From: otterpower@xhotmail.com
On 5/21/2014 12:40 PM, Jishnu Mukerji wrote:
> On 5/20/2014 7:35 PM, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>> On 20-May-14 14:50, conklin wrote:
>>> "Stephen Sprunk" wrote in message
>>> news:lle7rn$10q$1@dont-email.me...
>>>> On 19-May-14 19:11, conklin wrote:
>>>>> If the lack in a freight train is so severe that it would harm a
>>>>> human in the last car, then think of the shock done to the oil.
>>>>> No wonder they derail.
>>>>
>>>> And that oil is in sealed containers full of liquid; oh no, the
>>>> oil might suffocate and/or drown!
>>>>
>>>> "Safe for oil" and "safe for humans" are very different things.
>>>
>>> Until the shock causes them to derail.
>>
>> Shock from slack action is purely longitudinal; it could damage humans
>> or other unsecured cargo aboard the train, but the train itself will
>> remain on the rails.
>>
>> Aside from the obvious case of collisions, derailments nearly always
>> boil down to a train going faster than it should have--either due to
>> crew error or due to the speed limits not being set properly for the
>> actual condition of the track.
>
> Or in case of incompetent outfits like NJ Transit, if they forget to
> maintain earth return straps in EMUs causing return current to flow
> through the wheel bearings causing them to fail leading to a wheel and
> axle falling off. In a manner of speaking I suppose that falls in the
> category of going too fast since the train should be moving at all with
> that kind of poor maintenance and safety monitoring.
>
Thanks for making a regular rider feel more secure and safer. (Actually
informative posts like this one help prepare for contingencies and,
hopefully, lessen the shock or surprise in case of an accident.)
---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus
protection is active.
http://www.avast.com
--- SoupGate/W32 v1.03
* Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)
|
