Oh brother....
At least no-one got hurt or killed.
When it rains, it pours...
ANOTHER rear-ender! And it spilled over and hit yet another passing train, a third! Where was Positive Train Control (PTC)? Or did the incident expose a weak link in PTC?
This one seems similar to UP’s Bertram, CA incident of a year and a half ago, the tragic incident by Salton Sea. On that one I’m convinced track conditions, sleep deprivation, AND sabotage were factors, and am sitting patiently for the NTSF’s final report on the incident, which somehow I believe I will question.
Glad no one was hospitalized in the Pennsylvania incident.
Unfortunately more ammo for the Piranha investors.
croteauddANOTHER rear-ender! And it spilled over and hit yet another passing train, a third! Where was Positive Train Control (PTC)? Or did the incident expose a weak link in PTC? This one seems similar to UP’s Bertram, CA incident of a year and a half ago, the tragic incident by Salton Sea. On that one I’m convinced track conditions, sleep deprivation, AND sabotage were factors, and am sitting patiently for the NTSF’s final report on the incident, which somehow I believe I will question. Glad no one was hospitalized in the Pennsylvania incident.
PTC has never been what outsiders think it is.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
croteaudd ANOTHER rear-ender! And it spilled over and hit yet another passing train, a third! Where was Positive Train Control (PTC)? Or did the incident expose a weak link in PTC?
There have been a number of incidents under restricted speed conditions. PTC knows a block is showing an occupancy, but does not know what, or necessarily where, the obstruction is. This is nothing that hasn't been known, even when PTC was being developed.
Jeff
Lower Saucon Township, PA is located to the south of the Lehigh river, and the portion along the river is east of Bethlehem.
BaltACD:
I am definitely an outsider! And feel so more and more as rail employment continues to shrink and contacts continue to die off! So, what have I missed? Is there a top secret cult that, as an outsider, I can’t possibly understand? Curious minds want to know!
jeffhergert:
Thanks for the response, Jeff! I knew ALL that but hearing it nicely from a respected railroader was super wonderful to hear, and I’m sure new ones at the forum learned from it!
Croteaudd - I think the disconnect is between what many perceive PTC to be and what PTC actually is. I suspect that the general public thinks PTC will prevent all incidents...
In this case, PTC would have enforced the maximum speed for restricted speed operation (usually ~20 MPH), but unless it knows exactly where the train is, it's all for naught, as we have now seen. And that assumes that 1-PTC was working and in use, and 2-the engineer was actually observing that speed limit (it's been suggested he wasn't). At this point, I don't believe EOTs are broadcasting their location, so all the oncoming engineer knows is that there's another train somewhere in the next block.
Of course, restricted speed is not a speed, as such, but rather a method of operation. It requires that a train be able to stop within 1/2 the distance to an obstruction, whatever it is. Clearly that was not the case here. It does appear that the incident occurred on a curve, which will, of course, reduce sight distance considerably.
The secret cult isn't so secret, actually. It's just the product of real-life experience, just as it is in any field.
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:
You speak wisdom and it was a pleasure to read your above reply post!
For Union Pacific it seems that ‘restricted speed’ is or was 15 M.P.H.
Forumist jeffhergert may be willing to refresh my memory on this.
Unless the windshield was dirty and difficult to see ahead, it would seem the NS engineer should have seen the train ahead, even with low Intermodal well-cars, which suggests to me the crew might have fallen asleep!
In the UP Bertram wreck here in Southern California, the hodge podge of conflicting news reports said the CTC board track went dead, which suggest to me that ‘someone’ put the Control Point (CP) track in signal testing mode and the signal very well could have displayed red over yellow for an occupied siding! And if the crew had fallen asleep, well, you know, boom! But, since the siding had been occupied for some time, a rust-over may have occurred that fooled the signal system! However, unless proved otherwise, I’m going with the sabotage theory! Interestingly, there was much labor unrest at the time!
Around 1968 when a teenager I had a close, older friend that was a Santa Fe conductor. He told me every siding had to be used every twenty-four hours. If UP had such a policy in effect, the Bertram accident may have never happened, unless of course, it was sabotage!
The engines in question are NOT in the water. Only the rear ends are in the river and they are upright facing the bank. The crews had to be helped up the bank by having the fire crews thorw them ropes.
croteaudd... Around 1968 when a teenager I had a close, older friend that was a Santa Fe conductor. He told me every siding had to be used every twenty-four hours. If UP had such a policy in effect, the Bertram accident may have never happened, unless of course, it was sabotage!
Don't know your friend - I tend to think his statement that sidings must be used daily is at variance with any operations I came across in my 51+ year career - not on ATSF - but a Class 1 that laid its first stone on July 4, 1828 - and the various carriers that one morphed into to become a part of today's CSX. With that being said, if signalled tracks are used infrequently - the rust on the rail can interrupt the signalling action. It will normally take several weeks of disuse for rail to get sufficiently rusty to inhibit signalling functions. Roadmasters/Track Inspectors DO have Dispatcher's issue rust rail orders on specific tracks when necessary.
BaltACDWith that being said, if signalled tracks are used infrequently - the rust on the rail can interrupt the signalling action. It will normally take several weeks of disuse for rail to get sufficiently rusty to inhibit signalling functions.
We don't run on our own rails at all from December through April, so we normally start the season with "rusty rail" rules in place (ie, approach all signalled crossings with caution until activation is assured). But during the season, we don't run every day, yet once we wear off the winter's oxidation, we don't have to deal with that.
We're in dark territory, so crossings are the only place we have to deal with track circuits.
The P&LE had some gated crossings on seldom used tracks. They put some stainless steel weld beads on the rails in the approach circuits and the gates operated reliably.
If cars are parked long term on signalled tracks maybe a shunt should be placed on the rails to insure that rust doesn't interfere with their detection.
UP, like other General Code of Operating Rules users, has a top speed of 20 mph for restricted speed. Like Tree said, the important part of restricted speed is operating at a speed which allows the stopping within 1/2 the sight distance to an obstruction. It's a bad habit to think restricted speed is 20 mph.
PTC starts warning at 17 mph and will take the air, penalty application - not an emergency application, at 20 mph.
UP does have a signal, Approach Restricting (Yellow over Lunar or Yellow over flashing red, the flashing red is slowly replacing lunar) that requires passing the next signal not exceeding 15 mph. A holdover from when 15 mph was the top speed on most railroads.
I remember from some years back that the conductor on my afternoon ride home explained to some other passengers that restricted speed was NOT TO EXCEED 15 MPH, implying that it could be lower.
tree68 Three trains involved. Reportedly, one train entered a block on a restricting signal, but still managed to collide with a stopped train. A third train then collided with the wreckage. Engines in the river, some plastic pellets spilled. Any hazmat cars were reportedly empty. No evacuations, etc. UPI story, with pictures from the Nancy Run Fire Company: https://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2024/03/02/norfolk-southern-train-derailment-pennsylvania/1411709407167/ A fellow railroad volunteer who lives nearby says it's a mess...
Three trains involved. Reportedly, one train entered a block on a restricting signal, but still managed to collide with a stopped train. A third train then collided with the wreckage.
Engines in the river, some plastic pellets spilled. Any hazmat cars were reportedly empty. No evacuations, etc.
UPI story, with pictures from the Nancy Run Fire Company: https://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2024/03/02/norfolk-southern-train-derailment-pennsylvania/1411709407167/
A fellow railroad volunteer who lives nearby says it's a mess...
CSSHEGEWISCHI remember from some years back that the conductor on my afternoon ride home explained to some other passengers that restricted speed was NOT TO EXCEED 15 MPH, implying that it could be lower.
How far can you see? Can you STOP your train in 1/2 that distance? If you can't STOP within 1/2 the distance you CAN SEE - you are exceeding Restricted Speed.
If you can see a mile and can stop the train in 1/2 a mile and you are not exceeding 20 MPH you are good on Restricted Speed.
If you can see 100 feet and you can stop the train in 100 feet - you have exceeded Restricted Speed even if you are only traveling at 1 MPH.
Unsafe at any speed!
charlie hebdoUnsafe at any speed!
Vision is EVERYTHING. Those that can't SEE are in fact unsafe at any speed.
BaltACD charlie hebdo Unsafe at any speed! Vision is EVERYTHING. Those that can't SEE are in fact unsafe at any speed.
charlie hebdo Unsafe at any speed!
We don't yet know whether the engineer could see or was his perception and judgement faulty. Or was he impaired in some way?
charlie hebdoWe don't yet know whether the engineer could see or was his perception and judgement faulty. Or was he impaired in some way?
Any of those could be factors. It could have been the result of "we've always done it this way") in that the engineer isn't used to encountering a train at that point. He could have been distracted ("How about those [insert team name here]")
The event recorder will tell us if he was exceeding 20 MPH. We also don't know how far beyond the signal displaying restricting the collision occurred, or when he actually started reducing his speed.
It'll all (or mostly) come out in the end.
tree68 charlie hebdo We don't yet know whether the engineer could see or was his perception and judgement faulty. Or was he impaired in some way? Any of those could be factors. It could have been the result of "we've always done it this way") in that the engineer isn't used to encountering a train at that point. He could have been distracted ("How about those [insert team name here]") The event recorder will tell us if he was exceeding 20 MPH. We also don't know how far beyond the signal displaying restricting the collision occurred, or when he actually started reducing his speed. It'll all (or mostly) come out in the end.
charlie hebdo We don't yet know whether the engineer could see or was his perception and judgement faulty. Or was he impaired in some way?
But since it was a derailment that DID NOT result in death, HAZMAT Spill or anything of that nature - we will likely never hear the DETAILS of what actually happened.
The FACT that there was a rear end collision indicates that Restricted Speed was being exceeded.
BaltACDThe FACT that there was a rear end collision indicates that Restricted Speed was being exceeded.
No question there.
