|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Dec 19, 2017 11:14:25 GMT -8
They are now reporting that the train was supposed to take the curve leading up to the bridge over I-5 at 30 miles per hour. It was going 80 MPH when the crash occurred. Why then did the engine not derail? I guess I don't understand the physics of the event.
AzWm
|
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Dec 19, 2017 15:30:19 GMT -8
They are now reporting that the train was supposed to take the curve leading up to the bridge over I-5 at 30 miles per hour. It was going 80 MPH when the crash occurred. Why then did the engine not derail? I guess I don't understand the physics of the event. AzWm I believe that there were two engines. One at each end. It looks like the other engine is on the ground on the other side of the bridge. Don't know if the one on the tracks is the front or the back. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Dec 21, 2017 12:25:13 GMT -8
They are now reporting that the train was supposed to take the curve leading up to the bridge over I-5 at 30 miles per hour. It was going 80 MPH when the crash occurred. Why then did the engine not derail? I guess I don't understand the physics of the event. AzWm I believe that there were two engines. One at each end. It looks like the other engine is on the ground on the other side of the bridge. Don't know if the one on the tracks is the front or the back. I think you are correct. But the engine at the front of the train, as I interprete the photos, did not derail. Wonder why. AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Dec 21, 2017 22:41:22 GMT -8
I believe that there were two engines. One at each end. It looks like the other engine is on the ground on the other side of the bridge. Don't know if the one on the tracks is the front or the back. I think you are correct. But the engine at the front of the train, as I interprete the photos, did not derail. Wonder why. AzWm I think the engine still on the track was the rear engine. It was allegedly not under power. Lots of questions to be answered. |
|
