A Cars forum. AutoBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AutoBanter forum » Auto makers » Jeep
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

One more use for a Jeep GC



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 28th 05, 03:05 PM
Brian Foster
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.....


Ads
  #2  
Old January 28th 05, 05:01 PM
Nick
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.....
>
>



  #3  
Old January 28th 05, 06:36 PM
William Oliveri
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.....
> >
> >

>
>



  #4  
Old January 28th 05, 06:37 PM
Dave Milne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.....
> >
> >

>
>



  #5  
Old January 28th 05, 10:17 PM
Jeff Strickland
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.....
> >
> >

>
>



  #6  
Old January 28th 05, 10:30 PM
Jeff Strickland
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.....
>
>



  #7  
Old January 29th 05, 12:43 AM
DaveW
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.....
>>
>>

>
>
>


  #8  
Old January 29th 05, 03:12 PM
Snow
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.....
>>
>>

>
>



  #9  
Old January 30th 05, 09:53 PM
Lee Ayrton
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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.

  #10  
Old January 31st 05, 07:02 PM
Jeff Strickland
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.....
> >>
> >>

> >
> >

>
>



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Jeep VS others Elliot Westcott Chrysler 64 December 19th 04 03:22 PM
Lexus VS Jeep Marketing Brian Foster Jeep 11 December 18th 04 02:16 AM
Chrysler to show Jeep pickup and "FirePower" sports car concepts inDetroit MoPar Man Chrysler 4 December 10th 04 08:45 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:27 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AutoBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.