Agreed.

1. Let's not pretend that this was a "crazy" Trump move. Any Republican would have done this.

2. Let's stop pretending both parties are the same. Yes, there are places where they overlap, but there are important places where there is NO overlap. Environmental action is the big area where there is little to no overlap.

And yet despite having a majority of the house and senate under Biden they've been unable to deliver almost anything except an unfair railroad contract.

So maybe, just maybe, the 2 sides are willing to shout about different things but at the end of the day are in fact the same.

Razor thin margin in the Senate and at least 2 of the "Democrats" are not really going to vote on anything controversial. They have been shills, so far, for business interests.

Are you saying there was no possible way to get railroad safety through?

But it was the Republicans' fault

well it seems Dems put the rule in place, Republicans removed it, and then the Dems didn't act fast enough to re-instate it.

if i where to point at who has the most fault it here would be the Republicans.

If someone puts up a tent and someone else purposely burns it down, is the first person partially at fault for not rebuilding it when everyone gets rained on?

no? its the 2nd person for burning it down. full stop.

I'm saying the situation Biden has been in since he took office is very tenuous. There was a virtual tie on paper, with the VP breaking the tie, but 2 of the people on the Dem side were not at all cooperative with the agenda that Biden wanted.

To say "the Dems could have done it if they wanted it" is not at all true.

Both parties primarily serve the interests of the 0.1%, hence the reduction in safety protections under Trump and the imposition of an unfair contract and the removal of the right to strike under Biden. Got to squeeze out every last fraction of a percent of profit to keep Berkshire Hathaway's stock price up.

Normally I'd agree with you, but not on this.

The Democrats had the option of doing nothing. The railroad workers would have had a strike for a variety of their issues (safety being high on the list), and the workers would have gotten a better deal than the one they got.

Unfortunately the strike would have to have lasted long enough and been painful enough for the train companies to accept that they had to negotiate with workers rather than trying to bargain with Congress. That's fundamentally why Congress caved - because THEY would be blamed for the economic disruption. But that doesn't change the fact that simply doing nothing would have been a better outcome for workers.

Have you ever considered that maybe the reason there’s always a Democrat or two willing to block progressive legislation is that the Democratic Party wants it that way? That way they can have their cake, by promising progressive reform, and eat it, by not delivering that reform and thus, not pissing off their donors. I’ve been hearing about these one or two non-compliant Democrats my whole voting life (remember Joe Lieberman?), and yet the party never invests resources in primarying them.

Just a thought.

It’s always a popular conspiracy theory that either side has certain “renegade” members that are there mostly to prevent popular with people but not with big money laws from getting through.

And Biden and Buttigieg didn’t make it a priority to re-implement the law while they had control of both houses, and instead shoved an unfair contract down railroad workers throats.

Fair point, but from what I've read the preliminary cause identified pertains to an axle (not braking) issue?

The idea is that you stop quicker, before the axle actually fails.

So the train initiated a stop, the axle broke, and they did not stop in time? Why did they initiate the stop?

First I've heard of this.

*Update - NTSB is saying it was bearing failure - https://www.ntsb.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/NR20230214.as...

ctrl+f for 'axle' or 'brake' from the NTSB statement - zero results

What do you think the bearing is containing?

That doesn't mean it was the brake. The bearing contains the brake. The axle contains the bearing. The train contains the axle.

Not enough information to determine what caused the bearing to fail, bearing failures account for 5.9% of all train derailments[1].

Though we can look at common train bearing failures to get a likelihood...

Most likely it was a simple lack of maintenance. It's possible to prevent this with more sensors[2] and tighter maintenance checks.

[1] https://www.wisnerbaum.com/blog/2016/september/the-most-comm...

[2] https://www.southampton.ac.uk/engineering/research/projects/...

No, you e got it backwards. The train contains the bogey which contains the bearing which contains the axle.

Err yes you're right on that.

My point though is the "bearing failing" is too generic to determine what on it failed.

Sometimes the brakes are fixed to the axle, are they not? In that case it couldn't be the brake.

I’m not waiting y the brake failed. It can take minutes for air brakes to respond on a long train. Once they become aware of the hot axle, if they could stop quicker, then the bearing doesn’t fail, which causes the axle to drop out, and thus the train to derail.

Think about pulling over as soon as you know you’ve taken a hit to a tire instead of continuing to drive until you’re on nothing but a rim and sparks.

