4 ms·
Well, part of what the article alludes to is an erosion of decency and safety culture. I don't remember the specific rules, but I do remember that trains had to
by kodah 4y ago
Well, part of what the article alludes to is an erosion of decency and safety culture. I don't remember the specific rules, but I do remember that trains had to be cautious making a ton of noise in cities, so they'd have entire areas where they can't use their horn, or where they can only use their horn, they have automated speed and brake checks, they have limits on the length of trains for certain tracks, etc...
When he's saying he's backing a 3-mile train into a depot, that's nothing to shake a stick at. That means nearby residents have to endure rail noise for the entire time the train overshoots the entrance and while it backs in, it means signals within a given radius must be down, even though a train may not be inbound, it means that the heavier a train gets the more unstable it's load can become on certain track and when it derails can cause catastrophic devestation to the environment (he mentioned carrying hazmat).
These all used to be pretty blueprint safety evaluations from what I knew. If things have changed then our perspective or priorities have changed, and I think that's what the author is getting at.
- paulmd 4y agoYep, in college I was taking the train home, and an earlier train had a passenger who had a heart attack, but the ambulance couldn't get to the train because all the crossings were blocked and there were cars everywhere that couldn't move out of the way. Took about 45 minutes for the ambulance to get the lady off the train and the hospital was literally a 5 minute drive away. They just couldn't get to her.
- cozzyd 4y agoStrange that protocol wasn't to move the train to somewhere an ambulance could reach