EuclidSo, there would never be a case where one would treat the sign message as being only avisory (optional) because the sign will always be dependent on the underlying authority, which is never advisory.
The sign merely signifies the specific limits of the authority. As I noted earlier in the thread, we had a slow order that was defined by a crossing and a milepost.
While neither has any authority in and of itself, they served the same purpose as the signs. They were simply advisory of the limits of the slow order.
Another example is a stop board at the beginning of a work area. Said board simply denotes the specific border of the work area. The crew cannot take their train into the work area without permission of the foreman. If they contact the foreman before arriving at said location and he gives them permission to pass through his work area at maximum allowable speed for their train, they don't even have to slow down when they pass the red/stop board.
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 Euclid So, there would never be a case where one would treat the sign message as being only avisory (optional) because the sign will always be dependent on the underlying authority, which is never advisory. The sign merely signifies the specific limits of the authority. As I noted earlier in the thread, we had a slow order that was defined by a crossing and a milepost. While neither has any authority in and of itself, they served the same purpose as the signs. They were simply advisory of the limits of the slow order.
Euclid So, there would never be a case where one would treat the sign message as being only avisory (optional) because the sign will always be dependent on the underlying authority, which is never advisory.
Well then the underlying authority needs the reference points of the crossing and the milepost to locate the extent of the underlying authority, so it seems to me that nothing about the crossing and milepost is advisory. They have to be in their location and referred to in the underlying authority as being an essential part of the underlying authority.
From the previous descriptions, it was said that the underlying authority for the DuPont speed restriction was completely established independently from the actual signs, and that the signs were therefore advisory because they had no meaning or role in establishing the underlying authority.
But now you say that the signs are necessary to establish the location of the underlying authority just like the crossing and milepost are necessary to establish the location of the underlying authority in your example above.
I would like to know exactly what the underlying authority for the DuPont speed restriction says. It has to cite a location on the ground, so there needs to be a marker on the ground that is cited by the underlying authority. I would assume that the markers would be the signs themselves, although it could be mile measurements from some other benchmark.
But if the signs are the markers for the underlying authority, the signs cannot be said to be advisory. Without the signs, the underlying authority is not completely defined.
The restriction in the time table would read something like
Maximum Speed: Passenger trains 79 mph, Freight trains XX mph , except as noted below:
MP 123.4 to MP 123.7......Psgr 30, Frt 30
Or something on that order. The limits would be defined by mile post location. Sign placement on BNSF, from a chart I saw, has advance signs 2 miles out. In the example given at MP 121.4 and MP 125.7. BNSF also has signs at the actual beginning of the restriction, MP 123.4 and 123.7 in the example. (UP only has the advance signs displayed. There is no sign at the actual restriction itself. The only way to determine it's exact location is to see the back side of the green resume speed sign, if one is displayed.)
Really they are a reminder that one is approaching a time table slow and an aid to determine when your train is clear of it. (Engine goes by the resume speed green sign and you start your counter.) If MOW is out working with a Jordan Spreader and knocks all the signs over, the permanent restriction still remains as it appears in the time table. That's why you need to know your territory.
Jeff
EuclidBut now you say that the signs are necessary to establish the location of the underlying authority just like the crossing and milepost are necessary to establish the location of the underlying authority in your example above.
No - I'm saying that the signs are used to establish the location.
EuclidBut if the signs are the markers for the underlying authority, the signs cannot be said to be advisory. Without the signs, the underlying authority is not completely defined.
The underlying authority is completely defined in the timetable or bulletin order.
Mile 123.4 is a specific location on the railroad. It's been established here that a slow order or other action can be required with or without a sign. The sign just says "you are here."
I'm sorry that this doesn't square with how you choose to see things, but this is how it is in the real world of railroading.
Sorry, but on this issue at least, your real world of railroading sounds like a muddled mess.
Euclid I faulted the CSX for failing to provide formal protection which everyone agreed they should have had.
I faulted the CSX for failing to provide formal protection which everyone agreed they should have had.
Not everyone.
An "expensive model collector"
charlie hebdo Sorry, but on this issue at least, your real world of railroading sounds like a muddled mess.
I agree. This line of discussion began by Overmod and Lithonia Operator suggesting that the signs should be made more conspicuous by adding fixed or even flashing lights to the existing signs. I oppose that idea of adding conspicuity. Like Balt, I think that is a slippery slope leading to unintended consequences.
