4 ms·

There was a really good comment on reddit that I duplicated here (with references to original): https://e40.github.io/2023-02-18-train-safety.html https://e40.g

by e40 4y ago

There was a really good comment on reddit that I duplicated here (with references to original): https://e40.github.io/2023-02-18-train-safety.html https://e40.github.io/2023-02-18-train-safety.html It explains why there are so many derailments these days.

arthurfm 4y ago
Wendover Productions posted an interesting train-related video recently. https://youtu.be/qQTjLWIHN74?t=466 https://youtu.be/qQTjLWIHN74?t=466 It would appear that the issues with Amtrak can be traced back to freight rail as well. See 07:46 onwards for more details.
- e40 4y ago
  Very interesting, indeed. The issues in this video with the track issues ... what a shitshow.
giardini 4y ago
This. Great link that shows the RR car spewing sparks miles before the spill.
gruez 4y ago
>Dems backed it because they didn’t want the optics from a rail strike paralyzing shipping, and the GOP backed it because they’re the GOP and do anything for their pocketbooks. Yet, most of the nays came from the GOP and in the house most GOP voted against the bill? https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2022490 https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2022490
- goostavos 4y ago
  Can a smart person explain what that bill means? The summary[0] reads like the government just saying "you'll take the existing terms and like it" (I didn't know that the government could do this). Is that the same thing as making it "illegal to strike" as the linked comment suggests? How does all this work? [0] https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-joint-resolution/100/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-joint-res...
  - fineIllregister 4y ago
    > The summary[0] reads like the government just saying "you'll take the existing terms and like it". That's it. > I didn't know that the government could do this. It's explained in the "whereas" clauses. The Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate interatate commerce, which is pretty much all they need. > Is that the same thing as making it "illegal to strike" as the linked comment suggests? Yes. The unions are being forced to accept the deal. The union now can now be held liable if they try to organize a strike. Unofficial strikes (wildcat strikes) are illegal in the US.
- verall 4y ago
  Yet the GOP filibustered the version which would have given the 7 days of sick time that rail workers requested: https://theintercept.com/2022/11/30/rail-workers-strike-house-bill/ https://theintercept.com/2022/11/30/rail-workers-strike-hous... The bill that did pass with bipartisan support was a compromise due to this bill failing. It is extremely disingenuous to suggest that the democrats, who voted overwhelmingly for a bill that satisfied more rail worker demands, hold most of the fault for the strike break. The GOP correctly realized that by voting against rail workers, they could force democrats to also vote against rail workers in order to avoid a general rail strike which would be disastrous to the economy and laid at the feed of the Biden administration. This is the realpolitik world we live in, and peoples health will suffer due to it. Oh and democrats do share some of the blame, just not the majority. Joe Manchin did vote against the bill supporting rail workers.
  - graycat 4y ago
    [flagged]
- kadoban 4y ago
  The GOP will generally just vote against anything urgent that the Dems put forward. They don't _really_ want to let the Dems fix anything, they'd prefer to be able to beat up on Biden (in this case) for longer. There's no downside for them for this behavior. The Dems already hate them, and if anything their base will reward them for it.
erentz 4y ago
Saw this interesting Twitter thread with some data yesterday. In fact it doesn't seem derailments are unusually high compared with history. It seems they may even be decreasing. https://twitter.com/mike10010100/status/1627344918220767232 https://twitter.com/mike10010100/status/1627344918220767232 The complaints about precision scheduled railroading are valid though. Every foamer has been talking about it. And again as your link shows this derailment (like many) had absolutely nothing to do with the overturning of the breaking rule that has frustratingly grabbed everyone's attention. (I guess everyone loves a simplistic explanation that blames government officials even if it's wrong.)
- rhaway84773 4y ago
  If it’s true that rail companies are running fewer, but longer, trains then wouldn’t absolute derailments decrease even if per ride derailments have increased? And longer trains derailing means that the impact will be more spectacular, which would explain why we are seeing more news coverage of these fewer absolute derailments.
  - erentz 4y ago
    Maybe not? If what we care about isn't derailed trains but the actually derailed cars, like say lost packets on a network. Here's a graph of total derailed cars. He has a lot of graphs I haven't reviewed all of them. But might be some other interesting ones in there. https://twitter.com/mike10010100/status/1628072318491668500?s=20 https://twitter.com/mike10010100/status/1628072318491668500?...
    - macinjosh 4y ago
      Unlike a lost network packet a single derailed car can slow down the whole train and any trains behind it on either side. By using longer trains they are putting more eggs in one basket. On top of that longer periods of stress on a particular part of rail due to the longer trains is probably uncovering new failures in problem spots especially if heating is involved in the problem. Longer train = more time for a piece of rail to heat up. I think the metric of concern would be total consecutive time the rail is loaded or something like that.
rhaway84773 4y ago
Since the U.S. isn’t gonna nationalize it’s rail system any time soon, or at the very least needs to separate track ownership from the rail companies. All the rail companies should be required to spin off their track ownership into new and separate companies, which can now sell access to those and other possible rail providers. It’s necessary to get some competition in the space.
matbilodeau 4y ago
In line with that comment, there was a more recent disaster in Lac-Megantic in 2013. Inquiry brought to light that there were more tracks and operators than those we are used to see in Canada (CN, CP and VIA). It also revealed various cost cutting means that led up to this event (skeleton crew, long hours, lack of safety measures. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lac-M%C3%A9gantic_rail_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lac-M%C3%A9gantic_rail_disaste...

