Northeast Regional 188 - Accident In Philadelphia

2nd trick op wrote:Below is another link to a City-Data thread on the accident -- with an "informal" poll included. The poll and the first few pages of posts are a pretty fair illustration of both the distorted public perception of operating conditions, and the "lynch mob" mentality fostered by some segments of the media in the days which followed.

The public was trying to understand. Why would any engineer drive their train into a restricted speed curve at 106 MPH?
It is similar to the question those acquainted with railroads have with crossing incidents: Why would anyone stop on the tracks or drive around gates?

Excuses can be made for any bad behavior. Explanations are more rare. "Oops" does not seem to be an acceptable answer.

jackintosh11 wrote:Again, what does family structure or gender have to do with trains?

Three generations ago, the Class I railroads supported about eight times as many employees, in a nation with about one-half the present population. That trend diminished the likelihood that an individual would have direct exposure to the conditions under which railroaders live and work by a factor of sixteen, and contributes heavily toward both the gap in understanding between operating railroaders and the general public, and the need to explain the causative factors in railroad accidents in terms which an increasingly diverse and androgynous public can more easily understand, I can't make my point any plainer than this.

While I understand that people are less likely to understand the reasons for a train crash, how does it have to do with family structure or gender?

2nd trick op wrote:

jackintosh11 wrote:Again, what does family structure or gender have to do with trains?

Three generations ago, the Class I railroads supported about eight times as many employees, in a nation with about one-half the present population. That trend diminished the likelihood that an individual would have direct exposure to the conditions under which railroaders live and work by a factor of sixteen, and contributes heavily toward both the gap in understanding between operating railroaders and the general public, and the need to explain the causative factors in railroad accidents in terms which an increasingly diverse and androgynous public can more easily understand, I can't make my point any plainer than this.

You were making a great point...

Three generations ago, the Class I railroads supported about eight times as many employees, in a nation with about one-half the present population. That trend diminished the likelihood that an individual would have direct exposure to the conditions under which railroaders live and work by a factor of sixteen, and contributes heavily toward both the gap in understanding between operating railroaders and the general public

...until you threw it all away

the need to explain the causative factors in railroad accidents in terms which an increasingly diverse and androgynous public can more easily understand, I can't make my point any plainer than this.

Net result: no point made, unless you can explain how "an increasingly diverse and androgynous public" doesn't understand railroading, or something.

I agree.. And I too would like to know what does family structure or gender have to do with trains???

MaineCoonCat wrote:I agree.. And I too would like to know what does family structure or gender have to do with trains???

I'd rather talk about the trains. Agree to disagree and move on instead of harping on it.

I actually think the journalism debate is still worth finishing.

1. Do we have any evidence that reporters understood trains, railroads, or technology generally better in the past than we do now? I understand that there are some possible reasons that could cause such a change: I get the point that 75 years ago many more people knew a railroader personally; I am also pretty confident that many more people in the US as a whole had ridden on an train, and even in Philly and other rail-transit cities I'd guess that a higher proportion of the people had ridden an intercity train 75 years ago than today, although I would want to find evidence before saying so for sure. We could also add that probably the technology editors of today are more familiar with electronics and robotics than with railroads. But having read a lot of old newspapers and magazines (I'm a historian for a living) I wouldn't be so sure that they got technical language or details any better then than they do now.

2. Even if we did have evidence to demonstrate that news outlets are getting worse at reporting train wrecks, the suggestion that that's somehow because there are more woman journalists than there used to be is insulting nonsense. A. There are still more men than women in journalism. B. There are women in railroading. The student AREMA chapter where I teach has women officers, for Pete's sake. There are women engineers (both kinds) and women conductors and women transit operators and women fans. And most of the idiotic questions about trains that I've seen over the years in the press have come from men; my favorite was the Mass state rep who asked why the catenary on the NEC couldn't be insulated for safety.

OK. What can we do to improve RR coverage? Out here in Indiana, that main problem is that readers/viewers/reporters all mostly think of trains as something that makes noise and blocks the street, and that is annoying frequent yet entirely obsolete. They have no notion of why trains stop, slow, or speed up, or where they're going, or how they work. Some of their reactions to accidents are counterproductive, like wanting lower speed limits to prevent crossing accidents (which might just encourage people to rush the gates; need data). What do we do to fix that?

Arborwayfan wrote:I actually think the journalism debate is still worth finishing.

I agree.. Maybe we might need to have it moved though..