Then Overmod suggested that the rather than adding conspicuity to the signs with lighting, the signs should be replaced by block signal control of the speed reduction zone. I questioned why block signal control would be better than signs, and Overmod said it was because the signs are only advisory.
That then led into this incredibly abstruse discussion about how the authority represented by the signs does not actually reside in the signs. The authority resides in documentation and the signs merely state what the documentation means. So the signs are inferior to block signals because the signs have no meaning—except as a supplementary reference.
Why didn’t the engineer in this DuPont wreck just set his counter to the timetable authority for the curve speed restriction rather than struggle to see signs passing by?
My preference would be to go back to PTC the way Jeff explained it earlier. The engineer can do whatever he wants, but if he does not slow down, PTC will intercede and slow him down automatically.
It's a mess. Various overlapping, including some archaic systems spell uncertainties, which can and did lead to disasters. Add to that the apparent fact that mileposts are sometimes inaccurate (MC?) to compound the confusion.
Jeff's idea makes the most sense. Of course PTC has problems, but largely because the railroads chose a dubious supplier and determined that it should overlap block signals.
EuclidThen Overmod suggested that the rather than adding conspicuity to the signs with lighting, the signs should be replaced by block signal control of the speed reduction zone. I questioned why block signal control would be better than signs, and Overmod said it was because the signs are only advisory.
If you're going to have screws loose, at least understand what the screws are before you loosen them.
What I discussed was explicitly not a "block signal" -- that came in with BaltACD, but I suspect because it served your purpose you latched onto it with typical avidity. It is a typical 'distant' and 'home' signal arrangement, as I said of an antiquity predating ABS of any electrical kind, the only difference with typical home and distant signals being the offset allowing safe braking from the 'restricted speed' of the home signal before reaching the physical curve.
Of course, neither aspect would be 'advisory' -- that point refers ONLY to wayside signs, and I made that point at least four times, evidently without the message getting through. The only reason I mentioned lights on wayside signs was that people like you didn't think reflectorizing them was enough to get them noticed, a point with which I agree; the "discussion" was only about what you do to a wayside sign THAT IS NOT A REQUIRED COMPLIANCE SIGNAL to get some distracted guy in the cab to notice it "in time".
Let me repeat, so there is no further confusion, that the answer here, until working PTC is installed and tested, is an approach signal (yellow or red) backed up by a home signal at permanent red, home far enough in advance of the curve that even a SPAD at restricted speed can be recovered in reasonable braking distance. They are signals that must be observed in the normal fashion of approach (distant) and home signals. This is in GCOR which is I believe what this WiDOT project was built to operate under.
PTC is mandated, so "of course" you will go to it when it is installed; you'll have to. I don't know why you're saying 'go back' to a system that was not yet installed, but I suppose that makes semantic sense to you somehow (if not to me). As I said, when PTC is running it makes the approach and distant signals less critical; they could be left dark with heads turned or even removed if desired, with PTC giving the same or better safety. That does not mean the approach and distant signals, if they continue to be lit, become somehow 'advisory' compared to PTC; an engineman would still have to observe them if for any reason PTC failed to reach the necessary speed target at them.
Does anybody else have problems comprehending this?
Overmod The only reason I mentioned lights on wayside signs was that people like you didn't think reflectorizing them was enough to get them noticed, a point with which I agree; PTC is mandated, so "of course" you will go to it when it is installed; you'll have to. I don't know why you're saying 'go back' to a system that was not yet installed,...
The only reason I mentioned lights on wayside signs was that people like you didn't think reflectorizing them was enough to get them noticed, a point with which I agree;
PTC is mandated, so "of course" you will go to it when it is installed; you'll have to. I don't know why you're saying 'go back' to a system that was not yet installed,...
To your first point: That is NOT the reason why I oppose adding lights to the signs for added conspicuity. I never stated such a reason. I oppose them for a completely different reason.
To your second point: When I say "go back" to PTC, I mean go back to the concept as detailed by Jeff on the previous page.