Containing? Discs for braking are mounted and fixed to the axle. Bearings allow for rotation of the axle and are offset from the disc brake mount and constrained on other axes. I don't know what kind of train or brake system was used on this train, so I can't speak to whether brakes or Donald Trump ;) are to blame for this.

Sure, but it's a little more complicated than that. A 2015 act of Congress mandated that the Department of Transportation repeal the braking requirement if an analysis showed more costs than benefits. The act was mostly to address high profile oil tanker derailments, shipments which peaked around 2014. The Trump administration concluded, probably mistakenly, that an cost-benefit analysis justified it revocation. Of course there was much lobbying by the railroad and oil industries.

Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg’s department has no plans to reinstate an Obama-era rail safety rule aimed at expanding the use of better braking technology, even though a former federal safety official recently warned Congress that without the better brakes.

The Biden administration has had every opportunity to reinstate the safety rule in the past two years.

https://www.sltrib.com/news/nation-world/2018/12/20/trump-ad...

https://jacobin.com/2023/02/department-of-transportation-tra...

To be fair, besides the primary initiative of keeping all the wealth in the hands of a few, the secondary purpose of a Republican administration is to undo anything done by a Democratic administration. There was no way for Trump to know whether the legislation was good or bad. It could have gone either way, really.

It's felt like any republican 'rolling back' dem-initiated legislation tends to have more negative consequences for more people than positive benefits for others. I don't have any specifics in mind - if I think of any I'll edit/add here. But perhaps others have counter examples to correct my gut feeling?

So republicans are just guilty until proven innocent?

You posted two duplicate comments in this thread only to claim that it was Trump's fault?

Would ECP brakes have stopped this, a serious question? I don't know if the severity of this warrants blame on a lack of ECP braking. There is a study done[1] that compared different pneumatic vs electronic signal brakes and ECP brakes could have potentially reduced the number of cars in a derailment but I don't know if it's a significant decrease in cars that are derailed, 50 cars derailed. It does not seem that way to me. But I could be wrong.

[1]: https://www.ntsb.gov/news/events/Documents/2017_casselton_BM...

No it would not have, as another posted, the NTSB has reported this was a bearing failure[1].

Bearing failures account for 5.9% of all train derailments[2].

It's possible to help prevent this (not fully as many things derail trains) with more sensors[3] and tighter maintenance checks.

This was most likely due to a lack of maintenance.

[1] https://www.ntsb.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/NR20230214.as...

[2] https://www.wisnerbaum.com/blog/2016/september/the-most-comm...

[3] https://www.southampton.ac.uk/engineering/research/projects/...

In another universe, ECP brakes would have saved the day. It sounds like the Trump administration still deserves criticism for decaying train safety.

> ECP brakes would have saved the day

Citation needed.

It sounds like all administrations (especially those currently in charge) deserve criticism for not focusing on the correct regulations for train safety.

Requiring something that isn't needed doesn't help... It can hurt as it takes resources away from actual necessities, like sensors, and tighter maintenance inspections.

Did you just ask for a citation from a hypothetical universe?

Well then, we’ll have to do with a hypothetical citation from a real universe.

The U.S. National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) found that a train derailment near Philadelphia, Pennsylvania in May 2015 was prevented from being a disaster thanks to the train’s Emergency Control Power (ECP) brakes. According to the NTSB report, the ECP brakes, which are activated when the engineer loses control of the train, stopped the train within 1.25 seconds of the engineer’s attempts to stop it, preventing it from derailing. The ECP brakes are the most efficient braking system available, allowing trains to stop within a very short amount of time. Without them, the tragic derailment of Amtrak Train No. 188 may have been much worse.

"U.S. National Transportation Safety Board. "Investigation Report: Derailment of Amtrak Train No. 188 Near Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on May 12, 2015." May 2016. https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/....

easy! serial HNer contrarianism

Yeah how absurd of me to me to ask for their reasoning.

Not absurd at all to bring up another universe...

I ignored that silly part of their statement as you should have.

Read the link I posted above. It estimates breaking distance with EPC vs pneumatic along with reductions in cars that derail. It DOES reduce breaking time in emergency stops which has fewer cars derail but I don't know if it is enough of a reduction to be worthwhile. I don't think it would have dramatically reduced the number of cars that derailed in this accident. I am willing to be proven wrong.