3 ms·

That's pure speculation with a million seemingly unfounded assumptions behind it. My reasoning is pretty simple: since this crash happened on the very first ru

That's pure speculation with a million seemingly unfounded assumptions behind it. My reasoning is pretty simple: since this crash happened on the very first run, and PTC would have prevented it, it looks probable that the danger of PTC-preventible crashes was substantially higher on the new line. I don't know about the reasons or causes or potential mitigations, I'm just looking at the outcome. It is possible that it's just a horrible coincidence. But that's not the way to bet. You're right that it's all hindsight. We can't go back in time and push back the opening of the new line or push forward the installation of PTC. What we can do is convert this hindsight into foresight for the next time.

AnimalMuppet 9y ago
> and PTC would have prevented it Objection, your honor. Assumes facts not in evidence. At the moment, it looks likely that your statement is correct. But I've seen at least one source claiming that the speed data (where they got the 81 MPH from) isn't continuous data, and therefore isn't necessarily reporting the speed from when the train entered the curve. Note well: I do not know the truth of this claim. (I also don't know the truth of the 81 MPH claim.) We'll know if PTC would have prevented it when the NTSB produces some concrete conclusions. Until then, I think you're taking speculation and regarding it as concrete data. You could be right, though. You could be right in every detail. But I think you're stating your case as if it's certain, and I don't think certainty is warranted yet.
- AnimalMuppet 9y ago
  Ah, I stand corrected. NTSB has already stated that the speed was 80 MPH as a confirmed fact.