I read an article in a recent issue of "Trains Magazine" about a passenger train accident due (most likely) to confusion on the part of the engineer as to the meaning of a red over yellow signal aspect. The author made the suggestion that US railroads could follow the example of their Canadian competitors and adopt common signaling practices. The main argument against doing so is that railroading in different parts of the country are so different that they require different signaling.
Now I don't buy that! Canada has any terrain that we've got in the US with the exception of deserts, and they've managed it. Don't misunderstand me, I'm not up on my high horse here! Europe sure has nothing close to uniform signaling practices outside of individual countries. Heck, Germany has 4 different signal systems in effect: upper quadrant semaphore signals, Hp Signals (former Federal DB), Hl Signals (former East German DR), and the new Ks Signals, which are supposed to eventually replace all previous signal systems. But until then... And Europeans can't even agree on right-hand running on their double tracked mains!
Still, it seems like since Canadian and US railroading are so similar, couldn't all North American railways agree on common signaling?
This has been discussed at some length already, as a search on signals and signalling will show. You just have to weed through the model-type posts.
IIRC, there are several kinds of signalling - occupancy, speed, interlocking. Given the number of aspects required, and the resources available to provide those aspects, you can easily get to the point of needing to duplicate signal aspects in order to confer different meanings, given a specific location.
That's not to say that there couldn't be some streamlining, but you still have to reconcile several rules systems, a plethora of different specific situations, and years of corporate philosophies (dating back through several generations of mergers in some cases) in order to come up with a single unified schema.
Heck, just a look at the Rochelle webcam points up some of that. BNSF runs right-handed, UP runs left handed. In the case of UP, that is even more interesting, since I believe the bulk of the UP system generally runs right handed. The line through Rochelle is former C&NW - a corporate legacy.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
blue streak 1 wrote:Guys read Al Krug's page on signals on aspect and indication. That reference will give you a good idea of signals and tells me no more heads would be required bot might take some reprograming of newer type signals and maybe a flasher installed in the signal cabin. Older all mechanical systems might take more work.
About $30 billion to do the job. This is in an industry with an annual capital expenditure capability of approximately $12 billion and an annual misinterpreted-signal casualty cost of maybe $5 million.
RWM
tree68 wrote: This has been discussed at some length already, as a search on signals and signalling will show. You just have to weed through the model-type posts.
I tried the search and found no posts on the topic within the last 2 years. Perhaps it has been discussed at length, but I thought that the recent mishap warranted bringing up the topic again.
And I still say that, if the Canadians could do it (albeit per decree), so could the US railroads.
I have checked Mr. Krug's site before, and it is very informative!
Lee Koch wrote: tree68 wrote: This has been discussed at some length already, as a search on signals and signalling will show. You just have to weed through the model-type posts.I tried the search and found no posts on the topic within the last 2 years. Perhaps it has been discussed at length, but I thought that the recent mishap warranted bringing up the topic again.And I still say that, if the Canadians could do it (albeit per decree), so could the US railroads.I have checked Mr. Krug's site before, and it is very informative!
Anything is possible, but who in their right mind would propose spending $30 billion dollars for a return of $5 million. Even if the US dollar is cheap.
"We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics
The two threads that discussed this are:
http://cs.trains.com/forums/1386705/ShowPost.aspxhttp://cs.trains.com/forums/1346122/ShowPost.aspx
I don't think anyone arguing it could not be done. It's merely a matter of money.
blue streak 1 wrote:These cost estimates seem way out of line. Why not just modify the offending signals during normal maintenance or upgades? Some More descriptive signals would still allow for the older aspects.
Why do you think those estimates are out of line?
Perhaps I can help, but I would first need to know:
Railway Man is, unfortunately, on the money. Not surprising. It's not as simple as changing something during regular maintenance. It would be necessary to change over all at once, and retrain all your road people -- and it's not just changing a few bulbs. More like a few thousand miles of wire and who knows how many relays.
The Canadian problem was much easier: when it was done, there were only two railroads in the country, and one of them was a Crown corporation. And the differences there were minor. The differences in the US are very very significant.
blue streak 1 wrote:I believe that the point that several people have made is that at different locations different aspects indicate restricting. As management or as a operator I don't want to miss a restricting indication. I have observed that CSX engineers near where i live will do anything not to operate on a restricting aspect. The northbound interlocking signal will give a restricting as soon a train clears the interlocking as soon as the switch is properly aligned for a following movement. However the engineers almost always wait until they have at least an approach indication. That shows how much they respect restricting. To missinterpret an aspect as not restricting is not to be taken lightly. That is why there needs to be standardization of at least this indication.
It has nothing to do with respect, as it does speed. With a restricting they can only go, for the most part, walking speed. An approach allows for much faster movement and less looking out.
