|
|
| Re: Walk between the cars why? When you can Ride on the Back of them. (836622) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 3 of 3 |
||
|
| (837337) | |
Re: Walk between the cars why? When you can Ride on the Back of them. |
|
|
Posted by arnine on Thu Sep 24 11:28:17 2009, in response to Re: Walk between the cars why? When you can Ride on the Back of them., posted by Subterranean Railway on Thu Sep 24 11:24:20 2009. Thank you that is perfect. |
|
|
| (837338) | |
Re: Walk between the cars why? When you can Ride on the Back of them. |
|
|
Posted by Railman718 on Thu Sep 24 11:29:11 2009, in response to Re: Walk between the cars why? When you can Ride on the Back of them., posted by Subterranean Railway on Thu Sep 24 11:24:20 2009. Stopping the train in an unsafe manner is likely to put the onus on the train crew should the trainsurfer die from falling due to sudden deceleration. Should the surfer die simply from encountering a low clearance area or falling on his own accord, it's unlikely that the train crew would face any blame.Another peson who isnt aware of our Rules down here... |
|
|
| (837339) | |
Re: Walk between the cars why? When you can Ride on the Back of them. |
|
|
Posted by f179dj on Thu Sep 24 11:29:24 2009, in response to Re: Walk between the cars why? When you can Ride on the Back of them., posted by arnine on Thu Sep 24 11:01:04 2009. This argument has been around for as long as I can remember at the TA.My C/R thought he saw surfers on the back of the train one night and stopped me with a long buzz so he could investigate. What if they had gotten injured while I'm making a controlled, gentle stop in the middle of nowhere? Why did't he pull the emergency cord if he perceived pax endangering themselves, would be the question. But if he pulled the emergency cord as the train was just leaving the station, the sudden stop could knock people to the floor and result in more injuries, other people would say. Damned if you do and damned if you don't. It's called an emergency brake (yeah, ok, CEV to be PC) for a reason; if the C/R sees what he takes to be an emergency, he should activate the valve. Period. We'll work out any other consequences later. Emergencies require the use of the emergency brake, to just make myself redundantly clear on which side I am weighing in on). As a side note, there is a collateral debate that goes on whether one should use full service or emergency braking (recommended and instructed) for jumpers. I won't go into that now; but it exists and is fervently disputed. As to his training materials, probably just "School Car Instructions." A body of collective information, never codified, but passed on over the years. Some of it is good; some not so good. When cornered, reply "School Car Instructions." |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (837340) | |
Re: Walk between the cars why? When you can Ride on the Back of them. |
|
|
Posted by Subterranean Railway on Thu Sep 24 11:30:27 2009, in response to Re: Walk between the cars why? When you can Ride on the Back of them., posted by Railman718 on Thu Sep 24 11:29:11 2009. Sadly, MTA rules might not be especially relevant to any legal action the family of a dead trainsurfer might pursue. |
|
|
| (837342) | |
Re: Walk between the cars why? When you can Ride on the Back of them. |
|
|
Posted by Railman718 on Thu Sep 24 11:32:20 2009, in response to Re: Walk between the cars why? When you can Ride on the Back of them., posted by Subterranean Railway on Thu Sep 24 11:30:27 2009. Sadly, MTA rules might not be especially relevant to any legal action the family of a dead trainsurfer might pursue.Irrelevant to those operating personel... They followed the Rules period.. Any Legal action the family tries for somebody doing something stupid is up to them. |
|
|
| (837343) | |
Re: Walk between the cars why? When you can Ride on the Back of them. |
|
|
Posted by Subterranean Railway on Thu Sep 24 11:34:57 2009, in response to Re: Walk between the cars why? When you can Ride on the Back of them., posted by Railman718 on Thu Sep 24 11:32:20 2009. It's not guaranteed that the argument "I was simply deferring to MTA rules" would hold up in court. Forgive my hyperbolizing, but if MTA rules stipulated that traincrews were to push surfers off trains, the crew involved would have a rather hard time defending itself. |
|
|
| (837344) | |
Re: Walk between the cars why? When you can Ride on the Back of them. |
|
|
Posted by f179dj on Thu Sep 24 11:35:09 2009, in response to Re: Walk between the cars why? When you can Ride on the Back of them., posted by Railman718 on Thu Sep 24 11:32:20 2009. IAWTP. |
|
|
| (837345) | |
Re: Walk between the cars why? When you can Ride on the Back of them. |
|
|
Posted by Railman718 on Thu Sep 24 11:37:34 2009, in response to Re: Walk between the cars why? When you can Ride on the Back of them., posted by Subterranean Railway on Thu Sep 24 11:34:57 2009. Forgive my hyperbolizing, but if MTA rules stipulated that traincrews were to push surfers off trains, the crew involved would have a rather hard time defending itself.Stop just stop Ok? |
|
|
| (837348) | |
Re: Walk between the cars why? When you can Ride on the Back of them. |
|
|
Posted by Subterranean Railway on Thu Sep 24 11:41:26 2009, in response to Re: Walk between the cars why? When you can Ride on the Back of them., posted by Railman718 on Thu Sep 24 11:37:34 2009. Care to actually argue the point? ;-) |
|
|
| (837350) | |
Re: Walk between the cars why? When you can Ride on the Back of them. |
|
|
Posted by Railman718 on Thu Sep 24 11:48:11 2009, in response to Re: Walk between the cars why? When you can Ride on the Back of them., posted by Subterranean Railway on Thu Sep 24 11:41:26 2009. Can argue when theres nothing to argue. |
