KSmitty wrote:In general, its best not to make claims about speed unless you are 100% sure it is accurate.I am aware enough of all of this. If the line hasn't been upgraded to Class 3 then it was clearly my mistake.
gokeefe
Railroad Forums
Moderator: MEC407
KSmitty wrote:In general, its best not to make claims about speed unless you are 100% sure it is accurate.I am aware enough of all of this. If the line hasn't been upgraded to Class 3 then it was clearly my mistake.
MEC407 wrote:PAR would be ripe for a lawsuit if they disciplined or terminated someone based solely on a railfan report.Right, they cannot discipline simply on a 3rd party report, but they certainly can pull event recorder data, and the increasingly common tape from outward and inward facing cameras. Once they get in there, just because the speed may not have been an issue doesn't mean there wont be other infractions. Even something seemingly insignificant, like stepping out of the cab without safety glasses, can get someone in trouble. I know it sounds petty, but its very much a reality in the litigious world we live in.
newpylong wrote:They also don't need to waste money on CTC to increase train velocity for only 4 trains per day. Though they could do what CP did on the Sunbury line and just do a couple CTC islands for controlled sidings.Which is what they did with Danville. It wouldn't be that out of the question for them to fill the gap between CPF168 and CPF183 with a couple of signals, and a CP for Blake and Penny, then do a small island for Leeds.