One more use for a Jeep GC
 

Guy in LA used one to derail a comuter train. Killed 11 people and injured
180. That's not very cool.

But who would of thought a Jeep could derail a train?

I would of thought it would look like a soda can after it was run over by a
train.....

I think that's the difference between a commuter train and a locomotive.
Nick


--
http://members.cox.net/nnote/
"Brian Foster" > wrote in message
...
> Guy in LA used one to derail a comuter train. Killed 11 people and injured
> 180. That's not very cool.
>
> But who would of thought a Jeep could derail a train?
>
> I would of thought it would look like a soda can after it was run over by
a
> train.....
>
>

Not only that but the commuter train was being pushed so the locomotive was
in the rear as I hear it.

This idiot was intent on committing suicide but changed his mind at the last
minute.

Bill

"Nick" > wrote in message
news:EmtKd.1194$Jt.930@fed1read02...
> I think that's the difference between a commuter train and a locomotive.
> Nick
>
>
> --
> http://members.cox.net/nnote/
> "Brian Foster" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Guy in LA used one to derail a comuter train. Killed 11 people and
injured
> > 180. That's not very cool.
> >
> > But who would of thought a Jeep could derail a train?
> >
> > I would of thought it would look like a soda can after it was run over
by
> a
> > train.....
> >
> >
>
>

doesn't take much to derail a train, especially if it is going fast and
drives over bits of metal.

Dave Milne, Scotland
'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
"Nick" > wrote in message
news:EmtKd.1194$Jt.930@fed1read02...
> I think that's the difference between a commuter train and a locomotive.
> Nick
>
>
> --
> http://members.cox.net/nnote/
> "Brian Foster" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Guy in LA used one to derail a comuter train. Killed 11 people and
injured
> > 180. That's not very cool.
> >
> > But who would of thought a Jeep could derail a train?
> >
> > I would of thought it would look like a soda can after it was run over
by
> a
> > train.....
> >
> >
>
>

Actually, it's the difference in the front of the train and the back. The
train was being pushed down the track, and they come off pretty easily when
operated this way.





"Nick" > wrote in message
news:EmtKd.1194$Jt.930@fed1read02...
> I think that's the difference between a commuter train and a locomotive.
> Nick
>
>
> --
> http://members.cox.net/nnote/
> "Brian Foster" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Guy in LA used one to derail a comuter train. Killed 11 people and
injured
> > 180. That's not very cool.
> >
> > But who would of thought a Jeep could derail a train?
> >
> > I would of thought it would look like a soda can after it was run over
by
> a
> > train.....
> >
> >
>
>

The reason the train derailed so easily was that it was being pushed. If the
engine was in the front, and was pulling the train, by all accounts it would
have remained on the track The second train was being pulled by its engine,
and it did remain on the track, having said that, the last car on the second
train did come off the track, indeed it came off the train.

The car of the train that hit the Jeep got pushed sideways by the impact,
and since it was being pushed from behind by the locomotive, it left the
track. It went to the side where another freight locomotive was parked. When
it hit that engine, then the car went completely sideways. In the mean time,
due to the schedule, another train was coming from the opposite direction at
the same time. As the first train continued down the track, getting worse by
the second, it began to rub on the second train. Eventually the fully
sideways car of the first train caused the last car of the second train to
completely leave the tracks, and become disconnected from its train. After
all of that, the parked freight locomotive was tipped over and its fuel
spilled out and ignited.

As a result of this accident, there might be a new rule for trains to always
be pulled from the front and never pushed from the back. I don't know how
this can be accomplished because most commuter trains have no means of
turning around. My guess is that they will keep engines on sidings, and pull
the train the parked engine, then drive that engine (pointed the opposite
direction) to the back of the train, and swap engines. This will
efffectively turn the train around without having to put in a turn table. It
will require lots of new engines for the commuter train systems.



"Brian Foster" > wrote in message
...
> Guy in LA used one to derail a comuter train. Killed 11 people and injured
> 180. That's not very cool.
>
> But who would of thought a Jeep could derail a train?
>
> I would of thought it would look like a soda can after it was run over by
a
> train.....
>
>

Well, actually, despite the hype being put out by the media, trains
running in push mode manage to hit vehicles and stay on track quite
regularly, all around the world.

What happened Wednesday was that the train hit the Jeep, and part of the
Jeep which being being dragged along moved points of a rail switch,
either directly or by hitting the switch stand, causing the front wheels
of the car to head broadside into the UP locomotive. The first and
second car jackknifed, landing in the way of the second train.