An "expensive model collector"
I guess Railroading has changed since my time in the Signal Dept. To operate a track car or an engine (that is be an engineer) you had to pass a rules exam which very clearly said what the signal aspects meant on the division you authority to operate on. If you were an engineer on ABC RR you did not operate on XYZ RR therefore you could not confuse signal aspects. I donj't understand why all the bickering. And the exzaggerated costs for changing to a standard.
bwisch wrote:In my day a lunar signal on the MoPac was used to designate going from a signal controlled track to an unsignal controlled track and if you hit anything you were history. Rules were rules.
No different now on any railroad I work for.
I don't buy the exaggerated costs being estimated here either. Every Class I has CTC on their main lines. Most of them use color signal lights in some combination of green, red and yellow. Switch the oculars if you have to (20 minutes), reprogram your signaling software (expensive, but not in the billions), perhaps change a relay here and there, and adapt your rules book. Traffic lights for roads all work the same, and can be adapted to VERY different situations. It can be done, and at lower cost than has been claimed here.
And railroads have been known to invest plenty of money in their infrastructure at minimal return just because it improves operations. See the fly-over through Wichita, KS. That cost a bundle compared to the costs of grade crossing incidents on that particular stretch!
Lee Koch wrote: I don't buy the exaggerated costs being estimated here either. Every Class I has CTC on their main lines. Most of them use color signal lights in some combination of green, red and yellow. Switch the oculars if you have to (20 minutes), reprogram your signaling software (expensive, but not in the billions), perhaps change a relay here and there, and adapt your rules book. Traffic lights for roads all work the same, and can be adapted to VERY different situations. It can be done, and at lower cost than has been claimed here.And railroads have been known to invest plenty of money in their infrastructure at minimal return just because it improves operations. See the fly-over through Wichita, KS. That cost a bundle compared to the costs of grade crossing incidents on that particular stretch!
Lee: Thanks for sharing your opinions so candidly. My day job includes directing a 20-person signal design team, preparing cost estimates of signal installations, and writing railroad business plans including return-on-investment calculations for everything from new main tracks to short-line rail rehabilitations to freight opportunities large and small, so if there's anything further I can add or explain, please don't hesitate to ask.
Let me toss in a wild card. What about signals where the colored lights compete directly with the rising or setting sun? At Fullerton CA, when the sun is setting at one of the Equinoxes (like now) it is setting right behind the signals west of the station. I have some difficulty ascertaining if the signal is flashing or not, let alone whether it is yellow or red. Green is easier to see but not by much. And I have good, often tested, color vision. (I worked in electronics, and job entry requirements often included a color vision test.)
This is one area where the old semaphores had a distinct advantage.
Jack
Jack_S wrote:Let me toss in a wild card. What about signals where the colored lights compete directly with the rising or setting sun? At Fullerton CA, when the sun is setting at one of the Equinoxes (like now) it is setting right behind the signals west of the station. I have some difficulty ascertaining if the signal is flashing or not, let alone whether it is yellow or red. Green is easier to see but not by much. And I have good, often tested, color vision. (I worked in electronics, and job entry requirements often included a color vision test.)This is one area where the old semaphores had a distinct advantage.Jack
Semaphores indeed had an advantage in that situation -- plus, you can see them from the back side, too, which was nice back in the track-car lineup days.
However, (1) the engineman must know where the signals are on the territory, and (2) if the signal aspect cannot be determined, then the engineman must regard that signal as displaying its most restrictive aspect.
There are other common reasons for a signal aspect to be indeterminate, such as lamp failure, the head has turned sideways due to wind, vandalism, power or circuit failure, mast is down because it was struck by a shifted load or wayward rubber-tire vehicle, snow is blocking the lens, etc.
Today signals are standard, but there are two versions. One is ATC(Automatic Traffic Control), which will stop trains moving past a red, and convential CTC. The only place where trains run on the left hand is on UP's ex-CNW mainlines.
In Mexico, it's all train orders and telegraph, and I think KCSM runs on CTC or ATC.
Railway Man wrote: Lee: Thanks for sharing your opinions so candidly. My day job includes directing a 20-person signal design team, preparing cost estimates of signal installations, and writing railroad business plans including return-on-investment calculations for everything from new main tracks to short-line rail rehabilitations to freight opportunities large and small, so if there's anything further I can add or explain, please don't hesitate to ask.RWM
Thanks, Railwayman, I am glad to know that somebody out there does know what they're talking about. Didn't mean to ruffle anybody's feathers, though. And while I have to admire the skills of a locomotive engineer who has passed tests on varying signal systems, it still seems to me like savings would be greater in the long run. Instead of having to teach personell all the varying systems, just teach them one. That would also make it easier for somebody to change employers, and would save the new employer from having to re-train the guy. No departments having to draw up railroad-specific rules, because they'd be the same at every railroad. Uniform cab signals would also make pooling motive power easier.
