LA commuter train wreck

CoasterMatt · 09-13-2008, 05:14 PM

Ironically, the NIMBYs in the area are now screaming that they didn't like the "multiple tracks" - because they'd mean more accidents -

No, not allowing rail systems to be built with seperate tracks instead of mixed use rail with sidings allows more chance for accidents.

Kevy Baby · 09-13-2008, 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CoasterMatt

Ironically, the NIMBYs in the area are now screaming that they didn't like the "multiple tracks" - because they'd mean more accidents -

No, not allowing rail systems to be built with separate tracks instead of mixed use rail with sidings allows more chance for accidents.

I know that there are separate tracks down where the Chatsworth Metrolink Station is and that the two tracks don't merge into one until just before the curve. (which is new, because when I lived in Chatsworth, they merged about 50' North of Devonshire). I will concede that is is not practical to have two tracks much further north of the accident as there is a long tunnel going through the Santa Susana Mountains into Slimi Valley.

Bootstrap Bill · 09-13-2008, 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CoasterMatt

Ironically, the NIMBYs in the area are now screaming that they didn't like the "multiple tracks" - because they'd mean more accidents -

No, not allowing rail systems to be built with seperate tracks instead of mixed use rail with sidings allows more chance for accidents.

I'd like to see Metrolink replaced with a totally grade separated rail line, either elevated or burried, I don't care which.

CoasterMatt · 09-13-2008, 07:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bootstrap Bill

I'd like to see Metrolink replaced with a totally grade separated rail line, either elevated or burried, I don't care which.

So would I.

~MS~ · 09-13-2008, 07:55 PM

That would be a great way to reduce the risks but the cost is so outrageous that it's really unlikely to ever become a reality. Even if it were on it's on track human error leads to catastrophe....this accident was human error, had the engineer followed procedure then the two trains would have passed safely. I won't speculate on the story that has come out about how he was texting with some teen...it could have been exhaustion, hell he could have had a heart attack in which case it wasn't human error but just a tragedy. Separate tracks would reduce the risk but not eliminate it.

09-13-2008, 05:14 PM	#1
CoasterMatt BRAAAAAAAINS! Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: One Step Beyond... Posts: 8,802	Ironically, the NIMBYs in the area are now screaming that they didn't like the "multiple tracks" - because they'd mean more accidents - No, not allowing rail systems to be built with seperate tracks instead of mixed use rail with sidings allows more chance for accidents. __________________ Do you like my photography? Visit photosbymatt.tumblr.com to purchase prints!
	Submit to Quotes

09-13-2008, 07:55 PM	#5
~MS~ One Happy little Missy! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 658	That would be a great way to reduce the risks but the cost is so outrageous that it's really unlikely to ever become a reality. Even if it were on it's on track human error leads to catastrophe....this accident was human error, had the engineer followed procedure then the two trains would have passed safely. I won't speculate on the story that has come out about how he was texting with some teen...it could have been exhaustion, hell he could have had a heart attack in which case it wasn't human error but just a tragedy. Separate tracks would reduce the risk but not eliminate it. __________________ "Sometimes Miracles Hide"
	Submit to Quotes