by e40 4y ago

arthurfm 4y ago

Wendover Productions posted an interesting train-related video recently. https://youtu.be/qQTjLWIHN74?t=466 https://youtu.be/qQTjLWIHN74?t=466 It would appear that the issues with Amtrak can be traced back to freight rail as well. See 07:46 onwards for more details.

e40 4y ago
Very interesting, indeed. The issues in this video with the track issues ... what a shitshow.

giardini 4y ago

This. Great link that shows the RR car spewing sparks miles before the spill.

gruez 4y ago

>Dems backed it because they didn’t want the optics from a rail strike paralyzing shipping, and the GOP backed it because they’re the GOP and do anything for their pocketbooks. Yet, most of the nays came from the GOP and in the house most GOP voted against the bill? https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2022490 https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2022490

goostavos 4y ago
Can a smart person explain what that bill means? The summary[0] reads like the government just saying "you'll take the existing terms and like it" (I didn't know that the government could do this). Is that the same thing as making it "illegal to strike" as the linked comment suggests? How does all this work? [0] https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-joint-resolution/100/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-joint-res...
- fineIllregister 4y ago
  > The summary[0] reads like the government just saying "you'll take the existing terms and like it". That's it. > I didn't know that the government could do this. It's explained in the "whereas" clauses. The Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate interatate commerce, which is pretty much all they need. > Is that the same thing as making it "illegal to strike" as the linked comment suggests? Yes. The unions are being forced to accept the deal. The union now can now be held liable if they try to organize a strike. Unofficial strikes (wildcat strikes) are illegal in the US.
verall 4y ago
Yet the GOP filibustered the version which would have given the 7 days of sick time that rail workers requested: https://theintercept.com/2022/11/30/rail-workers-strike-house-bill/ https://theintercept.com/2022/11/30/rail-workers-strike-hous... The bill that did pass with bipartisan support was a compromise due to this bill failing. It is extremely disingenuous to suggest that the democrats, who voted overwhelmingly for a bill that satisfied more rail worker demands, hold most of the fault for the strike break. The GOP correctly realized that by voting against rail workers, they could force democrats to also vote against rail workers in order to avoid a general rail strike which would be disastrous to the economy and laid at the feed of the Biden administration. This is the realpolitik world we live in, and peoples health will suffer due to it. Oh and democrats do share some of the blame, just not the majority. Joe Manchin did vote against the bill supporting rail workers.
- graycat 4y ago
  [flagged]
kadoban 4y ago
The GOP will generally just vote against anything urgent that the Dems put forward. They don't _really_ want to let the Dems fix anything, they'd prefer to be able to beat up on Biden (in this case) for longer. There's no downside for them for this behavior. The Dems already hate them, and if anything their base will reward them for it.

erentz 4y ago

Saw this interesting Twitter thread with some data yesterday. In fact it doesn't seem derailments are unusually high compared with history. It seems they may even be decreasing. https://twitter.com/mike10010100/status/1627344918220767232 https://twitter.com/mike10010100/status/1627344918220767232 The complaints about precision scheduled railroading are valid though. Every foamer has been talking about it. And again as your link shows this derailment (like many) had absolutely nothing to do with the overturning of the breaking rule that has frustratingly grabbed everyone's attention. (I guess everyone loves a simplistic explanation that blames government officials even if it's wrong.)

rhaway84773 4y ago
If it’s true that rail companies are running fewer, but longer, trains then wouldn’t absolute derailments decrease even if per ride derailments have increased? And longer trains derailing means that the impact will be more spectacular, which would explain why we are seeing more news coverage of these fewer absolute derailments.
- erentz 4y ago
  Maybe not? If what we care about isn't derailed trains but the actually derailed cars, like say lost packets on a network. Here's a graph of total derailed cars. He has a lot of graphs I haven't reviewed all of them. But might be some other interesting ones in there. https://twitter.com/mike10010100/status/1628072318491668500?s=20 https://twitter.com/mike10010100/status/1628072318491668500?...
  - macinjosh 4y ago
    Unlike a lost network packet a single derailed car can slow down the whole train and any trains behind it on either side. By using longer trains they are putting more eggs in one basket. On top of that longer periods of stress on a particular part of rail due to the longer trains is probably uncovering new failures in problem spots especially if heating is involved in the problem. Longer train = more time for a piece of rail to heat up. I think the metric of concern would be total consecutive time the rail is loaded or something like that.

rhaway84773 4y ago

Since the U.S. isn’t gonna nationalize it’s rail system any time soon, or at the very least needs to separate track ownership from the rail companies. All the rail companies should be required to spin off their track ownership into new and separate companies, which can now sell access to those and other possible rail providers. It’s necessary to get some competition in the space.

matbilodeau 4y ago

In line with that comment, there was a more recent disaster in Lac-Megantic in 2013. Inquiry brought to light that there were more tracks and operators than those we are used to see in Canada (CN, CP and VIA). It also revealed various cost cutting means that led up to this event (skeleton crew, long hours, lack of safety measures. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lac-M%C3%A9gantic_rail_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lac-M%C3%A9gantic_rail_disaste...