Trains.com

Subscriber & Member Login

Login, or register today to interact in our online community, comment on articles, receive our newsletter, manage your account online and more!

Rule 562

6953 views
17 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    November 2013
  • From: Los Angeles
  • 283 posts
Rule 562
Posted by JOHN BRUCE III on Monday, October 17, 2016 10:07 AM

A relatively new feature of the prototype signal scene is Rule 562, My understanding of Rule 562 is that cab signals allow 110 mph operation without lineside intermediate signals, but there must be lineside signals at interlockings and CPs. However, looking at videos of operation on the Amtrak Michigan 110 mph line, it doesn't seem like there are always lineside signals at CPs (for instance, at the beginning and end of controlled sidings like the one at New Buffalo, MI). Does anyone know if Rule 562 allows for CPs without lineside signals under certain conditions? Or are camera angles giving me the wrong idea?

My blog: http://modelrrmisc.blogspot.com/
  • Member since
    May 2004
  • 7,500 posts
Posted by 7j43k on Monday, October 17, 2016 11:26 AM

First, should no one here prove helpful, I will mention that there's a Yahoo group:  Railway-Signaling.

They have been quite helpful with my questions in signal matters.

I did a search on their list for "562" and found a buncha entries that were over my head, so I do know there's some familiarity there.

 

Second, allowing 110 mph into an unprotected interlocking sounds, uh, unprofessional.  If my uninformed scan of the question is anywhere near correct.

Ed

  • Member since
    November 2013
  • From: Los Angeles
  • 283 posts
Posted by JOHN BRUCE III on Monday, October 17, 2016 12:05 PM

The interlocking is protected by cab signals in addition to lineside signals. The best example I can find is a photo angle of the New Buffalo, MI siding CP from a road or footbridge, which I've seen on several videos, where no lineside signals seem to be visible in the line of sight of the angle. 

My blog: http://modelrrmisc.blogspot.com/
  • Member since
    May 2004
  • 7,500 posts
Posted by 7j43k on Monday, October 17, 2016 12:16 PM

For those of you, like myself, who never heard of Rule 562, here's a source:

 

http://thebecketts.com/images/NORAC%208th%20Edition%20NJT.pdf

 

I just did a Google satellite view of the siding in question.  I definitely saw full signaling at the west end.  At the east end,  there do look to be signals also, except that there's some tree obstruction, and the entry signal looks to be strange--maybe a single head?????

 

Ed

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • From: Omaha, NE
  • 10,621 posts
Posted by dehusman on Monday, October 17, 2016 1:12 PM

JOHN BRUCE III

A relatively new feature of the prototype signal scene is Rule 562, My understanding of Rule 562 is that cab signals allow 110 mph operation without lineside intermediate signals, but there must be lineside signals at interlockings and CPs.

As I read the rule, that's not what it says.

 

NORAC Rule 562(a) Interlocking and controlled point signal indications will govern movement within interlocking limits or through controlled points only. Distant signals, where in service, will govern approach to home signals. Between fixed signals, movement will be governed by cab signals.

 

What that is saying is that Interlocking and CP signals ONLY govern movement through the interlocking or CP.  It doesn't say there has to be a fixed signal at the CP or interlocking.

Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com

  • Member since
    May 2004
  • 7,500 posts
Posted by 7j43k on Monday, October 17, 2016 1:29 PM

I'll let you guys figure ole 562 out.

IS the siding at New Buffalo "controlled"?  If there are signals at the switches, surely.

But.  You can certainly have sidings on CTC without signals.

The sidings at Lyle, WA are not signalled.  The main trackage is CTC.

 

 

Ed

 

  • Member since
    November 2013
  • From: Los Angeles
  • 283 posts
Posted by JOHN BRUCE III on Monday, October 17, 2016 1:53 PM

Doing further research, the Michigan 110 mph line is equipped with a cab signal system called ITCS, which was developed for this line and is exclusive to it. However, this is neither here nor there as it relates to Rule 562, as far as I can see, but I am beginning to see Dave H has a point, the rule doesn't seem to require fixed signals anywhere, although there seem to be fixed signals almost all the time at CPs and interlockings in cab signal territory.

I'm interested in this, because it seems to me that in the next 10 years, we may start to see the prototype doing away with fixed signals.

 

My blog: http://modelrrmisc.blogspot.com/
  • Member since
    October 2001
  • From: OH
  • 17,574 posts
Posted by BRAKIE on Monday, October 17, 2016 2:14 PM

JOHN BRUCE III
I'm interested in this, because it seems to me that in the next 10 years, we may start to see the prototype doing away with fixed signals.

Not with PTC the Feds want that's costing billions for the railroads to install.

IMHO signals is needed most before and at CP points,crossovers and for inbound/outbound terminal tracks.

Larry

Conductor.

Summerset Ry.


"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt  Safety First!"

  • Member since
    January 2002
  • From: Canterlot
  • 9,575 posts
Posted by zugmann on Monday, October 17, 2016 3:50 PM

 

I run on a couple lines with 562.  The one has no intermediate or automatic signals.  The only lineside signals are at the CPs.  Cab signals are your only signals otherwise.  If you are to stop at a CP, your cabs drop to approach, then to restricting before you get to the stop signal at the interlocking.  There are provisions in the rulebooks if cab signals go inoperative (either in the locomotive or in the track). 

The other line I run on has just one automatic signal before each CP (also is a higher speed line).  

 

It's been fun.  But it isn't much fun anymore.   Signing off for now. 


