I've long wondered why Amtrak doesn't post speed limit signs, or do they? I've seen them every now and then, something like F 50 P 80, meaning, I assumed, one limit for freight, another for passenger, but I don't think it was on Amtrak.
Patrick Boylan
Free yacht rides, 27' sailboat, zip code 19114 Delaware River, get great Delair bridge photos from the river. Send me a private message
In general, speed limit signs are posted at the points at which the speed limit is changed. Yes, the "F' applies to freights and the "P" applies to passenger--and if there are two different speed limits for passenger trains, such as in places were Talgo equipmnet is allowed a higer speed, there is a third number that applies to the equipment that is allowed a higher speed ("T" for Talgo). However, in some instances the reduced speeds are noted only in the ETT--and engineers and conductors must be familiar with those.
As to Amtrak's signs, I do not doubt that signs are posted where necessary, but since I seldom ride on Amtrak's rails, I also can say that I do not recall seeing such.
If there is no letter preceding a number where two numbers are present, it is understood that the higher number applies to passenger trains.
Johnny
Deggesty In general, speed limit signs are posted at the points at which the speed limit is changed. Yes, the "F' applies to freights and the "P" applies to passenger--and if there are two different speed limits for passenger trains, such as in places were Talgo equipmnet is allowed a higer speed, there is a third number that applies to the equipment that is allowed a higher speed ("T" for Talgo). However, in some instances the reduced speeds are noted only in the ETT--and engineers and conductors must be familiar with those. As to Amtrak's signs, I do not doubt that signs are posted where necessary, but since I seldom ride on Amtrak's rails, I also can say that I do not recall seeing such. If there is no letter preceding a number where two numbers are present, it is understood that the higher number applies to passenger trains.
Usually the speed limit sign is placed ahead of the restriction. How far ahead is specified by the railroad. If the change is from a lower to a higher speed, then it is where the higher speed begins. (It goes without saying, although I'm going to say it, that when changing to a higher speed it isn't in effect until the rear of the train is past that point. Unless the lower restriction is a head end-only type of restriction.)
Using the picture of the 100 mph permanent speed restriction in the June issue on the UP as an example. It should be 2500 feet (UP standard for that type of sign) from where the restriction begins, unless it is from a lower to a higher speed.
The signs are just a reminder. The crew is still required to know where all speed restrictions are at. Not slowing down for a restriction because the sign was missing would not be an excuse.
Jeff
NORAC rules don't specify a distance from the speed restriction notice (rule 296 or rule 296a ) to the speed limit sign ( rule 296b ). This could vary some depending on the track speed where the restriction is posted and the speed for the restriction. The FRA order required Amtrak to "fix" areas where the speed reduction was greater than 20 MPH, perhaps to standardize the distance from the posting to the limit.
In my area, a 79 MPH to 50 MPH reduction was recently changed to a two step, 79 to 65, and then 65 to 50 reduction for much the same reason.
Are we to believe that unions don't want cameras because they invade the engineer's privacy, but do want a second person in the cab?
Patrick,
I think the belief is that management will randomly use them for discipline rather than just for evidence in the event of an accident.
Norm
gardendanceAre we to believe that unions don't want cameras because they invade the engineer's privacy, but do want a second person in the cab?
Sure! To paraphrase, "What happens in the cab, stays in the cab." Minor rules violation with no negative outcome? No big deal if it's two people (and two union members). Camera? A near permanent record of how many times you sneezed. Are you taking an anti-histamine?
Bearing in mind that I don't condone use of meds like anti-histamines (most of which can cause drowsiness), but the thought that "big brother" might be reviewing your every move is a bit unsettling (and I'm not a union member).
Most folks would certainly oppose a camera permanently aimed at their desk, watching their every move. I'm not talking about stores, banks, etc, where such surveillance is part of loss prevention. I'm talking about your desk at the {name your business}.
It comes down to an expectation of privacy, and whether or not you have one.