Arborwayfan wrote: OK. What can we do to improve RR coverage? Out here in Indiana, that main problem is that readers/viewers/reporters all mostly think of trains as something that makes noise and blocks the street, and that is annoying frequent yet entirely obsolete. They have no notion of why trains stop, slow, or speed up, or where they're going, or how they work. Some of their reactions to accidents are counterproductive, like wanting lower speed limits to prevent crossing accidents (which might just encourage people to rush the gates; need data). What do we do to fix that?

Does attempting to educate make a difference? I from time to time, if I see/hear/read something obviously wrong will (if I can) try to contact the reporter via e-mail, twitter or whatever at least.

I think we're far afield (and welcome a moderator to split this off).

Keep in mind, unless it's their beat, most reporters don't have the education, NOR do they have the time for education.

Yes, they want to get the facts straight, but they're also under deadlines and the wrath of editors.

One thing you can do, if you're ever interviewed (and in a position to give answers, if you work for Amtrak, you almost certainly have to defer to the PAO) keep your answers short and to the point. Make it hard to edit.

e.g. "Do you know how fast trains go through here?"
"Well this is Class 4 track, which permits trains to freight trains to go 80mph but limits freights to only 60mph. However, due to the curve here, the MAS speed is really 70mph and due to a work order."

vs.

"Up to 70mph for passenger trains."

Yes, the first answer is a bit more accurate, but may not survive an edit. Unless the article is going to be in depth, the second answer is what the reporter cares about.

Also, reporters are human, they're more inclined to flatter than insults. "Your recent article on the new Amtrak station was great but had an error about the date built" is more likely to get you more time with the reporter in the future than, "You're an idiot who couldn't get the date of the station right in your article."

Greg Moore wrote:Also, reporters are human, they're more inclined to flatter than insults. "Your recent article on the new Amtrak station was great but had an error about the date built" is more likely to get you more time with the reporter in the future than, "You're an idiot who couldn't get the date of the station right in your article."

I wish people would remember the same about fellow posters on the web. Too many "you are an idiot" replies and not enough "gentle correction".

Yes. All those ideas.
And the gentle corrections, too.

2nd trick op wrote:

jackintosh11 wrote:Again, what does family structure or gender have to do with trains?

Three generations ago, the Class I railroads supported about eight times as many employees, in a nation with about one-half the present population. That trend diminished the likelihood that an individual would have direct exposure to the conditions under which railroaders live and work by a factor of sixteen, and contributes heavily toward both the gap in understanding between operating railroaders and the general public, and the need to explain the causative factors in railroad accidents in terms which an increasingly diverse and androgynous public can more easily understand, I can't make my point any plainer than this.

There are many thousands of women working in railroading today to whom I believe you owe an apology. And I think it is absolutely worth taking the time to point out that we are deprived of the good labor of many thousands more women, not because they are in any way incapable of the job, but because they reasonably refuse to work in environments where they are heavily subjected to this kind of arrant nonsense.

CComMack wrote: There are many thousands of women working in railroading today to whom I believe you owe an apology.

Today? The Long Island has had female crews since at least the 1950's...

Let's also not forget WWII...

CComMack wrote:

2nd trick op wrote:

jackintosh11 wrote:Again, what does family structure or gender have to do with trains?

Three generations ago, the Class I railroads supported about eight times as many employees, in a nation with about one-half the present population. That trend diminished the likelihood that an individual would have direct exposure to the conditions under which railroaders live and work by a factor of sixteen, and contributes heavily toward both the gap in understanding between operating railroaders and the general public, and the need to explain the causative factors in railroad accidents in terms which an increasingly diverse and androgynous public can more easily understand, I can't make my point any plainer than this.

There are many thousands of women working in railroading today to whom I believe you owe an apology. And I think it is absolutely worth taking the time to point out that we are deprived of the good labor of many thousands more women, not because they are in any way incapable of the job, but because they reasonably refuse to work in environments where they are heavily subjected to this kind of arrant nonsense.

Nasadowsk wrote:

CComMack wrote: There are many thousands of women working in railroading today to whom I believe you owe an apology.

Today? The Long Island has had female crews since at least the 1950's...

Let's also not forget WWII...

I didn't comb through the preceding exchange of comments to see if this nugget was reported but we will hopefully find out more tomorrow when the NTSB is expected to release more "evidence and reports" re: cause of the 188 derailment:

http://www.wcvb.com/news/investigators- ... t/37726890

Note that publication of the final NTSB report on 188 is expected to be months away.