  

The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any

  • Member since
    May 2004
  • 7,500 posts
Posted by 7j43k on Monday, October 17, 2016 4:13 PM

On MY railroad, we will not be removing the ABS signals until:

 

hell freezes over, there's a rink built, and the Devil sponsors a team (I know, I know.  Some of you think He already has.)

or

steam engines come back and their exhaust only emits oxygen (global warming and all)

or 

the Cubs win a Series.  uh, no.  Scratch that one.

or

I finish all my model railroading projects.  Including that Ambroid GN express reefer I can't find.

or

I get a $100,000 check from the IRS complimenting me on being a good citizen and hardly ever doing any felonies.

 

or..........

 

 

Ed

 

PS:  We also will not be going to "dark" ABS signals.  The corporate officers like the colored lights.  They think they're "pretty" (well, some use the word "cool")  Hell.  The EMPLOYEES like them, too.  How often do you get management-labor agreement, anyway?

PPS:  Bill Mauldin.  Thanks for doing really excellent work.

 

  • Member since
    May 2004
  • 7,500 posts
Posted by 7j43k on Monday, October 17, 2016 4:20 PM

Ya know,

This cab signal thing opens up a buncha locomotive lighting possibilities for certain model railroad manufacturers who need another bell and whistle.  Just sayin'.

 

Ed

  • Member since
    March 2003
  • From: Central Iowa
  • 6,901 posts
Posted by jeffhergert on Tuesday, October 18, 2016 9:20 PM

BRAKIE

 

 
JOHN BRUCE III
I'm interested in this, because it seems to me that in the next 10 years, we may start to see the prototype doing away with fixed signals.

 

Not with PTC the Feds want that's costing billions for the railroads to install.

IMHO signals is needed most before and at CP points,crossovers and for inbound/outbound terminal tracks.

 

It's the installation and maybe the evolution of PTC systems that have some predicting wayside signals will eventually go away.

Jeff

  • Member since
    October 2001
  • From: OH
  • 17,574 posts
Posted by BRAKIE on Wednesday, October 19, 2016 5:42 AM

jeffhergert
It's the installation and maybe the evolution of PTC systems that have some predicting wayside signals will eventually go away. Jeff

Jeff,That would not surprise me seeing less signals will mean less signal maintainers. The railroads is already pushing for a one man crew on road freights.

Larry

Conductor.

Summerset Ry.


"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt  Safety First!"

  • Member since
    November 2013
  • From: Los Angeles
  • 283 posts
Posted by JOHN BRUCE III on Wednesday, October 19, 2016 3:10 PM

7j43k

Ya know,

This cab signal thing opens up a buncha locomotive lighting possibilities for certain model railroad manufacturers who need another bell and whistle.  Just sayin'.

 

Ed

 

As I start to work on hooking up a DCC layout to JMRI, I think a more do-able development would be to include cab signals on a handheld digital throttle type device -- maybe not just containing a dial and function keys, but a screen that contains what you'd see in the loco cab, including cab signals. 

My experience with signals over time is that they're high-maintenance items, easily knocked over. The fewer on a model, the better!

My blog: http://modelrrmisc.blogspot.com/
  • Member since
    July 2016
  • From: Cumberland Plateau
  • 393 posts
Posted by CentralGulf on Wednesday, October 19, 2016 3:35 PM

BRAKIE

The railroads is already pushing for a one man crew on road freights.

Lac-Mégantic should have made them rethink that. Sigh

CG

 

  • Member since
    May 2004
  • 7,500 posts
Posted by 7j43k on Wednesday, October 19, 2016 4:31 PM

CentralGulf

 

 
BRAKIE

The railroads is already pushing for a one man crew on road freights.

 

 

Lac-Mégantic should have made them rethink that. Sigh

CG

 

 

 

I believe Lac-Megantic was a NO man crew.  As in, there was no crew when it ran away.

You might consider the event at the newly remodeled Hoboken Terminal.  One man crew, for sure.

 

 

Ed

  • Member since
    July 2016
  • From: Cumberland Plateau
  • 393 posts
Posted by CentralGulf on Wednesday, October 19, 2016 8:34 PM

7j43k

I believe Lac-Megantic was a NO man crew.  As in, there was no crew when it ran away.

You might consider the event at the newly remodeled Hoboken Terminal.  One man crew, for sure.

 

Ed

 

The Lac-Mégantic one man crew did not set the brakes properly (or on the required number of cars). Two crew persons are now required (at least on oil trains in that area, if not all of Canada). 

The Hoboken train had more than one crew aboard, but the conductor was not required to be in the control cab when the train came to the end of the line. I believe that has since changed.

  • Member since
    November 2013
  • From: Los Angeles
  • 283 posts
Posted by JOHN BRUCE III on Friday, October 21, 2016 9:04 AM

I see now that NS is converting the Pittsburgh Line to Rule 562, because PRR/PC/CR/NS locos have been fitted with cab signals for decades. This will involve removing intermediate fixed signals, including at least one modern tubular gantry and the end of PRR position light signals. 

A modeler's issue is what an intermediate signal site looks like under Rule 562 -- apparently there are equipment boxes and other items, but no signal. Maybe MR can pick this up and run an article.

My blog: http://modelrrmisc.blogspot.com/

Subscriber & Member Login

Login, or register today to interact in our online community, comment on articles, receive our newsletter, manage your account online and more!

Users Online

There are no community member online

Search the Community

ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Model Railroader Newsletter See all
Sign up for our FREE e-newsletter and get model railroad news in your inbox!