On the other hand, such a camera may well have provided at least some explanation of what happened in Philly. And, like police cams, where more often than not the video record tends to exonerate the officer, not the "perp," such cameras may well provide the basis to exonerate the crew in the event of an incident. And the cameras may also help prove claims of fatigue and sleep disorders, which will result in changed work rules.
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...
tree68 gardendance Are we to believe that unions don't want cameras because they invade the engineer's privacy, but do want a second person in the cab? Sure! To paraphrase, "What happens in the cab, stays in the cab." Minor rules violation with no negative outcome? No big deal if it's two people (and two union members). Camera? A near permanent record of how many times you sneezed. Are you taking an anti-histamine? Bearing in mind that I don't condone use of meds like anti-histamines (most of which can cause drowsiness), but the thought that "big brother" might be reviewing your every move is a bit unsettling (and I'm not a union member). Most folks would certainly oppose a camera permanently aimed at their desk, watching their every move. I'm not talking about stores, banks, etc, where such surveillance is part of loss prevention. I'm talking about your desk at the {name your business}. It comes down to an expectation of privacy, and whether or not you have one. On the other hand, such a camera may well have provided at least some explanation of what happened in Philly. And, like police cams, where more often than not the video record tends to exonerate the officer, not the "perp," such cameras may well provide the basis to exonerate the crew in the event of an incident. And the cameras may also help prove claims of fatigue and sleep disorders, which will result in changed work rules.
gardendance Are we to believe that unions don't want cameras because they invade the engineer's privacy, but do want a second person in the cab?
tree68Most folks would certainly oppose a camera permanently aimed at their desk, watching their every move. I'm not talking about stores, banks, etc, where such surveillance is part of loss prevention. I'm talking about your desk at the {name your business}.
So I trust you are not suggesting that loss prevention in a store or bank gives a greater justification for video surveillance than safety factors, i.e., accident and death prevention? Controlling a locomotive with a real potential for losses of life and property is a bit different than sitting at a desk, don't you think?
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
$1 million + for installation of these cameras. Wonder how many miles of ASCES that would install? Priorities my son, priorities.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
Zug,
No one ever accused our federal government of spending money wisely.
And don't even think about tinkleing whilst under way!
gardendance I've long wondered why Amtrak doesn't post speed limit signs, or do they? I've seen them every now and then, something like F 50 P 80, meaning, I assumed, one limit for freight, another for passenger, but I don't think it was on Amtrak.
I have seen what look like curve speed signs suspended in the catenary -- 105, 90, etc. Not sure if they are temporary speeds or permanent.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Everyone needs to work under the constant scrutiny of a camera and retained media for your every working moment, with the realization that your boss can pull up the tape and charge you with rules violations after the fact - even though nothing out of ordinary happenings occurred during the work period.
Does wonders for one to feel secure in your job. Everyone should have such security. With such security no one should even object to NSA monitoring phone calls of US citizens.[/sarcasm]
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
schlimm tree68 Most folks would certainly oppose a camera permanently aimed at their desk, watching their every move. I'm not talking about stores, banks, etc, where such surveillance is part of loss prevention. I'm talking about your desk at the {name your business}. So I trust you are not suggesting that loss prevention in a store or bank gives a greater justification for video surveillance than safety factors, i.e., accident and death prevention? Controlling a locomotive with a real potential for losses of life and property is a bit different than sitting at a desk, don't you think?
tree68 Most folks would certainly oppose a camera permanently aimed at their desk, watching their every move. I'm not talking about stores, banks, etc, where such surveillance is part of loss prevention. I'm talking about your desk at the {name your business}.
I've had a few engines equipped with the inward cameras. Could anyone please tell me how this made me safer?
I think the cameras have multi hour recording and real time viewing capability. Just like the event recorders and, except for the real-time part, outward facing cameras. Most wouldn't mind so much if they were used for post-accident analysis and recorded in a short time loop, and shut off when stopped. While it can be a tool for post accident analysis, it will probably be used more (by some) to look for possible rule infractions. And while we all have the same rule book, the interpretation of a specific rule isn't always universal. One manager reads it one way, another manager reads it a different way. I can see where one might be defending their actions because one manager sees something they think is wrong.