The crew of the lead locomotive were NOT injured. I can gurantee you that they will be questioned by the NTSB investigators. As stated above the data recorder on the lead locomotive is probably in Washington, DC at the NTSB lab. The signals, weather, fatigue and track conditions will be checked. We WILL know what happened and why. I will be very interested in reading the NTSB report on this accident. BTW: It can take up to a year for the final report to come out.
caldreamerThe crew of the lead locomotive were NOT injured. I can gurantee you that they will be questioned by the NTSB investigators. As stated above the data recorder on the lead locomotive is probably in Washington, DC at the NTSB lab. The signals, weather, fatigue and track conditions will be checked. We WILL know what happened and why. I will be very interested in reading the NTSB report on this accident. BTW: It can take up to a year for the final report to come out.
Without DEATH and/or HAZMAT release, it is highly unlikely there will be a published NTSB report.
NTSB has limited investigation funding and have to allocate their resources on the basis of 'if it bleeds, it leads'.
The FRA investigates accident, too. The FRA will investigate this one, with or without NTSB participation.
The NTSB may be happy to not participate in this one. I'm betting the line is PTC equipped. While never actually saying PTC would eliminate all such collisions, the NTSB certainly heavily implied that it would. Enough to get a mandate passed by congress. If PTC was active (It is permitted to operate without PTC when it fails enroute.) all it did was make sure the train was moving 20 mph or less. A lot of damage can still happen below 20 mph.
Question for anyone who cares to answer. The last signal you passed requires restricted speed and you're running in compliance. At MP 199 you see ahead of you a red flag between the rails at about MP 200. Where do you have to stop ? MP 199.99, just short of the flag at MP 200? MP 199.5, half the distance you can see to the flag? Somewhere else?
I will note the answer I have is based on the interpretation of the rule given to us by the company. It is possible other railroads may use a different interpretation of the rule.
jeffhergertThe FRA investigates accident, too. The FRA will investigate this one, with or without NTSB participation. The NTSB may be happy to not participate in this one. I'm betting the line is PTC equipped. While never actually saying PTC would eliminate all such collisions, the NTSB certainly heavily implied that it would. Enough to get a mandate passed by congress. If PTC was active (It is permitted to operate without PTC when it fails enroute.) all it did was make sure the train was moving 20 mph or less. A lot of damage can still happen below 20 mph. Question for anyone who cares to answer. The last signal you passed requires restricted speed and you're running in compliance. At MP 199 you see ahead of you a red flag between the rails at about MP 200. Where do you have to stop ? MP 199.99, just short of the flag at MP 200? MP 199.5, half the distance you can see to the flag? Somewhere else? I will note the answer I have is based on the interpretation of the rule given to us by the company. It is possible other railroads may use a different interpretation of the rule. Jeff
All the Rule Books I have read - mention 1/2 the range of vision. The theory being you have two trains operating on the same track - if BOTH stop WITHIN 1/2 the range of vision - they will STOP just before they impact each other.
While the rule mentions broken rails and other such 'detail' defects, in many cases it is IMPOSSIBLE to see the defect until one is actually upon the defect.
Seems that Norfolk Southern is following the same safety initiatives as Alaska Airlines...........
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/GQ6q-7E4co8
BaltACDAll the Rule Books I have read - mention 1/2 the range of vision. The theory being you have two trains operating on the same track - if BOTH stop WITHIN 1/2 the range of vision - they will STOP just before they impact each other. While the rule mentions broken rails and other such 'detail' defects, in many cases it is IMPOSSIBLE to see the defect until one is actually upon the defect.
That's always been the emphasis for us, as well. Flaws such as broken rails can be hard to spot, but mis-aligned switches are usually easier to see.
There are two times we normally run into restricted speed. One is in our station areas, where NORAC Rule 98 applies and all operations are at restricted speed. Rule 98 track is a "free for all," with no dispatcher control.
The second is if a fusee or other designated marker is encountered on the mainline, in which case it's necessary to proceed for the next mile at restricted speed. Normally that happens in the course of a banner test, as we work with Form D's so theoretically have exclusive authority for the track.
jeffhergert Question for anyone who cares to answer. The last signal you passed requires restricted speed and you're running in compliance. At MP 199 you see ahead of you a red flag between the rails at about MP 200. Where do you have to stop ? MP 199.99, just short of the flag at MP 200? MP 199.5, half the distance you can see to the flag? Somewhere else?
I vote for MP 199.99. You wouldn't be violating any rules if you stop 1" away from the flag. You would, however, be creating an enormous pain in the ass for yourself, since the person who would eventually remove that flag would probably require you to back up 25' before doing so.
I'm not GCOR qualified and this is not a question that has come up in MOW rules class, but this one doesn't seem like a close call to me. The rule requires you to be able to stop within half the range of your vision, not to actually stop. The rule for display of red flags just says you can't pass the flag.
At one time I was qualified to do operations testing, and you would pass the MOW stop test if you stopped short of the stop signal. My understanding was that the TYE banner test works the same way.
Dan
Dan has it right. The rule says you have to operate at a speed that allows stopping within half the sight distance, but doesn't say you have to stop half the distance to the obstruction. It's how everyone, well almost everyone understood how the rule was applied.
Some years back, a manager was out testing. A train pulled up and stopped short of the flag. The manager wanted to fail them on the test. The failure was quickly overturned and a system wide interpretation issued so everyone was on the same page. A few rules got specific interpretations because they weren't being applied uniformly.
jeffhergert...Some years back, a manager was out testing. A train pulled up and stopped short of the flag. The manager wanted to fail them on the test. The failure was quickly overturned and a system wide interpretation issued so everyone was on the same page. A few rules got specific interpretations because they weren't being applied uniformly. Jeff
Makes one wonder where that Manager had set his observation post for the test. Was the Manager physically at the 'obstruction' he set for the test or was he a calculated 1/2 the sight line from the 'obstruction' and had to walk to communicate with the crew after they stopped short of the 'obstruction'.
dpeltier jeffhergert Question for anyone who cares to answer. The last signal you passed requires restricted speed and you're running in compliance. At MP 199 you see ahead of you a red flag between the rails at about MP 200. Where do you have to stop ? MP 199.99, just short of the flag at MP 200? MP 199.5, half the distance you can see to the flag? Somewhere else? I vote for MP 199.99. You wouldn't be violating any rules if you stop 1" away from the flag. You would, however, be creating an enormous pain in the ass for yourself, since the person who would eventually remove that flag would probably require you to back up 25' before doing so. I'm not GCOR qualified and this is not a question that has come up in MOW rules class, but this one doesn't seem like a close call to me. The rule requires you to be able to stop within half the range of your vision, not to actually stop. The rule for display of red flags just says you can't pass the flag. At one time I was qualified to do operations testing, and you would pass the MOW stop test if you stopped short of the stop signal. My understanding was that the TYE banner test works the same way. Dan
Agree with Dan. On the other half of Dan's railroad, pre-merger, we used to keep a folded orange flag tucked-up above the suspension in our hardhats. If we had a crisis, we at least had something to stop people with while we set up protection. After the protection and boards were up or we were working in yard limits, the flag got draped accross the rail. NO TOUCHEE!
(Welders seem to be the most likely at risk (or were more prone to incidents) in Form-B or restricted speed incidents of all kinds ... flags with wheel marks saved them a few times in investigations with heavy duty finger-pointing.)
To this day, I still carry an orange/red flag over my noggin in the field. (and a whistle w/lanyard)....Don't have to, but I keep that old habit tought by experience.
[The next dumb question that is sure to appear is : "Is it the front face of the coupler or the wheel that has to not break the face of the stop-plane limit?"]
Interesting side issue (slightly). No doubt this accident will accelerate the hedge fund's interest in making changes at NS.
Today's WSJ reported the membership of NS unions are in support of the current management group (Shaw), which is unusual. Shaw seems to be talking the right things...increased crews instead of cut to the bone.
Ed
BaltACD jeffhergert ...Some years back, a manager was out testing. A train pulled up and stopped short of the flag. The manager wanted to fail them on the test. The failure was quickly overturned and a system wide interpretation issued so everyone was on the same page. A few rules got specific interpretations because they weren't being applied uniformly. Jeff Makes one wonder where that Manager had set his observation post for the test. Was the Manager physically at the 'obstruction' he set for the test or was he a calculated 1/2 the sight line from the 'obstruction' and had to walk to communicate with the crew after they stopped short of the 'obstruction'.
jeffhergert ...Some years back, a manager was out testing. A train pulled up and stopped short of the flag. The manager wanted to fail them on the test. The failure was quickly overturned and a system wide interpretation issued so everyone was on the same page. A few rules got specific interpretations because they weren't being applied uniformly. Jeff
The train pulled up to, stopping short of the red flag. The flag was probably in view for 3/4 of a mile, maybe a bit more. It was on a broad curve with, at the time, minimal ROW brush/tree view blockage. They stopped short, but not within half the sight distance when it first came into view.
The way I read the rule. Your have to be prepared to stop within 1/2 distance to the red light, flag or obstruction. That does not mean you have to stop there, but you can proceed at resticted speed to the red light, flag or obstruction. Is that a correct interpertation of the rule?
caldreamerThe way I read the rule. Your have to be prepared to stop within 1/2 distance to the red light, flag or obstruction. That does not mean you have to stop there, but you can proceed at resticted speed to the red light, flag or obstruction. Is that a correct interpertation of the rule?
Railroad rules, like most all kinds of rules, have to be seen in actual operation before one can really understand their real meaning and application.
When I hired out, my first task was to 'write the book of rules' in my own hand writing in a 'work book' that was created for the purpose. The job was to read the Book of Rules and write what was printed into the work book in one's own hand writing. If, at a later date, some one stated in a investigation 'I didn't know that was a rule' - the employee's work book was brought into evidence where he wrote the rule in his own hand writing.
With all that being the case - reading and writing the Book of Rules - is a far cry from understanding how the rules apply in the day to day situations that happen on the railroad and to which the rules apply.
mudchicken [The next dumb question that is sure to appear is : "Is it the front face of the coupler or the wheel that has to not break the face of the stop-plane limit?"]
