ConstanceR46 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 28, 2020 10:15 pm
Nah i don't get this post at all. Yeah, we know journalism about trains sucks.
We've always had spotty reporting about trains. But at one time reporters did a decent overall job of reporting. Perhaps the reporter got a few details wrong that only a buff or railroader would miss, but it painted an accurate picture.
Today, the situation is different. Reporters take a sliver of detail, no context or background, some tweets and press releases which anybody can find, and call it a story.
Consider this - from my "reporting", I used the term "engine car". That's getting a detail wrong but it doesn't change the story, and that's a typical mistake I've seen for years. They also are known for calling an engineer a "driver" or "conductor". None of that changes the story. If a reporter were to write a story assessing the cause of the Cascade derailment, and referred to the engineer as the driver, it does not change the analysis of the training issues in question.
In contrast, reporting that a train came within 1" of falling off a bridge is absolutely correct, and absolutely terrifying, but ignores the fact that it happens all time. Trains have 1" wheel flanges, from the heaviest coal train to the fastest TGV. There are engineers that look at this and certify it at the consulting level, government level, railroad level, car manufacturer level, and wheel manufacturer level, and probably a few universities look at it as well. Throwing out useless and grossly misleading true facts does not help the public to understand real safety issues around them, and that's not cool.
The new Acela: It's not Aveliable.