Overmod Euclid Then Overmod suggested that the rather than adding conspicuity to the signs with lighting, the signs should be replaced by block signal control of the speed reduction zone. I questioned why block signal control would be better than signs, and Overmod said it was because the signs are only advisory. If you're going to have screws loose, at least understand what the screws are before you loosen them. What I discussed was explicitly not a "block signal" -- that came in with BaltACD, but I suspect because it served your purpose you latched onto it with typical avidity. It is a typical 'distant' and 'home' signal arrangement, as I said of an antiquity predating ABS of any electrical kind, the only difference with typical home and distant signals being the offset allowing safe braking from the 'restricted speed' of the home signal before reaching the physical curve. Of course, neither aspect would be 'advisory' -- that point refers ONLY to wayside signs, and I made that point at least four times, evidently without the message getting through. The only reason I mentioned lights on wayside signs was that people like you didn't think reflectorizing them was enough to get them noticed, a point with which I agree; the "discussion" was only about what you do to a wayside sign THAT IS NOT A REQUIRED COMPLIANCE SIGNAL to get some distracted guy in the cab to notice it "in time". Let me repeat, so there is no further confusion, that the answer here, until working PTC is installed and tested, is an approach signal (yellow or red) backed up by a home signal at permanent red, home far enough in advance of the curve that even a SPAD at restricted speed can be recovered in reasonable braking distance. They are signals that must be observed in the normal fashion of approach (distant) and home signals. This is in GCOR which is I believe what this WiDOT project was built to operate under. PTC is mandated, so "of course" you will go to it when it is installed; you'll have to. I don't know why you're saying 'go back' to a system that was not yet installed, but I suppose that makes semantic sense to you somehow (if not to me). As I said, when PTC is running it makes the approach and distant signals less critical; they could be left dark with heads turned or even removed if desired, with PTC giving the same or better safety. That does not mean the approach and distant signals, if they continue to be lit, become somehow 'advisory' compared to PTC; an engineman would still have to observe them if for any reason PTC failed to reach the necessary speed target at them. Does anybody else have problems comprehending this?
Euclid Then Overmod suggested that the rather than adding conspicuity to the signs with lighting, the signs should be replaced by block signal control of the speed reduction zone. I questioned why block signal control would be better than signs, and Overmod said it was because the signs are only advisory.
As I said, overlapping systems, often archaic, are often as opaque as your explanation, especially when not read at a desk or armchair in a quiet room with no time pressures. And Euclid is an intelligent reader and writer, even if he argues many sides of the same point to death. Or are you suggesting he is being deliberately obtuse?
Multiple rulebooks weighing many pounds are another absurdity. The KISS principle applies here.
Maybe they could get the outfit that created the Iowa Democratic caucus software to come up with a new, improved version of PTC.
charlie hebdoOr are you suggesting he is being deliberately obtuse?
I am more than suggesting that he has deliberately misquoted my line of argument, in the process self-assigning views to me that I do not hold in ways that I have never stated (at least, intentionally...)
He has done this repeatedly in the past, in my opinion.
That is my concern. I am not sure I would characterize my explanation as 'opaque', but opacity is determined entirely in the eye of the reader, not the writer. (No, wait, I think I need a better metaphor! I mean that opacity is judged by the reader, not the writer...)
I don't think there is any question that Euclid is intelligent, or that he can use English grammatically and effectively. The problem comes, as you note, when he argues incorrectly that people hold particular opinions in order to justify his own.
EuclidI oppose them for a completely different reason.
And that is a perfectly good reason, BTW. (As I believe I covered, with more or less opacity, as well).
I do think that there is a certain degree of 'making speed or location advisory signs' more noticeable by designing or lighting them "better". That does not mean doing so to the extent of making them distractions, or causing temporary night blindness or scotomas, etc. (Keep in mind again that I do NOT advocate any replacement of a positive speed control system by any kind of wayside signs, even if they also serve as 'placeholders' for situational position awareness...)
charlie hebdoMultiple rulebooks weighing many pounds are another absurdity.
Alas, the rulebooks are written by lawyers, and in the blood of those who found a way to get around what was already written.
Sometimes the rulebooks are pretty simple (previous statement notwithstanding). It's the special instructions that take the space. That's the result of the railroads being built to literally hundreds of different standards over time.
There is NO SUBSTITUTE for a Engineer that is QUALIFIED ON THE TERRITORY. This incident proved it beyond any doubt.