There has been talk around the railroad that unofficially the enthusiasm for inward facing cameras has cooled somewhat. Seems the video can be used to support FELA injury lawsuits. Not to mention that other trial lawyers may try to use them in cases where trains have struck people or vehicles. They may be a two-edged sword.
I think Balt and Jeff summed it up best. The potential for abuse by management is always there and some won't hesitate to use the cameras against employees even though there is no immediate safety consideration.
If they were restricted by law to investigation use only in the event of an accident, and that were enforced, they may be more readily accepted.
[snipped]"...And while we all have the same rule book, the interpretation of a specific rule isn't always universal. One manager reads it one way, another manager reads it a different way. I can see where one might be defending their actions because one manager sees something they think is wrong.
There has been talk around the railroad that unofficially the enthusiasm for inward facing cameras has cooled somewhat. Seems the video can be used to support FELA injury lawsuits. Not to mention that other trial lawyers may try to use them in cases where trains have struck people or vehicles. They may be a two-edged sword..."
To Jeff Hergert's first point: Are the interpretations by management personnel currently the 'grist' for employee personnel and disciplinary hearings currently that currently wind up being arbitrated,in many cases by "The Labor Boards"?
and to Jeff's second point: "...Not to mention that other trial lawyers may try to use them in cases where trains have struck people or vehicles. They may be a two-edged sword..." I would suspect that he is absolutely correct. Positive Court hearings that would set 'case law' will be the eventual demise of the inward pointing camera systems.
My own personal view is that they have become a politically expedient answer for various politicians seeking to attach themselves(or their names?) to 'solutions' of future events that are caused by human foibles. [ More publicity than prevention.] Making the inward facing camera system more of a vehicle to assist Lawyers in seperating corporations from more of their money; than the safety tool envisioned by the 'pro' forces.
The old bromide -
'No good deed goes unpunished!'
Applies to most all knee jerk safety 'solutions'. Safety does not happen with jerkey knees - only more accidents and more finger pointing. Safety requires calm reasoned thought of all, I repeat ALL, possible ramifications of whatever change is implemented.
I can understand the clamor for inward facing cameras, but would like to point out that they will only tell us, after a wreck, what the crew was doing up to the time of the wreck. They amount to a post-mortem investigative tool; but unless there is more to them than I have been led to believe, THEY WILL NOT PREVENT THE WRECK. I continue to believe that PTC, plus a second pair of eyes in the cab, attached to a second brain, will be a more certain preventer.
In the meantime, I am sure managers will have a field day listening in on conversations in which T&E crews give their honest opinions about those very managers.
Tom
Can anyone tell me if the camera is powered from a battery source. The news reports seemed to indicate that the existing forward facing camera went dark at the time on the accident inferring it may have been powered by the AC supply thrugh the inverters which of course lost power as soon as the pantagraph lost contact with the overhead. Seems like a design flaw.
My carrier has a rule for head end crews to call wayside signal indications and any change in cab signals over the road channel of the radio. The call includes train ID, engine number, track number and identification of the signal.
Does Amtrak have a similar rule in place on the NEC?
ALL:
Before we get too involved in this tragic issue, please let the NTSB, etc. do their work! Please don't forget the eight people died and many others were injured.
Now that the dust has settled, can "ACY" tell me if the 81528 and 82776 were scrapped on site? It would seem that the 601 and the passenger cars will repaired as the NTSB and lawyers are finished with their investigations. This is from 38 years experience as a professional railroad on the NP-BN-BNSF in Minneapolis.
Ed Burns
I have no information about the disposition of the cars after the wreck. I understand everything was taken to Delaware (probably the shops at Bear, DE) for further evaluation, so I seriously doubt that anything was scrapped on site.
After the Auto Train derailed due to bad track in Florida about 15 years ago, some of the cars sat in Sanford for a few years. I was told this was because they had to remain intact until all the court cases were settled. I suspect nothing will be actually scrapped for quite a while, even if it is officially written off.
I can't guarantee that my suppositions are correct, of course.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.