill enough to make an informed opinion about something that will surely affect your reality - its effects probably affecting the rest of the world, too?

Now that it has passed I really need to study it more, my guess is I will see a slight increase in my paycheck. From a preliminary glance at it, my family will most likely benefit from the new tax bill, thanks in part to Marco Rubio doubling the child tax credit.

 

[Danoff]

How do you 'average' Americans feel about this? Have you studied this Tax Bill enough to make an informed opinion about something that will surely affect your reality - its effects probably affecting the rest of the world, too?

The SALT provisions are going to sting. The other reductions might offset it for me to prevent this from being an tax increase (from my perspective). It will be a tax hike on some deep blue states (like NY and CA), which is a fascinating political game. I may have a look at becoming a corporation.

 

[Joey D]

I hate the tax bill. You can't slash taxes without slashing spending and since we aren't slashing spending we will end up boned.

It totally feels like it's a giant middle finger to blue states and was done purely out of spite instead of because it actually made sense.

I will continue to subscribe to the theory that we need a flat rate income tax across the board with everyone paying X% no matter how much or how little they make. It'd be fair, everyone would pay their share, the poor and rich wouldn't get screwed, and it'd make paying taxes super easy. Also you wouldn't need a massive IRS to police it.

 

[KungFury]

I agree with all three of these statements. I see them at odds with actual reality though. I and others can continue to post examples of people saying it's a bad idea and you'll continue to ignore them so it's not worth arguing further since you're not able to back your opinion up and will ignore all evidence to the contrary. *shrugs* It's a bit like arguing with a flat earth denier, sooner or later you just have to shake your head and walk away.

Sorry for the late reply, I've been away. All you need to do is follow what the U.N. does and how the world observes it. I'm not counting lip service, only actions.

 

[DDastardly00]

I hate the tax bill. You can't slash taxes without slashing spending and since we aren't slashing spending we will end up boned.

It totally feels like it's a giant middle finger to blue states and was done purely out of spite instead of because it actually made sense.

I will continue to subscribe to the theory that we need a flat rate income tax across the board with everyone paying X% no matter how much or how little they make. It'd be fair, everyone would pay their share, the poor and rich wouldn't get screwed, and it'd make paying taxes super easy. Also you wouldn't need a massive IRS to police it.

Well technically we're already boned thanks to Obama adding 7.9 trillion to the debt, a 68% increase over a 7 year period, I find it laughable that people are screaming about a possible 100 billion a year increase or 1-2% (which may end up being a wash and not add any debt at all, we'll see) after Obama raised the national debt more than any previous president in history. Before Obama, 'W' added 5.8 trillion to the deficit, the 2nd largest increase by amount and the 4th largest increase by percentage by any president. Between the two of them, they added a whooping 13.7 Trillion to the national debt. 100 billion is rather paltry in comparison.

The last fiscal conservative president we had was Bill Clinton who left us with a debt of only 5.8 Trillion

 

[KungFury]

they added a whooping 13.7 Trillion to the national debt. 100 billion is rather paltry in comparison.

 

[Joey D]

Well technically we're already boned thanks to Obama adding 7.9 trillion to the debt, a 68% increase over a 7 year period, I find it laughable that people are screaming about a possible 100 billion a year increase or 1-2% (which may end up being a wash and not add any debt at all, we'll see) after Obama raised the national debt more than any previous president in history. Before Obama, 'W' added 5.8 trillion to the deficit, the 2nd largest increase by amount and the 4th largest increase by percentage by any president. Between the two of them, they added a whooping 13.7 Trillion to the national debt. 100 billion is rather paltry in comparison.

The last fiscal conservative president we had was Bill Clinton who left us with a debt of only 5.8 Trillion

Just wait til Trump sends us to war with North Korea and/or a war with whomever attacks Israel over the capital thing. Then he'll be the president who's contributed most to the national debt. Whoever replaces Trump will probably continue the tend.

Unless we get out of fighting ridiculous wars, the debt will continue to climb. Clinton had the luxury of not really having a major conflict since the Kosovo War was NATO and not just the US.

 

[DDastardly00]

I don't think we will go to war with Noko, at least I hope not, there are no good scenarios that would result in a war with Noko. You're right, Clinton didn't have any major conflicts, the Gulf war cost us 61 Billion which is nothing in comparison to the 1 Trillion dollar cost of the war in Afghanistan and the 800 Billion cost of the war in Iraq both of which 'W' started in response to the 9-11 attacks and Obama continued.

 

[polysmut]

Noko

No no no no no no no.

 

[PeterJB]

I hate the tax bill. You can't slash taxes without slashing spending and since we aren't slashing spending we will end up boned.

It totally feels like it's a giant middle finger to blue states and was done purely out of spite instead of because it actually made sense.

I will continue to subscribe to the theory that we need a flat rate income tax across the board with everyone paying X% no matter how much or how little they make. It'd be fair, everyone would pay their share, the poor and rich wouldn't get screwed, and it'd make paying taxes super easy. Also you wouldn't need a massive IRS to police it.

Depending on what the flat rate is the government could lose a tonne of money in tax revenue. 20% for example is reasonable but makes huge losses at the top whereas 40% kinda craps on the little guy.

 

[Joey D]

Depending on what the flat rate is the government could lose a tonne of money in tax revenue. 20% for example is reasonable but makes huge losses at the top whereas 40% kinda craps on the little guy.

Maybe. With a flat rate tax, you'd also get rid of deductions, loopholes, and anything else that's used to skew the amount you pay. 20% would probably be more than enough if the government figured out their outrageous spending habits. Taking home 80% of my earnings would be nice.

On top of that, they could do away with state and local income tax and instead just use sales tax to generate money.

 

[TexRex]

20% would probably be more than enough if the government figured out their outrageous spending habits.

Like that'll happen...