I just don't get why the railroads get so defensive about their own signals/rules, etc. And as to the argument about wanting to know what's going on, yeah, I am a die-hard rail fan, and one of the aspects of the hobby I really enjoy is reading signal aspects. But it's almost like some folks want signaling to be priviledged information available only to members of an elite fraternity, or something.
And of course, the whole question of uniform signaling ties in with the concept of open access, but I don't think we want to go there in this thread.
Lee Koch wrote:Thanks, Railwayman, I am glad to know that somebody out there does know what they're talking about. Didn't mean to ruffle anybody's feathers, though. And while I have to admire the skills of a locomotive engineer who has passed tests on varying signal systems, it still seems to me like savings would be greater in the long run. Instead of having to teach personell all the varying systems, just teach them one. That would also make it easier for somebody to change employers, and would save the new employer from having to re-train the guy. No departments having to draw up railroad-specific rules, because they'd be the same at every railroad. Uniform cab signals would also make pooling motive power easier. I just don't get why the railroads get so defensive about their own signals/rules, etc. And as to the argument about wanting to know what's going on, yeah, I am a die-hard rail fan, and one of the aspects of the hobby I really enjoy is reading signal aspects. But it's almost like some folks want signaling to be priviledged information available only to members of an elite fraternity, or something.And of course, the whole question of uniform signaling ties in with the concept of open access, but I don't think we want to go there in this thread.
Lee: Teaching people the different systems in the operating crafts is not hard, or expensive, or time consuming -- at least when I learned them at my Class I, it didn't seem hard to me. And you get to carry a "cheat sheet" -- the employee timetables -- with you at all times. In signal engineering it gets quite a bit more complicated but I don't have any trouble shifting from one railway's system to another on a daily basis. The number of accidents caused by trainmen misinterpreting a signal is a very small number -- maybe once a year. I don't see it as a problem begging to be solved when there are so many much more important safety issues that do kill large numbers of people, e.g., grade-crossings.
We don't have too much cab signaling in the U.S. on freight railroads. Within 10 years it is expected to be gone, replaced by CBTC, on which BNSF, NS, UP and CSX have essentially agreed on a common standard.
Signal departments sometimes do come across as defensive, and not without reason. Very few people at railroads outside of the signal department understand how the signal system works and how easy it is to make mistakes. When I moved into signal from operating I have to say the learning curve was even more unpleasant than it was in operating, and it wasn't any fun at all learning operating. Signal engineering and maintenance is not rocket science but the details are all critical, each detail affects every other detail, and overlooking any one of them is disastrous.
Signaling is different between railroads because each railroad has different geography and traffic, and each railroad wants to get the most out of their property for the big money that signaling costs. Just one simple CTC siding costs at least $1.5 million for the signals alone. One-size-fits-all solutions are usually inefficient solutions. It would be cheaper to sew and sell clothing if it all came in one size, but it would fit almost no one.
Question here. As updated lineside signals are installed-replacement of old systems, dark to signaled, new construction, etc.-is each railroad employing a system wide standard for display aspects? It seems to me that that would make some sense. Some exceptions, but most freight train crews don't don't get off their employer's rails. With that, what would be the point of nationwide uniformity?
On the other hand, is there any move for uniform standards for ATC systems? Seems like that might be driven by the need for some uniformity with the hardware in locomotives. As we all know, locomotives do frequently run off the the home road.
Answered above. (CBCT)
I don't think anyone is going to question the red=stop, green=go concept. It is standard across the land.
Interlockings are a different animal, of course, and some are more unique than others (how do you approach a unique interlocking? You 'neak up on it...).
It's all those gray areas that seem to be the problem. Either a given aspect only exists on this fallen flag's lines, or the rules for it are different.
To try and draw slightly different angle here - what if one state used arrows to signify left turn permissions at intersections (as most do nowadays), but another simply added a lunar to the rest of the lights? If the light is green and you have a lunar as well, you're clear to make a left turn. Another state uses a flashing amber, with a lunar to indicate that you can make a left turn, but watch out for oncoming traffic.
Hopefully you get my drift.
The railroads do tend to be a lot like the fire service - only the fire service has been doing it longer - 300 years of tradition unfettered by progress.
Standardizing signal aspects across the country can hardly be a bad thing. What needs to be discerned is exactly where there are aspects that are inconsistent, why they exist, and what the best solution would be (ie, what aspect should replace the existing aspect and still accomplish the desired result).
Since so much of the country is already on at least a similar sheet of music, sorting out the "trouble" spots might actually turn out to be less painful than years of work and millions upon millions of dollars.
Those unique locations (and the track profile) notwithstanding, I'd bet that any of our resident engineers could run virtually anywhere in the country. Red=stop, Yellow=slow down, Green=go.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.