Note that the Metrolink cars weigh about 50 tons, and are not
particularly light. Had a locomotive been up front, and the switch was
similarly turned under it, the same thing would have happened, except
that there would have been a much greater danger of a diesel fueled
fireball of death.

There will no doubt be a lot of public outcry about push-pull running as
a result of this disaster. But the mode has been used in Northern
California, Chicago and other cities for 40 years or so. Derailments are
no more common pushing than pulling.

My sympathy goes out to the families of the victims. My finger goes out
to the @$#%@#$%@#$% that caused it.

Regards,

DAve




Jeff Strickland wrote:
> The reason the train derailed so easily was that it was being pushed. If the
> engine was in the front, and was pulling the train, by all accounts it would
> have remained on the track The second train was being pulled by its engine,
> and it did remain on the track, having said that, the last car on the second
> train did come off the track, indeed it came off the train.
>
> The car of the train that hit the Jeep got pushed sideways by the impact,
> and since it was being pushed from behind by the locomotive, it left the
> track. It went to the side where another freight locomotive was parked. When
> it hit that engine, then the car went completely sideways. In the mean time,
> due to the schedule, another train was coming from the opposite direction at
> the same time. As the first train continued down the track, getting worse by
> the second, it began to rub on the second train. Eventually the fully
> sideways car of the first train caused the last car of the second train to
> completely leave the tracks, and become disconnected from its train. After
> all of that, the parked freight locomotive was tipped over and its fuel
> spilled out and ignited.
>
> As a result of this accident, there might be a new rule for trains to always
> be pulled from the front and never pushed from the back. I don't know how
> this can be accomplished because most commuter trains have no means of
> turning around. My guess is that they will keep engines on sidings, and pull
> the train the parked engine, then drive that engine (pointed the opposite
> direction) to the back of the train, and swap engines. This will
> efffectively turn the train around without having to put in a turn table. It
> will require lots of new engines for the commuter train systems.
>
>
>
> "Brian Foster" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Guy in LA used one to derail a comuter train. Killed 11 people and injured
>>180. That's not very cool.
>>
>>But who would of thought a Jeep could derail a train?
>>
>>I would of thought it would look like a soda can after it was run over by
>
> a
>
>>train.....
>>
>>
>
>
>

The local passenger commuter trains here have engines at both ends, so it
always has one engine at the front pulling and the other at the back
pushing..

Snow...

"Jeff Strickland" > wrote in message
...
> The reason the train derailed so easily was that it was being pushed. If
> the
> engine was in the front, and was pulling the train, by all accounts it
> would
> have remained on the track The second train was being pulled by its
> engine,
> and it did remain on the track, having said that, the last car on the
> second
> train did come off the track, indeed it came off the train.
>
> The car of the train that hit the Jeep got pushed sideways by the impact,
> and since it was being pushed from behind by the locomotive, it left the
> track. It went to the side where another freight locomotive was parked.
> When
> it hit that engine, then the car went completely sideways. In the mean
> time,
> due to the schedule, another train was coming from the opposite direction
> at
> the same time. As the first train continued down the track, getting worse
> by
> the second, it began to rub on the second train. Eventually the fully
> sideways car of the first train caused the last car of the second train to
> completely leave the tracks, and become disconnected from its train. After
> all of that, the parked freight locomotive was tipped over and its fuel
> spilled out and ignited.
>
> As a result of this accident, there might be a new rule for trains to
> always
> be pulled from the front and never pushed from the back. I don't know how
> this can be accomplished because most commuter trains have no means of
> turning around. My guess is that they will keep engines on sidings, and
> pull
> the train the parked engine, then drive that engine (pointed the opposite
> direction) to the back of the train, and swap engines. This will
> efffectively turn the train around without having to put in a turn table.
> It
> will require lots of new engines for the commuter train systems.
>
>
>
> "Brian Foster" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Guy in LA used one to derail a comuter train. Killed 11 people and
>> injured
>> 180. That's not very cool.
>>
>> But who would of thought a Jeep could derail a train?
>>
>> I would of thought it would look like a soda can after it was run over by
> a
>> train.....
>>
>>
>
>

The local (or, would be local if Connecticut had train service beyond the
$$$ Gold Coast) commuter trains are paired, self-driven electric units.
No driver (or whatever the railfans call them) units.