Engineer Brown was NOT QUALIFIED on the territory he was operating, no matter what he or the company that 'qualified' him thought.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
[quote user="BaltACD"]
Engineer Brown was NOT QUALIFIED on the territory he was operating, no matter what he or the company that 'qualified' him thought./quote]
Totality Agree
Agree
Lithonia Operator Maybe they could get the outfit that created the Iowa Democratic caucus software to come up with a new, improved version of PTC.
The DNC used the best programmers the Amish could spare
Overmod The problem comes, as you note [my bold], when he argues incorrectly that people hold particular opinions in order to justify his own.
The problem comes, as you note [my bold], when he argues incorrectly that people hold particular opinions in order to justify his own.
Not to be picky, but I don't believe I said that last point. My comment was quite different: " Euclid...even if he argues many sides of the same point to death."
charlie hebdoNot to be picky, but I don't believe I said that last point.
You are right, and I take it back as worded.
Something we might gainfully take up at this point, in the thread's context, is the rather interesting information we can learn from the two 'road foreman of engines' interview transcripts (RFE and RFE2 in the docket, I believe); one is Charles Beatson and the other is Chris Bradasich. Among other things, you'll be interested to learn what these two considered 'qualified' to mean.
The docket ID again is DCA18HR001 (accident number RRD18MR001), and you'll enter that into the NTSB 'docket management system' to pull up the listings. I have both these as PDFs if anyone would prefer to PM me with their e-mail address to which I can send them as attachments...
(Incidentally, watch for the interesting use of the word 'advisory' ... and pay careful attention whenever you see Beatson begin mentioning the FAST Act.)
Thanks, I'll take a look this evening.
Overmod charlie hebdo Not to be picky, but I don't believe I said that last point. You are right, and I take it back as worded. Something we might gainfully take up at this point, in the thread's context, is the rather interesting information we can learn from the two 'road foreman of engines' interview transcripts (RFE and RFE2 in the docket, I believe); one is Charles Beatson and the other is Chris Bradasich. Among other things, you'll be interested to learn what these two considered 'qualified' to mean.
charlie hebdo Not to be picky, but I don't believe I said that last point.
I was shocked how lackadaisical those RFEs seemed to be about it all. The "familiarization" Brown (and, I assume, others) got was a sad joke.
Incidentally, there is something Bradasich brought up that has me increasingly uneasy, remembering the potential similarity of the SC44 and ACS64 control layouts. Does anyone know if there is an analogue to this video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRValOA7TZo
for the Amtrak (or regional) versions of the SC44 locomotive? Is a copy accessible either via the Web or on request to someone who has one?
Lithonia Operator http://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2020/01/23-engineer-sues-amtrak-over-fatal-cascades-derailment Cue Joe to say "I rest my case!"
http://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2020/01/23-engineer-sues-amtrak-over-fatal-cascades-derailment
Cue Joe to say "I rest my case!"
243129 Lithonia Operator http://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2020/01/23-engineer-sues-amtrak-over-fatal-cascades-derailment Cue Joe to say "I rest my case!" I rest my case.
I rest my case.
Lithonia Operator 243129 Lithonia Operator http://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2020/01/23-engineer-sues-amtrak-over-fatal-cascades-derailment Cue Joe to say "I rest my case!" I rest my case.
Poor vetting, poor training, poor supervision.
243129 Lithonia Operator 243129 Lithonia Operator http://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2020/01/23-engineer-sues-amtrak-over-fatal-cascades-derailment Cue Joe to say "I rest my case!" I rest my case. Poor vetting, poor training, poor supervision.
Vetting is too far in the past to be relevant.
Poor training and poor supervision are the critical elements for the failure.
I have the impression that the people who said, "Let's get the trains running" knew nothing at all of the necessity of knowing the territory--and the people who said, "OK," knew nothing of what it takes to know the territory.
Johnny
BaltACD 243129 Lithonia Operator 243129 Lithonia Operator http://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2020/01/23-engineer-sues-amtrak-over-fatal-cascades-derailment Cue Joe to say "I rest my case!" I rest my case. Poor vetting, poor training, poor supervision. Vetting is too far in the past to be relevant. Poor training and poor supervision are the critical elements for the failure.
Would you care to explain why you do not consider poor vetting relevant?
It is one of the reasons for this disaster.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.