Well, the dumb question that came up in our rules class was:
"There is a track next to the track you are working on. You have established working limits on the track you're on. You need to determine whether you are required to also get protection on the other track [under the the stinking, steaming pile of confusion that is the FRA's 2014 Adjacent Controlled Track rule]. To answer that question you need to know if the other track is less than 19' away from the track you're on. So, you take your metallic tape measure with the magnetic tip, reach it out, and fasten it to the outside of the closest rail of the adjacent track. Your body is more than 4' from that rail.
In doing that, have you accidentally fouled the adjacent track without protection, violating one of the cardinal MOW rules?"
This one is hard because of course the answer had better be "No", and there is absolutely no reason why the thing you're doing is unsafe. But if you read the definition of "Fouling" in the glossary, it's not so clear. The definition uses the words "equipment" and "material" without defining those terms.
The question in this case was posed by our instructor, who was curious what we thought because he heard from another class that someone (don't remember whether the someone was supposedly a supervisor or an FRA inspector) was taking exception to this practice. Gotta love the railroad rumor mill.
Getting on my soapbox: The problem is that the rulebooks (and the FRA rules that they have to comply with) get edited one piece at a time by collections of people who - while often possessing a good deal of wisdom - were not selected for their comfort with the written word. People sometimes complain that rulebooks seem to be written by lawyers, but those people are wrong - lawyers, or at least corporate-type lawyers, are pretty good at covering every nuance of every possible interpretation of a sentence. Railroaders, not so much. Instead, when you point out a situation where the language of the rule is ambiguous or the opposite of what is intended, they don't see it. They give you an "explanation" of the rule (often without reference to the text itself), and brush you off - "Good question, though!"
What they really need to do is hire a team of technical writers* to go through GCOR and reorganize it, build it up from a base of clear definitions, and state concisely what does and doesn't need to happen to keep people safe. The problem is that will never happen, because it would require too many different people to agree on how to resolve all the contradictions and ambiguities - and there's always one jackass who will refuse to change the stupidest of all rules because "these rules are written in BLOOD!!!".
Clearly this is a personal pet peeve of mine, and I don't want to blow it out of proportion - most of the problems only arise hypothetically in rules class. And even the most beautifully-written rule is still subject to misinterpretation by people who aren't the best of readers - and people who are just looking to stir up trouble. But still, really, it could be a lot better.
* By "a team of technical writers" I basically mean "me".
CSX officials conducting tests never complained when I stopped just short of the flag. The "one half the range of vision" rule insures that two trains moving towards each other can both stop before colliding, or at worst, make a very gentle coupling.
I suppose the flag could be on the rear of a train backing toward your movement.
You could stop immediately and still be in compliance.
Mark Vinski
I would opine that for testing purposes, actually stopping at half the distance to the flag/fusee/banner would tend to indicate that one was capable of doing so.
My outsider opinion would go for the front face of the coupler, or whatever is farthest forward on the train such as a forward trolley pole.
I'd wonder if the rulebook would have more meaning if there were examples of what the rule was trying to prevent from happening. A memorable quote from the Sept 1965 Nat Geo article on the USAF was (paraphrased): "A German officer was asking why briefings for American airmen spent so much time on the "why" of the orders. The American officer's response was when the men knew the why, they would know what to do without being told."
I have no railroader cred in this, so take this as armchair thinking.
I should premise this by saying that I think all safety training ought to be provided and supervised by the unions (with expenses paid by the railroads) and that actual enforcement actions should be reviewed and discipline imposed where important by the unions in conjunction with 'management'.
The question here isn't "safely getting it stopped" -- this is a RULES test. And the rule clearly states (at least it does to me) that you have to have the train STOPPED no more than half the distance to the 'obstacle' (be it a banner or a flag) to be a 'pass'.
And you would determine this in advance with a marker, like a football 'down' marker, at 'half the distance to the goal line'. Extend a line across the track at that point. That -- not the banner -- is the target the crew has to reach. (In Jeff's example that would be 199.50, probably enforced as 199.49 in keeping with the idea that as with a British 'signal passed at danger' even millimeters past the line counts as a violation...)
Now, back in the days that SP was running film simulations of potential collisions, the thing that the Krauss-Maffei unit was converted to a camera car to produce, I thought that a particularly memorable (and frankly wicked unless specifically done and supervised by union personnel) would be this:
The purpose of that 'half the distance to the obstacle' in the rule is so that anyone who happened to be at restricted speed going the other way would also stop, just shy of 'kissing'. So, instead of a banner, use a framework with a full-size illustration of a locomotive cab, with full lights, mounted on wheels. Arrange it with air motors and proportional control so that as soon as the consist being tested 'comes into view of the obstacle' it accelerates to correct restricted speed for a typical consist, and then follows the "braking" profile for a train of that momentum and braking characteristics so that it just stops as a real train would do, at the halfway mark. I predict that (a) there would be no argument about precisely why restricted speed is defined, and to be enforced as a rule written in blood, the way it is, and (b) after very little practice in 'simulation' you'd see crews getting very good at determining how to stop in the 'half the distance' -- which is probably a very rigorous skill to learn, unlike stopping short of an obstacle with dynamic and air over the full sight distance.
OvermodI should premise this by saying that I think all safety training ought to be provided and supervised by the unions (with expenses paid by the railroads) and that actual enforcement actions should be reviewed and discipline imposed where important by the unions in conjunction with 'management'.
I don't see this happening anytime soon. The Hatfields and McCoys environment suits each side fine in the United States even though it hurts both equally.
Would love to see a cooperative system more akin to what Germany has in place. Far less money would be wasted and a lot of time and effort would be spared. I also think safety would improve significantly.
CMStPnP Overmod I should premise this by saying that I think all safety training ought to be provided and supervised by the unions (with expenses paid by the railroads) and that actual enforcement actions should be reviewed and discipline imposed where important by the unions in conjunction with 'management'. I don't see this happening anytime soon. The Hatfields and McCoys environment suits each side fine in the United States even though it hurts both equally.
Overmod I should premise this by saying that I think all safety training ought to be provided and supervised by the unions (with expenses paid by the railroads) and that actual enforcement actions should be reviewed and discipline imposed where important by the unions in conjunction with 'management'.
I disagree with your premise that the unions are ok with the current situation. From what I've seen there have been a number of suggestions around safety and fatigue improvements from the labour side over the years, and they tend to get ignored by both the companies and the regulators.
CMStPnP Would love to see a cooperative system more akin to what Germany has in place. Far less money would be wasted and a lot of time and effort would be spared. I also think safety would improve significantly.
That would be nice but it's never going to happen. The Class I's are stuck in the robber baron era mindset and are incapable of viewing labour as anything but the enemy. They've come to rely on the government stepping in to prevent strikes and have no interest in good faith negotiations, instead they hope to use government intervention and the arbitration process to force through cuts they know they will never achieve through negotiations.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
SD70DudeThat would be nice but it's never going to happen. The Class I's are stuck in the robber baron era mindset and are incapable of viewing labour as anything but the enemy. They've come to rely on the government stepping in to prevent strikes and have no interest in good faith negotiations, instead they hope to use government intervention and the arbitration process to force through cuts they know they will never achieve through negotiations.
Railroading has always been a 'Us vs Them' mentality between Management and Labor. I spent 20 years in Management and 31 yeasr in Labor during my 51 year career.
When you are in Management, Labor is viewed as nothing more than replaceable numbers. Numbers that were to be reduced by any and all means possible. Contracts only existed to be violated.
On the Labor side, the contract is the only 'protection' you have as an employee knowing that Management considers you replaceable at will, only limited by contract provisions they wish didn't exist.
Now, in the 21st Century, Management is to some extent coming to the understanding that in view of Wall Street Activist Investors, they are nothing more than easily bought out numbers or the organizational chart. If the investor wants Management gone, start packing.
CMStPnPWould love to see a cooperative system more akin to what Germany has in place. Far less money would be wasted and a lot of time and effort would be spared. I also think safety would improve significantly.
Labor is represented on Boards of Directors there. Strikes and slowdowns do occur but there seems to be more mature commonality of interest in having a smooth-running operation rather than an adversarial contest.
SD70DudeThe Class I's are stuck in the robber baron era mindset and are incapable of viewing labour as anything but the enemy. They've come to rely on the government stepping in to prevent strikes and have no interest in good faith negotiations, instead they hope to use government intervention and the arbitration process to force through cuts they know they will never achieve through negotiations.
Sadly true. Part of an antiquated mindset with the rails, primarily in management.
BaltACD SD70Dude That would be nice but it's never going to happen. The Class I's are stuck in the robber baron era mindset and are incapable of viewing labour as anything but the enemy. They've come to rely on the government stepping in to prevent strikes and have no interest in good faith negotiations, instead they hope to use government intervention and the arbitration process to force through cuts they know they will never achieve through negotiations. Railroading has always been a 'Us vs Them' mentality between Management and Labor. I spent 20 years in Management and 31 yeasr in Labor during my 51 year career. When you are in Management, Labor is viewed as nothing more than replaceable numbers. Numbers that were to be reduced by any and all means possible. Contracts only existed to be violated. On the Labor side, the contract is the only 'protection' you have as an employee knowing that Management considers you replaceable at will, only limited by contract provisions they wish didn't exist. Now, in the 21st Century, Management is to some extent coming to the understanding that in view of Wall Street Activist Investors, they are nothing more than easily bought out numbers or the organizational chart. If the investor wants Management gone, start packing.
SD70Dude That would be nice but it's never going to happen. The Class I's are stuck in the robber baron era mindset and are incapable of viewing labour as anything but the enemy. They've come to rely on the government stepping in to prevent strikes and have no interest in good faith negotiations, instead they hope to use government intervention and the arbitration process to force through cuts they know they will never achieve through negotiations.
Anything that happens, such as Federally mandated time off after the threshold for consecutive tours of duty is reached, is viewed by one side as the other side using it to gain an advantage on them. Doesn't matter if it's labor or management, each side thinks the other is using/abusing it.
jeffhergert... Anything that happens, such as Federally mandated time off after the threshold for consecutive tours of duty is reached, is viewed by one side as the other side using it to gain an advantage on them. Doesn't matter if it's labor or management, each side thinks the other is using/abusing it. Jeff
The HOS rulings placed into effect before I retired in December 2016 - through my calculations reduced the earnings POTENTIAL by about 24% with the reduced work hours and the expanded rest hours.