On Sat, 29 Jan 2005, Snow wrote:

> The local passenger commuter trains here have engines at both ends, so it
> always has one engine at the front pulling and the other at the back
> pushing..
>
> Snow...
>
> "Jeff Strickland" > wrote in message
> ...
>> The reason the train derailed so easily was that it was being pushed. If
>> the
>> engine was in the front, and was pulling the train, by all accounts it
>> would
>> have remained on the track The second train was being pulled by its
>> engine,
>> and it did remain on the track, having said that, the last car on the
>> second
>> train did come off the track, indeed it came off the train.
>>
>> The car of the train that hit the Jeep got pushed sideways by the impact,
>> and since it was being pushed from behind by the locomotive, it left the
>> track. It went to the side where another freight locomotive was parked.
>> When
>> it hit that engine, then the car went completely sideways. In the mean
>> time,
>> due to the schedule, another train was coming from the opposite direction
>> at
>> the same time. As the first train continued down the track, getting worse
>> by
>> the second, it began to rub on the second train. Eventually the fully
>> sideways car of the first train caused the last car of the second train to
>> completely leave the tracks, and become disconnected from its train. After
>> all of that, the parked freight locomotive was tipped over and its fuel
>> spilled out and ignited.
>>
>> As a result of this accident, there might be a new rule for trains to
>> always
>> be pulled from the front and never pushed from the back. I don't know how
>> this can be accomplished because most commuter trains have no means of
>> turning around. My guess is that they will keep engines on sidings, and
>> pull
>> the train the parked engine, then drive that engine (pointed the opposite
>> direction) to the back of the train, and swap engines. This will
>> efffectively turn the train around without having to put in a turn table.
>> It
>> will require lots of new engines for the commuter train systems.
>>
>>
>>
>> "Brian Foster" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Guy in LA used one to derail a comuter train. Killed 11 people and
>>> injured
>>> 180. That's not very cool.
>>>
>>> But who would of thought a Jeep could derail a train?
>>>
>>> I would of thought it would look like a soda can after it was run over by
>> a
>>> train.....
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

--
"I defer to your plainly more vivid memories of topless women with
whips....r"
R. H. Draney recalls AFU in the Good Old Days.

Not the local trains here, Southern California. Our trains are either pulled
or pushed, depending on which way they are going.





"Snow" > wrote in message
...
> The local passenger commuter trains here have engines at both ends, so it
> always has one engine at the front pulling and the other at the back
> pushing..
>
> Snow...
>
> "Jeff Strickland" > wrote in message
> ...
> > The reason the train derailed so easily was that it was being pushed. If
> > the
> > engine was in the front, and was pulling the train, by all accounts it
> > would
> > have remained on the track The second train was being pulled by its
> > engine,
> > and it did remain on the track, having said that, the last car on the
> > second
> > train did come off the track, indeed it came off the train.
> >
> > The car of the train that hit the Jeep got pushed sideways by the
impact,
> > and since it was being pushed from behind by the locomotive, it left the
> > track. It went to the side where another freight locomotive was parked.
> > When
> > it hit that engine, then the car went completely sideways. In the mean
> > time,
> > due to the schedule, another train was coming from the opposite
direction
> > at
> > the same time. As the first train continued down the track, getting
worse
> > by
> > the second, it began to rub on the second train. Eventually the fully
> > sideways car of the first train caused the last car of the second train
to
> > completely leave the tracks, and become disconnected from its train.
After
> > all of that, the parked freight locomotive was tipped over and its fuel
> > spilled out and ignited.
> >
> > As a result of this accident, there might be a new rule for trains to
> > always
> > be pulled from the front and never pushed from the back. I don't know
how
> > this can be accomplished because most commuter trains have no means of
> > turning around. My guess is that they will keep engines on sidings, and
> > pull
> > the train the parked engine, then drive that engine (pointed the
opposite
> > direction) to the back of the train, and swap engines. This will
> > efffectively turn the train around without having to put in a turn
table.
> > It
> > will require lots of new engines for the commuter train systems.
> >
> >
> >
> > "Brian Foster" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> Guy in LA used one to derail a comuter train. Killed 11 people and
> >> injured
> >> 180. That's not very cool.
> >>
> >> But who would of thought a Jeep could derail a train?
> >>
> >> I would of thought it would look like a soda can after it was run over
by
> > a
> >> train.....
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>