|
|
| (837351) | |
Re: Walk between the cars why? When you can Ride on the Back of them. |
|
|
Posted by f179dj on Thu Sep 24 11:51:48 2009, in response to Re: Walk between the cars why? When you can Ride on the Back of them., posted by Railman718 on Thu Sep 24 11:48:11 2009. Yeah, kind of hard to discuss or argue over hyperbole. |
|
|
| (837352) | |
Re: Walk between the cars why? When you can Ride on the Back of them. |
|
|
Posted by Subterranean Railway on Thu Sep 24 11:55:48 2009, in response to Re: Walk between the cars why? When you can Ride on the Back of them., posted by f179dj on Thu Sep 24 11:51:48 2009. But abruptly stopping the train is significantly more dangerous than gradually slowing it. |
|
|
| (837353) | |
Re: Walk between the cars why? When you can Ride on the Back of them. |
|
|
Posted by Subterranean Railway on Thu Sep 24 11:55:49 2009, in response to Re: Walk between the cars why? When you can Ride on the Back of them., posted by f179dj on Thu Sep 24 11:51:48 2009. But abruptly stopping the train is significantly more dangerous than gradually slowing it. |
|
|
| (837354) | |
Re: Walk between the cars why? When you can Ride on the Back of them. |
|
|
Posted by f179dj on Thu Sep 24 12:04:49 2009, in response to Re: Walk between the cars why? When you can Ride on the Back of them., posted by Subterranean Railway on Thu Sep 24 11:55:48 2009. No it's not.Today's braking systems no longer result in a stone-wall stop. If you, as a surfer, had miscalculated back there and were hanging on by a hand, would you rather the train stopped in 300 feet or 600 feet. Of course, that's assuming that the buzzer from the C/R came through to me in one piece. Maybe it broke up and the message I got is not stop, but signal for an RCI. |
|
|
| (837355) | |
Re: Walk between the cars why? When you can Ride on the Back of them. |
|
|
Posted by Kriston Lewis on Thu Sep 24 12:11:09 2009, in response to Walk between the cars why? When you can Ride on the Back of them., posted by Railman718 on Tue Sep 22 15:09:25 2009. Oh, those crazy hipsters! |
|
|
| (837356) | |
Re: Walk between the cars why? When you can Ride on the Back of them. |
|
|
Posted by Subterranean Railway on Thu Sep 24 12:13:57 2009, in response to Re: Walk between the cars why? When you can Ride on the Back of them., posted by f179dj on Thu Sep 24 12:04:49 2009. Today's braking systems no longer result in a stone-wall stop.Indeed; weren't maximum deceleration rates reduced because of lawsuits? (You of all people would probably recall specific cases.) If you, as a surfer, had miscalculated back there and were hanging on by a hand, would you rather the train stopped in 300 feet or 600 feet. If I, as a surfer, had mis-calculated, the point would be moot; I'd most likely end up dead or severely injured either way. However, if I, as a surfer, were doing just fine and subjected to sudden deceleration, the consequences could be dire. Naturally, it's hardly feasible for a member of the traincrew to determine how well I'm doing, but I'd nonetheless err on the side of caution. |
|
|
| (837360) | |
Re: Walk between the cars why? When you can Ride on the Back of them. |
|
|
Posted by f179dj on Thu Sep 24 13:05:54 2009, in response to Re: Walk between the cars why? When you can Ride on the Back of them., posted by Subterranean Railway on Thu Sep 24 12:13:57 2009. We are going nowhere with this, except trying other people's patience (You must try mine sometime [G. Marx; not Karl]).AFAIK, decreasing deceleration rates were a maintenance issue, and not lawsuit related. That and the switch to composition shoes, instead of cast iron. Costs alot to round out flat wheels. Even my wife can recognize the sound of them now, lol. Litigation is a funny thing. Lawyer: Did you see my clients riding on the back of the train? C/R: Yes. Lawyer: Did you think it was a danger to life and limb? C/R: Yes. Lawyer: Did this constitute an emergency in your x-number of years of transit experience? C/R: Yes. Lawyer: They why did you not activate the emergency brake? Or, if this was a flow chart, let's back up and C/R answers "no" to the did not constitute an emergency question: Lawyer: Oh, so you, as a transit professional with x-number of years on the job don't think that someone riding on the back of your train is an emergency situation? C/R says hommina, hommina, hommina in both cases. As I said earlier, damned if you do and damned if you don't. We disagree on the "safe course of action." For me it is the EBV (i misspoke before; they renamed it from CEV to EBV; the names have been changed to protect the innocent; same purpose). And the deceleration rate difference is almost negligible; .1 or .2 mphps between full service and emergency (from memory; not pulling out the manuals). There are other reasons for using emergency braking over service braking (that I won't go into here) that make it the preferable course of action. |
|
|
| (837367) | |
Re: Walk between the cars why? When you can Ride on the Back of them. |
|
|
Posted by arnine on Thu Sep 24 13:21:15 2009, in response to Re: Walk between the cars why? When you can Ride on the Back of them., posted by f179dj on Thu Sep 24 11:29:24 2009. Ok that I understand but still feel that for surfers maybe the c/r can ask the t/o to stop gradually versus the emergency brake but if the jolt is not as bad as you say then ok I guess that is fine |
|
|
| (838129) | |
Re: Walk between the cars why? When you can Ride on the Back of them. |
|
|
Posted by Karl M, Ex New Yorker on Sat Sep 26 12:47:31 2009, in response to Walk between the cars why? When you can Ride on the Back of them., posted by Railman718 on Tue Sep 22 15:09:25 2009. This is the dumbest thing I've seen yet, copycats are a commin.Karl M |
|
|
|
Page 3 of 3 |
||