BaltACDThe HOS rulings placed into effect before I retired in December 2016 - through my calculations reduced the earnings POTENTIAL by about 24% with the reduced work hours and the expanded rest hours.
I don't think I ever met anyone that wants to go back to the old way.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
zugmann BaltACD The HOS rulings placed into effect before I retired in December 2016 - through my calculations reduced the earnings POTENTIAL by about 24% with the reduced work hours and the expanded rest hours. I don't think I ever met anyone that wants to go back to the old way.
BaltACD The HOS rulings placed into effect before I retired in December 2016 - through my calculations reduced the earnings POTENTIAL by about 24% with the reduced work hours and the expanded rest hours.
When I broke into Management the 16 Hour HOS rules were in effect. There were 'old heads' that 'loved' those rules.
Local started 8 AM on Monday went HOS at Midnight on line of road, hauled in by a taxi or passing train and marked off at 2 AM - showed back up at 10 AM on Tuesday and went HOS 2 AM - rinse and repeat the rest of the week - and they were 6 day jobs. THEY may of loved it, it liked to have killed me.
SOME work only for the money, and any way they can get more money they will do - Rest and Family be damned. Some value rest and family.
BaltACD zugmann BaltACD The HOS rulings placed into effect before I retired in December 2016 - through my calculations reduced the earnings POTENTIAL by about 24% with the reduced work hours and the expanded rest hours. I don't think I ever met anyone that wants to go back to the old way. When I broke into Management the 16 Hour HOS rules were in effect. There were 'old heads' that 'loved' those rules. Local started 8 AM on Monday went HOS at Midnight on line of road, hauled in by a taxi or passing train and marked off at 2 AM - showed back up at 10 AM on Tuesday and went HOS 2 AM - rinse and repeat the rest of the week - and they were 6 day jobs. THEY may of loved it, it liked to have killed me. SOME work only for the money, and any way they can get more money they will do - Rest and Family be damned. Some value rest and family.
Many of the old heads when I hired out talked about showing relieved at 15' 59" or 11' 59" (and I suppose during the transition period, 13' 59") to avoid having to take the extra rest. That was back when things were done with pen and paper instead of electronics. These days most would rather have to take the extra rest.
Zug, many want to go back to the old, old way. Being able to lay off when they want to, within reason. (There are always a few who stretch the "within reason" part.) I fear that those days are gone, never to be seen again.
jeffhergertZug, many want to go back to the old, old way. Being able to lay off when they want to, within reason. (There are always a few who stretch the "within reason" part.) I fear that those days are gone, never to be seen again.
Well, yeah. I also want utilities and brakemen to come back. But I don't miss the 6 for 8 and 7 day workweek crap. It's a trade off, but I still think I prefer it this way a little.
The old heads that wanted to work non-stop usually are the ones that drink themselves to death a year after they finally are convinced/forced to retire. Or they get hauled off in the coroner's van from the AFHT.
SD70DudeI disagree with your premise that the unions are ok with the current situation. From what I've seen there have been a number of suggestions around safety and fatigue improvements from the labour side over the years, and they tend to get ignored by both the companies and the regulators.
I was drawing from long ago experience when my Father was an Exec VP and I was on a plant floor as a worker bee and the plant floor union was the Teamsters. Was interesting being in that whole scenario. So what I would say here is push back a little and look at this more objectively. My experience back then was the Teamsters would publish crap to the Union membership that was patently false or just completly BS to rile them up or set them up against management. I think one instance in particular was my Father had a Rolls Royce hidden in a garage somewhere. In reality we as a large family were on a budget, he was paid well for a family of four but our family was more than double that in size. Some other rumors was we had gold plated fixtures in our home (untrue). The Teamsters were very ruthless with the innuendo and rumor and about 20-30% of the rumors had nothing to do with work conditions but was done for demonization to rile up the membership and reinforce that a Union was necessary. So that is point #1.
BTW, I was in high school back then and so the rumors the Teamsters were starting I was being confronted with in High School from employee's kids that attended the same high school. No account or care in the world by the Teamsters about this little bit of nastiness. Even mentioned it to a Union steward at one point..........no change and didn't really care.
Second point is due to my unique position I knew both sides of the story in a lot of cases. In some but not all cases the Union never made an attempt to fact find or ask about why things ran the way they did (sometimes due to labor laws in place) and so further innuendo and leaping to conclusions took place. Other cases was management was looking into improvements about to be made and the Union would jump the gun and criticize an item. Then after the item was implemented would imply it was their criticizm that brought it about when in fact it would have happened without the Union and was planned by mamagement.
So much of the above was on the Union side of the equation. Not to say management sat on their butts on topics. I remember a controversy about plant AC vs floor fans. I was on the side of AC and even brought it up reapeatedly about how it was ridiculously hot in Summer and my comments were brushed aside by my Father because AC would be too expensive. It was indeed the Union that achieved that and as it turned out my Father was wrong. The AC improved productivity and dropped the part rejection rate........pretty much paid for itself. Took about 12 months after the fact to get him to admit it but he finally did. A few more incidents like that. So I do understand that management can be penny wise and pound stupid and have seen that as well. So yes I can see your point of view in past experience and with railroads. Just wanted to explain the other side a little.
There were times as well when management went out of it's way to irritate and inflame the Union out of spite or in retaliation for the rumors an innuendo. I remember the whole employee notification board postings. Each time the Media had an article on past mob influence with the Teamsters Union.......poof! The article mysteriously appeared on the employee notification board. Nobody knew who put it there (it was management).
I don't hold a grudge against any of this and it wasn't a big issue while in High School at times I thought the Union vs Management tension was entertaining at times to observe what lengths each side would go to.
charlie hebdoLabor is represented on Boards of Directors there. Strikes and slowdowns do occur but there seems to be more mature commonality of interest in having a smooth-running operation rather than an adversarial contest.
Another interesting point that was reinforced not too long ago. The UAW - General Motors relationship. When I worked there with Jack Smith as CEO. UAW relations were excellent and cordial and we had UAW workers working right up in GM HQ building doing various tasks. They were Assembly plant workers and the like that due to the full employment type labor agreements would take on jobs in the HQ building like moving office furniture / equipment, elevator maint and repair, security and items like that. Little to no issues and everyone was friendly. Fast forward to today and the recent strike. No idea how that relationship headed South so fast other than the CEO of GM being a dingbat with her attitude and public comments. So my conclusion there is it depends a lot in part on who is running the ship. Fish rot from the head down as they say.
Railroad labor relations I think have a little more to do with the fraternal influence more of railroad employment with multiple generations of family members and such. Railroads seem closer to the military than to private industry. But heck the Danish Military is Unionized and while it has some friction between their Union and Chain of Command..........overall a smooth operation there. Incident from my past there as well. U.S. Army command inadvertently caused a union grievance with the Danish Army. Apparently you cannot sleep outside in tents when heated barracks are nearby and available........oh, too funny but yes we got warm and nice barracks beds because of that Union Grievance the entire time we were in Denmark (some NATO agreement we have to abide by Denmark's Union while in country I believe).
Always say to myself if Denmark can pull that off with it's own Military (they have a great Military that has beaten the U.S. in tank gunnery). It can work anywhere.
EuclidRegarding restricted speed: Keeping speed under 20 mph seems totally objective. Determining your sight distance poses the question of what sight distance means. I assume it has to mean maximum distance at which you can identify a train; or any other sufficient danger. Stopping distance would have to mean maximum stopping distance needed to stop. With every train having a different stopping distance, how does one know what it is for a given train? In estimating stopping distance, can the stop be made with an emergency application? Can the estimate include dynamic braking? If so, may the dynamic braking exceed the normal limit needed to avoid unacceptable risk of buckling the train?
Engineers, in a very short period of time know how the train they are operating handles and is able to stop. In knowing how hard the train pulls versus what the paperwork says the train is. Looking at the paperwork (at least on CSX) there is a graphical representation of how the weight is distributed throughout the train and where that weight is becomes a factor in how to brake the train.
Engineers are the key to train handling. Good engineers do it right, bad engineers will work their Conductors 'to death' walking the train account broken knuckles and pulled out drawbars. As trains get larger the good engineers stand out even more - knowing where the weight in the train is and how that weight will affect the train as it operates over undulating territory (which affect the lines in the South more than the lines in the North - the South being poor, laid lines on top of the ground; the North being more properous did a lot of cutting and filling to have lines built to a relatively sustained gradient).
If the sight line permits a mile or two of vision - 20 MPH is an acceptable speed when operating a Restricted Speed. Where the vision is 100 yards or less - 20 MPH is WAY OVER Restricted Speed. Engineers are responsible for KNOWING their territory - like the back of there hand - where there is sight distance and where there is not - where there are sags that create undesired slack action within their trains.
Being a Engineer on a territory is not the same as being a truck driver on the Interstate.
BaltACD Euclid Regarding restricted speed: Keeping speed under 20 mph seems totally objective. Determining your sight distance poses the question of what sight distance means. I assume it has to mean maximum distance at which you can identify a train; or any other sufficient danger. Stopping distance would have to mean maximum stopping distance needed to stop. With every train having a different stopping distance, how does one know what it is for a given train? In estimating stopping distance, can the stop be made with an emergency application? Can the estimate include dynamic braking? If so, may the dynamic braking exceed the normal limit needed to avoid unacceptable risk of buckling the train? Engineers, in a very short period of time know how the train they are operating handles and is able to stop. In knowing how hard the train pulls versus what the paperwork says the train is. Looking at the paperwork (at least on CSX) there is a graphical representation of how the weight is distributed throughout the train and where that weight is becomes a factor in how to brake the train. Engineers are the key to train handling. Good engineers do it right, bad engineers will work their Conductors 'to death' walking the train account broken knuckles and pulled out drawbars. As trains get larger the good engineers stand out even more - knowing where the weight in the train is and how that weight will affect the train as it operates over undulating territory (which affect the lines in the South more than the lines in the North - the South being poor, laid lines on top of the ground; the North being more properous did a lot of cutting and filling to have lines built to a relatively sustained gradient). If the sight line permits a mile or two of vision - 20 MPH is an acceptable speed when operating a Restricted Speed. Where the vision is 100 yards or less - 20 MPH is WAY OVER Restricted Speed. Engineers are responsible for KNOWING their territory - like the back of there hand - where there is sight distance and where there is not - where there are sags that create undesired slack action within their trains. Being a Engineer on a territory is not the same as being a truck driver on the Interstate.
Euclid Regarding restricted speed: Keeping speed under 20 mph seems totally objective. Determining your sight distance poses the question of what sight distance means. I assume it has to mean maximum distance at which you can identify a train; or any other sufficient danger. Stopping distance would have to mean maximum stopping distance needed to stop. With every train having a different stopping distance, how does one know what it is for a given train? In estimating stopping distance, can the stop be made with an emergency application? Can the estimate include dynamic braking? If so, may the dynamic braking exceed the normal limit needed to avoid unacceptable risk of buckling the train?
Bucky is starting to sound like an attorney who insists that all of the t's are crossed and the i's dotted with no wiggle room. Restricting speed is going to be subjective to some extent because it involves a variety of situations and a variety of trains.
If I've heard this once, I've heard it 100 times (and probably more): restricted speed is not a speed - it is a mode of operation.
Restricted speed is totally subjective, as one must figure in all of the variables. Examples have already been given.
Euclidalthough the rule sounds so crisp and clear, the proper execution is rather subjective at times when it calls for speeds well below well below 20 mph.
Obviously if you want to run at a speed from which you can easily 'stop short' of half the distance to a visible obstacle, you're fine; likewise there is nothing that says you can't come to a controlled slow speed, or even a stop, and then inch up to the point in question, provided that you stop when you get to that point, and don't move again unless instructed to do so.
"Malicious compliance" would be purposely going at some low speed like 5mph regardless of what you can see, or stopping as short as you can every time you think you see shadows in the mist. But if there is any, I repeat any, uncertainty that you can get your train stopped where there is an obstructiyou'd be justified in going slow.
(Incidentally, in my humble opinion only an idiot would wonder whether you can use 'emergency' to get the train stopped in distance under restricted speed, but be concerned that any use of full-range dynamic would horribly derail the train.)
In a perfect world, having the rule read 'stop well clear of a visible instruction' would serve, and of course be much easier for typical humans to 'gauge'. The issue is that it isn't a perfect world of banners and unmoving obstacles, and you have to plan for something coming the other way 'prepared to stop at restricted speed too'.
tree68 If I've heard this once, I've heard it 100 times (and probably more): restricted speed is not a speed - it is a mode of operation. Restricted speed is totally subjective, as one must figure in all of the variables. Examples have already been given.
Exactly. What speed you go, and it won't necessarily be a constant speed, and where you stop, as long as you have your train under control and stop short of the obstruction, isn't the point of the rule. Simply put, DON'T RUN INTO OR OVER ANYTHING is what the rule is getting at. That's what they're testing for, that you are alert and have your train under control.
Unless there's a reason, like a collision, they don't download the engine to find out what speed you were doing coming up to a flag during a test.
Stopping is supposed to be with "good train handling," which isn't using emergency. Yes, according to an arbitrator (I believe was on NS some years back) you can go too slow at restricted speed. I have heard some of our managers grumble about "malicious compliance" when they were testing an engineer across Council Bluffs. But, they didn't want to open that can of worms.
Euclid BaltACD Euclid Regarding restricted speed: Keeping speed under 20 mph seems totally objective. Determining your sight distance poses the question of what sight distance means. I assume it has to mean maximum distance at which you can identify a train; or any other sufficient danger. Stopping distance would have to mean maximum stopping distance needed to stop. With every train having a different stopping distance, how does one know what it is for a given train? In estimating stopping distance, can the stop be made with an emergency application? Can the estimate include dynamic braking? If so, may the dynamic braking exceed the normal limit needed to avoid unacceptable risk of buckling the train? Engineers, in a very short period of time know how the train they are operating handles and is able to stop. In knowing how hard the train pulls versus what the paperwork says the train is. Looking at the paperwork (at least on CSX) there is a graphical representation of how the weight is distributed throughout the train and where that weight is becomes a factor in how to brake the train. Engineers are the key to train handling. Good engineers do it right, bad engineers will work their Conductors 'to death' walking the train account broken knuckles and pulled out drawbars. As trains get larger the good engineers stand out even more - knowing where the weight in the train is and how that weight will affect the train as it operates over undulating territory (which affect the lines in the South more than the lines in the North - the South being poor, laid lines on top of the ground; the North being more properous did a lot of cutting and filling to have lines built to a relatively sustained gradient). If the sight line permits a mile or two of vision - 20 MPH is an acceptable speed when operating a Restricted Speed. Where the vision is 100 yards or less - 20 MPH is WAY OVER Restricted Speed. Engineers are responsible for KNOWING their territory - like the back of there hand - where there is sight distance and where there is not - where there are sags that create undesired slack action within their trains. Being a Engineer on a territory is not the same as being a truck driver on the Interstate. I have no doubt that good engineers can handle the rule of restricted speed without problems. They might be able to comply with the principle of the speed that the situation requires even without any rule at all. However what I am getting at is that although the rule sounds so crisp and clear, the proper execution is rather subjective at times when it calls for speeds well below well below 20 mph. In cases of restricted speed based on the dictates of site distance and stopping distance, is an engineer free to run slower than those factors require just to remove all doubt? Is such a judgement call allowed by the company? Or would they view that is being malicious compliance? I doubt that most people will measure their stopping distance and their sight distance to the accuracy that the rule actually requires. I have seen references to the claim that many people will regard the call for restricted speed as just a requirement to operate under a 20 mph speed limit. I have not looked at the satellite map of the Pennsylvania location of this 3-train collision, but I understand it was along a river. I wonder if a relatively sharp curve was involved.
What you are actually getting at is that you have no knowledgeable idea of what you are talking about.
Euclid I don’t think the restricted speed rule is subjective at all. It is as objective as a scientific formula. A 20 mph speed limit is objective. The range of vision is objective. Half that range is objective. Stopping the train within half the range is objective. I mean they are objective in terms of what the rule requires. But, what is quite subjective is successfully complying with the rule. This would include measuring the maximum range of vision, and the maximum stopping distance. However, dividing the range of vision by 2 is nicely objective. So is a 20 mph speed limit.
The rule doesn't require stopping in half the distance. It doesn't say to stop in half the sight distance. It requires running at a speed that allows stopping in half the distance.
There's a similar rule, Movement on Other than Main Track. It reads almost exactly like the Restricted Speed rule except: It doesn't have a 20 mph top speed limit and you don't have to look out for a broken rail. (To be fair, most other than main tracks would already have an imposed speed limit of 20 mph or less.)
Successfully complying with either rule is not running into or over anything.
I looked up the rule as it was in the 1968 Uniform Code of Operating Rules, one I have handy for discussions on rules of that period. For the 1968 UCOR roads (RI, MP, MKT and SSW plus a few terminal roads) it's under Low Speed, and before GCOR, it was a definition in rule books. It only required a speed that allowed stopping short of obstructions, looking out for a broken rail and not exceeding 20 mph. I'm guessing that the half the distance language was added, as was the change to full rule status, to emphasize that the speed required was not a constant and that less, sometimes way less, than 20 mph was needed. Probably something that was learned the hard way.
EuclidThis would include measuring the maximum range of vision, and the maximum stopping distance.
And therein lies the rub, as they say. All those factors are constantly in flux.
How long does it take a 12,000 foot train to stop? Wet rail? Wet wheels? Upgrade? Downgrade? The possibilities are endless.
About the only thing one can say for certain is that if you're supposed to be observing restricted speed, and you hit something, you weren't doing it well enough.
The derailment was approximately here: 40.63105 -75.32132, based on media reports.
tree68 Euclid This would include measuring the maximum range of vision, and the maximum stopping distance. And therein lies the rub, as they say. All those factors are constantly in flux. How long does it take a 12,000 foot train to stop? Wet rail? Wet wheels? Upgrade? Downgrade? The possibilities are endless. About the only thing one can say for certain is that if you're supposed to be observing restricted speed, and you hit something, you weren't doing it well enough. The derailment was approximately here: 40.63105 -75.32132, based on media reports.
Euclid This would include measuring the maximum range of vision, and the maximum stopping distance.
Lots of curvature in both directions.
jeffhergertThe rule doesn't require stopping in half the distance. It doesn't say to stop in half the sight distance. It requires running at a speed that allows stopping in half the distance.
If a railroad thought it could protect against facing meets of trains both operating under restricted speed -- then they could write a corresponding Rule, or put some provision in GCOR or NORAC or CROR, with language that says explicitly 'stop before colliding with an obstacle' (you could even use an implied distance as you would with fouling rules). The point here is that I know of no such rule, and there have been a great many years for one to be formalized.
Overmod jeffhergert The rule doesn't require stopping in half the distance. It doesn't say to stop in half the sight distance. It requires running at a speed that allows stopping in half the distance. The point is that the test requires stopping in half the distance. As proof that you could execute what the 'rule' requires by its wording. If a railroad thought it could protect against facing meets of trains both operating under restricted speed -- then they could write a corresponding Rule, or put some provision in GCOR or NORAC or CROR, with language that says explicitly 'stop before colliding with an obstacle' (you could even use an implied distance as you would with fouling rules). The point here is that I know of no such rule, and there have been a great many years for one to be formalized.
jeffhergert The rule doesn't require stopping in half the distance. It doesn't say to stop in half the sight distance. It requires running at a speed that allows stopping in half the distance.
The point is that the test requires stopping in half the distance. As proof that you could execute what the 'rule' requires by its wording.
From the 2014 CSX Rule Book
Restricted Speed: A speed that permits stopping within one-half the range of vision. It also permits stopping short of a train, a car, on-track equipment, an obstruction, a Stop signal, a derail, or an improperly lined switch. It permits looking out for broken rail. It is not to exceed 15 MPH.
Is that the way the railroad you work for interprets the rule? The one I work for doesn't.
Restricted speed rules require looking out for a broken rail, not stopping short of one. They can sometimes be impossible to see from the cab.
If visibility is poor enough, having the conductor walk ahead of the train may be the only way to comply with resticted speed rules at any speed
jeffhergertIs that the way the railroad you work for interprets the rule? The one I work for doesn't.
The rule itself is very precisely worded, in English, and if it means what the English says, you're supposed to -- or, if the rule is an 'order' in the military sense, you have to -- stop in half the distance to a visible obstacle.
If the rule were intended to produce what 'your railroad' is testing for, it would have to be 'stop short of any visible obstacle (or a broken rail), or at the very least 'stop no less than xxxx distance from a visible obstacle'. In other words, a rule that is actually tested by the test. Certainly the major carriers have had many years to amend the rules to match what they interpret them to mean. I am not aware of any code in which that has actually been done.
Now, since I know that the reason for the 'half the distance' part of the rule (which is what requires a great deal of the potential subtlety in assessing just how you bring a train to a compliant stop) it might follow that the rule be split into (1) "if any facing traffic might be expected" then run prepared to stop within half the distance of a visible restriction, but if only stopped trains or stationary obstacles (including obviously kinked or broken rails, slides, washouts, etc.) are expected, then run prepared to stop in xxx less than the distance to the obstruction.
With the sense of responsibility shifted to the engineman for determining when he has to watch out for something 'moving the other way under restricted speed' or not.
A problem I'va always had since learning about where the half-the-distance thing comes from is that almost always, the problem isn't going to be something coming at you 'at restricted speed'. It will be a consist slipping backward, or a loose car rolling, and those aren't going to be trying to stop in half the distance; in fact they would continue to be gathering momentum as they get closer. There is little way other than the obvious to have a 'rule' covering that eventuality.
Overmod jeffhergert Is that the way the railroad you work for interprets the rule? The one I work for doesn't. See, that's just the point I'm trying to make. The rule itself is very precisely worded, in English, and if it means what the English says, you're supposed to -- or, if the rule is an 'order' in the military sense, you have to -- stop in half the distance to a visible obstacle. If the rule were intended to produce what 'your railroad' is testing for, it would have to be 'stop short of any visible obstacle (or a broken rail), or at the very least 'stop no less than xxxx distance from a visible obstacle'. In other words, a rule that is actually tested by the test. Certainly the major carriers have had many years to amend the rules to match what they interpret them to mean. I am not aware of any code in which that has actually been done. Now, since I know that the reason for the 'half the distance' part of the rule (which is what requires a great deal of the potential subtlety in assessing just how you bring a train to a compliant stop) it might follow that the rule be split into (1) "if any facing traffic might be expected" then run prepared to stop within half the distance of a visible restriction, but if only stopped trains or stationary obstacles (including obviously kinked or broken rails, slides, washouts, etc.) are expected, then run prepared to stop in xxx less than the distance to the obstruction. With the sense of responsibility shifted to the engineman for determining when he has to watch out for something 'moving the other way under restricted speed' or not. A problem I'va always had since learning about where the half-the-distance thing comes from is that almost always, the problem isn't going to be something coming at you 'at restricted speed'. It will be a consist slipping backward, or a loose car rolling, and those aren't going to be trying to stop in half the distance; in fact they would continue to be gathering momentum as they get closer. There is little way other than the obvious to have a 'rule' covering that eventuality.
jeffhergert Is that the way the railroad you work for interprets the rule? The one I work for doesn't.
See, that's just the point I'm trying to make.
You are overthinking the rule. The rule means - don't hit anything - even if it is coming towards you at Restricted Speed.
EuclidThe rule needs to be rewritten to actually say what it means.
In practice, the definition (even if sometimes execution does not) seems to work out here. Maybe it doesn't pass the trains.com forum's standards - but let's be honest - what does?
EuclidSo if you have to stop within half the range of vision, that is half of infinity. Half of infinity is still infinity. So your permitted stopping distance according to the Restricted Speed rule is infinity.
Unless, of course, there's something obstructing that range of vision, like a curve. Watch this video and tell me how much infinity you see:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IORh9mqIVI
At the time, the track was OOS and limited to 10 MPH. We were in a hi-rail vehicle.
mvlandsw Restricted speed rules require looking out for a broken rail, not stopping short of one. They can sometimes be impossible to see from the cab. If visibility is poor enough, having the conductor walk ahead of the train may be the only way to comply with resticted speed rules at any speed
Normally you will most likely hear the broken rail as the wheel goes over the break. When we had cab signals, the cab signal would also clear up once the wheel gets past the break. If you suspect it was a broken rail, you need to stop. If not sure, you report "rough track" where it was noticed.
I've stopped short a few times, only because we were pretty sure there was a break ahead of us. What tipped us off? The breaks were in highway crossing circuits. We were at restricted speed because of bad signals and noticed the crossing signals were activated way before we reached the outer limits of the circuits.
Restricted Speed Rules are written for everyday railroaders to conduct the business of their carriers as safely as possible - not for lawyers looking for loopholes.
Does the world work better if whenever a Restricted Speed situation crops up for the train(s) to STOP and stay stopped until a situation develops that permits the train to move at either Slow Speed, Medium Speed, Limited Speed or Maximum authorized speed?
tree68 Euclid So if you have to stop within half the range of vision, that is half of infinity. Half of infinity is still infinity. So your permitted stopping distance according to the Restricted Speed rule is infinity. Unless, of course, there's something obstructing that range of vision, like a curve. Watch this video and tell me how much infinity you see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IORh9mqIVI At the time, the track was OOS and limited to 10 MPH. We were in a hi-rail vehicle.
Euclid So if you have to stop within half the range of vision, that is half of infinity. Half of infinity is still infinity. So your permitted stopping distance according to the Restricted Speed rule is infinity.
EuclidThat speed looks about right for that track. In some places, the range of vision appears to be as little as 100 feet.
The NY Central ran it at 50 MPH, we run it at 40 MPH. For restricted speed, yeah, there are some spots where 5 MPH may be too fast, especially when headed down the hill. That's Big Moose Hill, roughly 1.1 percent for almost the entire five miles in the video, and we were going uphill.
Euclid The most distant point at which an object can be seen clearly is called far point (F) of the eye. For a normal eye, far point lies at infinity. Therefore, for a person with normal vision, the range of vision is infinite. So if you have to stop within half the range of vision, that is half of infinity. Half of infinity is still infinity. So your permitted stopping distance according to the Restricted Speed rule is infinity.
Backshop Euclid The most distant point at which an object can be seen clearly is called far point (F) of the eye. For a normal eye, far point lies at infinity. Therefore, for a person with normal vision, the range of vision is infinite. So if you have to stop within half the range of vision, that is half of infinity. Half of infinity is still infinity. So your permitted stopping distance according to the Restricted Speed rule is infinity. It's obvious to anyone with common sense that the rule means how far you can see down the track, since this is a railroad matter.
It's obvious to anyone with common sense that the rule means how far you can see down the track, since this is a railroad matter.
So your saying that the fact that we revolve around the sun at over 67,000mph while rotating around the axis at around 1000mph also has nothing to do with this?
rdamonSo your saying that the fact that we revolve around the sun at over 67,000mph while rotating around the axis at around 1000mph also has nothing to do with this?
Right. Since we evolved on this planet under these conditions, we are oblivious to them. To us, the Earth appears flat and unmoving, and the sun and moon and stars move across the sky.
rdamon Backshop Euclid The most distant point at which an object can be seen clearly is called far point (F) of the eye. For a normal eye, far point lies at infinity. Therefore, for a person with normal vision, the range of vision is infinite. So if you have to stop within half the range of vision, that is half of infinity. Half of infinity is still infinity. So your permitted stopping distance according to the Restricted Speed rule is infinity. It's obvious to anyone with common sense that the rule means how far you can see down the track, since this is a railroad matter. So your saying that the fact that we revolve around the sun at over 67,000mph while rotating around the axis at around 1000mph also has nothing to do with this?
You're looking for another train on your track. How much "detail" do you need?
If you're looking for a broken rail or open facing-point switch, your 'line of sight' is going to be a lot less than a 'mile', unless you are using binoculars or a spotting scope.
And the 'limit of vision' is imposed by the curvature of the earth, considerably less than infinity, particularly for track or other details low in the field of vision.
In any case, restricted speed is almost always going to involve some limited-sight-distance concern, whether that be curvature or poor weather or whatever.
Euclid rdamon Backshop Euclid The most distant point at which an object can be seen clearly is called far point (F) of the eye. For a normal eye, far point lies at infinity. Therefore, for a person with normal vision, the range of vision is infinite. So if you have to stop within half the range of vision, that is half of infinity. Half of infinity is still infinity. So your permitted stopping distance according to the Restricted Speed rule is infinity. It's obvious to anyone with common sense that the rule means how far you can see down the track, since this is a railroad matter. So your saying that the fact that we revolve around the sun at over 67,000mph while rotating around the axis at around 1000mph also has nothing to do with this? What I am saying that a rule must be written to convey its intent by the meaning of the writing alone. No rule should be written that requires interpretation by the use of “common sense” or any other subjective measure of judgement. Otherwise, the rule will be interpreted to mean different things to different people. A person can see a mile down the track if it is straight. But the one-mile view will be lacking most if not all detail. About the only thing visible will be a horizon. If you can see a mile but not identify anything in the view, is your range of vision a mile or maybe just a quarter mile? It makes a difference in how fast you can go. If you believe your range of vision is a mile, you will have to be moving at a speed that permits stopping in a half-mile. Is a half-mile close enough to see a misaligned switch or a broken rail?
The Rule as written and TAUGHT in Rules Classes that each operating employee is REQUIRED to attend and pass an examination on the rules is just fine. Euclid needs to attend and pass some carrier Rules Classes.
Rules are not just formulated and cast upon the waters for each fish to discern his own interpertation of what the words are meant to say. I have never heard the theory of infinity applied to any rule in any of the yearly rules classes I attended or the Rules Examinations I was required to pass to be qualified as a Train Dispatcher. Employees in the other opeating crafts are also required to be examined and pass those examinations for promotion to their positions of both Conductor and Engineer.
Rules are not printed and left to employees to devine the meaning of the rules. Whenever new rules are issued or existing rules are changed - the interpertation of how the CARRIER expects the rules to be complied with are TAUGHT either in formal Rules Classes or with first level supervision being educated on the Carrier's intent for the rules and then communicating the rules to their subordinate employees.
EuclidI am not saying that infinity should be measured for the range of vision. I am saying that range of vision should be further defined so its meaning is not ambiguous. Infinity is part of the formal definition of “Range of Vision” and like infinity, range of vision is intellectually incomprehensible. Range of vision extends as far as vision can extend, which is actually to the end of space. Both are infinite. The curvature of the earth only means that something is obstructing the range of vision. What a person can actually see is entirely different than range of vision. And I believe that what a person can actually see is what matters to the restricted speed rule. In a practical sense for the Restricted Speed rule, range of vision could be defined this way: The range of distance over which a person with legally qualifying vision, in clear daylight, without glare; can discern all objects and features necessary to perceive another train, any railroad equipment, switch positions, derail positons, broken rails, total condition of track, hand or lantern signals from any person, conditions of bridges or culverts, grade crossings, and anything else that can foul or endanger a moving train. Under these terms, the maximum speed can never by 20 mph. And choosing a safe speed below that will always be subjective.
Under these terms, the maximum speed can never by 20 mph. And choosing a safe speed below that will always be subjective.
Bovine Dump
BaltACDBovine Dump
Agreed.
Some people enjoy arguing.
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
jeffhergert There's a similar rule, Movement on Other than Main Track. It reads almost exactly like the Restricted Speed rule except: It doesn't have a 20 mph top speed limit and you don't have to look out for a broken rail. (To be fair, most other than main tracks would already have an imposed speed limit of 20 mph or less.)
On the BNSF line between Willmar, MN to Ashland, NE via Sioux City, the method of operation on the mainline is track warrant control and the sidings have a track speed of 35 MPH. (I think I've mentioned the rather unusual dual-control-switches-in-dark-territory used on this line as well.) But sidings in track warrant territory are other-than-majn track that fall under the rule Jeff describes above. So it would be rare for a train heading into the siding to be going 35 MPH and not be violating the rule.
So, we put a 20 MPH head-end speed restriction on the sidings. Doesn't affect train speeds much, and allows MOW to still use portable derails as a force of track protection. (We don't have portable derails rated for higher than 20 MPH.) Once the head-end is back on the mainline, they can start accelerating to 35.
Paul of Covington Some people enjoy arguing.
Some people have NEVER been in a position to operate a train - no matter the territory or the speed.
All the back and forth about: 1/2 the sight distance, extent of vision, etc.
This is written in RR rules. We as teachers signed contracts each year. Our specific jobs were mentioned but fine print included, "and outher jobs as assigned". What could that be? Never stated. In RR rules, regardless of wording, DON'T Hit Anything is the meaning.
While in the National Guard we approached a low water bridge, 3/4 ton p-u, pullying a fully loaded tool trailer (pintel hook attachment). Tool trailer (very heavy) had only parking brake. The incline to bridge caused the tool trailer to push us down the incline and off the low water concrete "bridge". Truck was shoved off into the creek and turned over in the slow moving progress. MP ticket writer said driving too fast. I volunteered he was very careful to go extremely slow. MP, I gotta say something.
Same site years before an APC did the same. All inside perished. endmrw0316241240
Euclid Well, whatever caused restricted speed to fail to prevent the Pennsylvania collision on the NS, both the NTSB and the FRA are investigating it. I expect quick results from the FRA.
EuclidWell, whatever caused restricted speed to fail to prevent the Pennsylvania collision on the NS, both the NTSB and the FRA are investigating it. I expect quick results from the FRA.
We had a rear end collision about 15 years ago, an engineer from the same engineer's class that I was in. As I recall, they were running on red intermediates, shortly after the signal rules had been changed to a "Restricted Proceed" which no longer required stopping at each intermediate. Listening to radio traffic, he thought the train ahead of him was farther down the line. There was a second train in between his train and the train he heard on the radio. (It may have not been a conversation, but hearing a talking hot box detector announcing a train clearing it.) Why he didn't heed the intermediates and run restricted speed I can't say.
He got fired, but reinstated because of a technicality. The railroad screwed something up on the paperwork. His brother, also an engineer with a few more years, also got into trouble around the same time and reinstated along the same lines. Eventually they both again got fired for something else. Last I knew, the brother from my class went into train service for Amtrak. The other brother went to the CN, got canned there and left railroading.
jeffhergertWe had a rear end collision about 15 years ago, an engineer from the same engineer's class that I was in. As I recall, they were running on red intermediates, shortly after the signal rules had been changed to a "Restricted Proceed" which no longer required stopping at each intermediate. Listening to radio traffic, he thought the train ahead of him was farther down the line. There was a second train in between his train and the train he heard on the radio. (It may have not been a conversation, but hearing a talking hot box detector announcing a train clearing it.) Why he didn't heed the intermediates and run restricted speed I can't say. He got fired, but reinstated because of a technicality. The railroad screwed something up on the paperwork. His brother, also an engineer with a few more years, also got into trouble around the same time and reinstated along the same lines. Eventually they both again got fired for something else. Last I knew, the brother from my class went into train service for Amtrak. The other brother went to the CN, got canned there and left railroading. Jeff
Screw ups tend to repeatedly screw up.
Railroading is not the only industry with Speed issues
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDOMhCCpTnQ
Someone wasn't having a good day...
The falling cranes looked a bit like horses with their legs buckling.
We all know a failed bearing was the cause of the East Palestine derailment, however, how much do we know about current roller bearings on cars?
https://www.railwayage.com/mechanical/freight-cars/bearing-down-on-bearings/
Euclid BaltACD We all know a failed bearing was the cause of the East Palestine derailment, ... Although the bearing failure seems to coincide with the East Palestine wreck, the last I understood from the NTSB was that they had not yet concluded that the bearing failure caused the derailment.
BaltACD We all know a failed bearing was the cause of the East Palestine derailment, ...
We all know a failed bearing was the cause of the East Palestine derailment, ...
Get educated and read the article I linked.
In no world does a failed bearing in a train operating at track speed end up in a 'happily ever after' scenario.
NTSB's final report isn't out yet, so everything is "preliminary."
Their saying that the bearing was the "likely" cause kinda says it was the cause. They didn't seem to offer any alternatives.
Speed isn't a killer - the sudden stop from being at speed is.
Euclid BaltACD Speed isn't a killer - the sudden stop from being at speed is. That’s interesting. A sudden stop is exactly what the final hotbox detector demanded, hmm…
BaltACD Speed isn't a killer - the sudden stop from being at speed is.
My comment applies to the human body, not failing bearings. Bearings fail because their safe friction level has been exceeded - once exceeded it will continue to get worse and worse until it ultimately fails. Once the failure sequence starts it will continue until failure - speed will increase the rate of failure as more revolutions of the bearing surfaces will happen in a shorter span of time, the failure 'spot' is brought to the 'friction spot' more frequently.
One of the points here is that a 'sudden stop' is NOT something the 'final hotbox detector demanded' (at East Palestine). Nor was it something the associated people who would be following data from the proposed set of detectors would demand.
Nor -- pointedly -- was the response of the crew to produce a 'sudden stop'. For that, they would have put the train in emergency, with the almost certain result of a derailment at least similar to the one which occurred.
I'm again surprised that Euclid, of all people, is taking up this line of 'argument', since he well understands the importance of maintaining tension in keeping cars in line when they have become derailed or damaged.
And this isn't about progressively damaged bearings (which hotbox detectors are never going to reliably detect anyway, for reasons I and others have covered ad nauseam. The bearing failed, likely produced the burned axle and truck lozenging, and resulting fiery signature long before the 'final detector' noted bearing temperature above normal and called for an inspection stop. By being conservative with the brakes, likely to prevent stressing the hot bearing by applying brakeshoe pressure on it, their choice of 'heavy dynamic' appears to have actually provoked the initial chain of derailment that resulted in the accident. But it could be argued, and hopefully will be recognized somewhere in the accident analysis, that any attempt to brake that train which relaxed tension across the car with the defective truck would have produced the beginning of derailment just as substantially.
I think if this discussion is going to be continued, it ought to be moved to an East Palestine thread. There is a discussion to be had about whether, when operating dense traffic under restricted speed for visibility reasons, a defect-detector alarm should induce a rapid stop without giving some warning to following, or facing, trains. But that's entirely different technologically from issues with bearings.
Overmod But it could be argued, and hopefully will be recognized somewhere in the accident analysis, that any attempt to brake that train which relaxed tension across the car with the defective truck would have produced the beginning of derailment just as substantially.
But it could be argued, and hopefully will be recognized somewhere in the accident analysis, that any attempt to brake that train which relaxed tension across the car with the defective truck would have produced the beginning of derailment just as substantially.
Hmmm, setting up the DPU so that only the rearmost units go into dynamic braking?
Erik_MagHmmm, setting up the DPU so that only the rearmost units go into dynamic braking?
One obvious problem with rear-end dynamic is the prospect of getting knuckles or snatching drawbars, which is going to produce more problems than it solves. Another is the reliability of radio integrity 'just when it is most needed'.
CONTENT REMOVED FOR TRANSFER TO NEW THREAD 3/26/24
Detectors i'm familiar with, ours and some foriegn line and/or their predecessors, don't tell an engineer to stop the train. They give a defect tone and message, "defect detected" and maybe detector location if it's talk on defect only. They won't state the nature or location of the defect until the entire train is clear of the detector. Many detectors check for multiple defects. Those require clearing the detector. Stand alone type detectors, usually dragging equipment detectors, also only give the detector location and that a defect has been detected. When you know that you're going over a dragging equipment only type, you are to bring the train to a stop and then the detector gives the location.
Within the last few years, the powers that be decided the minimum speed for our detectors should be set at 15 mph. Most were set slower, some you could even stop on and the detector would not lose it's count on the train when you started moving again. By setting the minimum speed to 15 mph, you will almost always get an integrity failure from the detector if you go much below 15. It can still detect defects, but won't give a type or location for any defect(s) detected. Then the entire train needs to be inspected.
Regarding DP's. The remotes can't be placed into dynamics unless the head end is in idle or power. The system won't let remotes go into dynamics when the head end is in power.
We are to run the fence up on all DP trains. EMS when engaged immediately puts up the fence if it already isn't up. Then EMS normally tries to run the train in a slack bunched condition most of the time.
EuclidPerhaps that explains the reluctance of the NTSB to immediately announce the cause.
Has the NTSB ever announced a cause in under a year? And have they ever immediately announced a cause? This whole argument is just plain silly.
Bearing Failure is the Cause. There was no way of stopping the train that would not have wrung off the journal - the only possible solution would have been to have a helicopter pick up the offending car BEFORE it wrung off. A helicopter picking up a car on the fly is a total 'Star Wars' type happening.
Silliness reigned and we all got wet.
zugmann Euclid Perhaps that explains the reluctance of the NTSB to immediately announce the cause. Has the NTSB ever announced a cause in under a year? And have they ever immediately announced a cause? This whole argument is just plain silly.
Euclid Perhaps that explains the reluctance of the NTSB to immediately announce the cause.
In reading NTSB final reports on incidents where I have obtained knowlege from some of the parties that were actually involved in the incident - the NTSB has become political and will hedge their causes based on 'push' (money?). Their wording of causes can be very, very shaky and nuanced.
Euclidbut it sure sounded to probably everyone that they were announcing the cause.
Virtually any investigation will involve some likely suspects, and they are often announced early on. Yes, it appears that the bearing was the cause, but until all avenues have been investigated, it's only one possibility.
We'll know when they file the final report.
To add to the previous discussion in this thread:
I went back and located the actual test (in the Federal Register archives) of ICC Order 29543, and find that it contains "official" definitions of 'medium speed' and 'restricted speed' that amend the version in the 1939 version of the 'rules'. It reads as follows:
136.11(q)(2) Low (restricted) speed. A speed that will permit stopping short of another train or an obstruction, but not exceeding 15 miles per hour.
That is the form of 'restricted speed' that I remember from my youth, and it would be interesting to see the discussion surrounding how 'another train' came to include a train running in the opposite direction also under restricted speed. Someone might look at the 1970 Transportation Act definitions and see if the change is in there.
EuclidIf Train A is moving in compliance with restricted speed such that it is prepared to stop short of any train ahead, I don’t see how Train A can be prepared to stop short of a train approaching him when his sight site distance is limited in a way that restricted speed is supposed to address. The train opposing Train A may be eating up the stopping distance of Train A without Train A being aware of that. An unprotected opposing train will definitely be a hazard to Train A. But as such a hazard, what if the opposing train is not even complying with restricted speed? What if he is mistakenly running at full track speed? Train A could stop and still get hit by the opposing train.
It is obvious that you will be operating the train exceeding Restricted Speed since you can't comprehend its operation.
EuclidAn unprotected opposing train will definitely be a hazard to Train A. But as such a hazard, what if the opposing train is not even complying with restricted speed? What if he is mistakenly running at full track speed? Train A could stop and still get hit by the opposing train.
And that has to do with what, exactly?
zugmann And that has to do with what, exactly?
Complying with restricted speed rule to stop short of hazards when some hazards may be moving toward you.
EuclidComplying with restricted speed rule to stop short of hazards when some hazards may be moving toward you.
If your train is supposed to be operating at restricted speed, then the opposing train will also be operating at restricted speed.
This is the very heart of "half the distance." It's been explained that way several times.
If either train is unable to stop before reaching the oncoming train, then said train wasn't operating at restricted speed.
It's really pretty simple.
tree68 Euclid Complying with restricted speed rule to stop short of hazards when some hazards may be moving toward you. If your train is supposed to be operating at restricted speed, then the opposing train will also be operating at restricted speed. This is the very heart of "half the distance." It's been explained that way several times. If either train is unable to stop before reaching the oncoming train, then said train wasn't operating at restricted speed. It's really pretty simple.
Euclid Complying with restricted speed rule to stop short of hazards when some hazards may be moving toward you.
Restricted Speed with opposing trains PRESUMES that each train become visible to the other train at the same point in time and by stopping within 1/2 the range of vision they will come to a stop facing each other - without impact.
The reality of sight lines and background lighting can skew when one train is visible to the other AS A TRAIN.
EuclidI understand, but I am asking a slightly different question that I will explain later.
Sensible operation planning -- just as 'ought to have been' used in the Cayce accident -- is the only real thing that would avoid an accident, unless sight distance were so great, and identification of the facing trains so immediate and effective, that conventional brake and braking practice would stop both trains "in time".
Note that you can NOT start up with the idea that 'any time you're running at restricted speed and see another train you emergency brake to get as short a stopping distance as possible because inches or seconds may count'. Real railroads aren't safe for trains in emergency.
Incidentally, with respect to train recognition, if the train 'not operating at restricted speed' is going faster than 15mph, it has to have ditch lights operating on the front end. That rules out a backing move, or a locomotive operating long-hood-forward without ditch lights on that end. You'd see 'three lights' from either cab, and perhaps (if your vision and distance perception is better than mine) you'd recognize from the cab of the train at 'restricted speed' that the 'another train' was speeding.
Now, for fun: how about learning from the Smiths Falls near-collision, and say that trains 'coming to a stop from restricted speed' need to be capable of accelerating in reverse as soon as they have come to a controlled stop. The only thing that saved the VIA Rail LRC locomotive (and its pathetic fiberglass nose protection) from disaster was the very prompt and dramatically-smoking reversing of the freight power... and even then it was a close-run thing.
Overmod Euclid I understand, but I am asking a slightly different question that I will explain later. There is no real answer to the question 'what if the other train is not operating at restricted speed'. As far as the 'faster' train is concerned, it's Cayce with all its impending horror; for the train operating under 'restricted speed' it no longer matters whether they can guesstimate where 'half the distance from where you saw the other train' might be, and any clever efforts to achieve it will, bluntly, fail. All they can really hope to do is plug the train when they see collision is impossible to avoid. Sensible operation planning -- just as 'ought to have been' used in the Cayce accident -- is the only real thing that would avoid an accident, unless sight distance were so great, and identification of the facing trains so immediate and effective, that conventional brake and braking practice would stop both trains "in time".
Euclid I understand, but I am asking a slightly different question that I will explain later.
There is no real answer to the question 'what if the other train is not operating at restricted speed'. As far as the 'faster' train is concerned, it's Cayce with all its impending horror; for the train operating under 'restricted speed' it no longer matters whether they can guesstimate where 'half the distance from where you saw the other train' might be, and any clever efforts to achieve it will, bluntly, fail. All they can really hope to do is plug the train when they see collision is impossible to avoid.
Euclid Overmod Euclid I understand, but I am asking a slightly different question that I will explain later. There is no real answer to the question 'what if the other train is not operating at restricted speed'. As far as the 'faster' train is concerned, it's Cayce with all its impending horror; for the train operating under 'restricted speed' it no longer matters whether they can guesstimate where 'half the distance from where you saw the other train' might be, and any clever efforts to achieve it will, bluntly, fail. All they can really hope to do is plug the train when they see collision is impossible to avoid. Sensible operation planning -- just as 'ought to have been' used in the Cayce accident -- is the only real thing that would avoid an accident, unless sight distance were so great, and identification of the facing trains so immediate and effective, that conventional brake and braking practice would stop both trains "in time". Yes, as you say, I think that there is no solution to the circumstance of two trains approaching each other on the same track, with one train complying with a restricted speed requirement, and the other being sufficiently out of compliance with it. If Train A was complying with the restricted speed rule, and Train B was exceeding restricted speed, making it impossible for both trains to stop in time, the collision would be exclusively the fault of Train B. That is even though Train A did not comply with the rule requiring him to be able to stop within half of his range of vision, for the hazard of an approaching train. But in the larger perspective, what sort of circumstances would lead to two trains approaching each other, on course for a head-on collision, but only on the authority of the restricted speed rule? It seems to me that if two trains approaching each other on course for a head-on collision, and each unaware of the other, they should both be immediately stopped by some means other than restricted speed. Does the rule even list this circumstance as being one of the hazards that is addressed under the status of restricted speed? Are those hazards that are specifically listed in the rule limited to that list? Or-- is the rule calling for a speed that allows stopping in half the distance from any conceivable hazard that is visible to the naked eye, regardless of the circumstance? Some of the references to the rule imply that to be the case. And also, the term, “Obstruction” would include everything. A train being required to stop short of a train ahead that is stopped or moving slowly ahead, in the same direction, makes perfect sense. But, all that the rule says is this: “(Be) Prepared to stop within one-half the range of vision — short of a train, obstruction, or switch improperly lined. Be on the lookout for broken rail.” It does not exclude a train coming toward you head-on. “Short of a train” means a train standing still, or moving in either direction. And it also does not exclude the need to comply if a train is approaching at a speed greater that what is allowed by the rule. Such a train is definitely a hazardous obstacle, which is what restricted speed is supposed to protect against. That is, it protects against something being wrong, like an obstruction, improperly lined switch, or a broken rail. Those wrong items are no different than the wrongness of a train coming toward you head-on, while exceeding the required restricted speed.
Brain Dead Crews only operate on the Euclid RR. Catastrophe Inc.
The preliminary NTSB report on the incident reported that the striking train was operating at 13 MPH - well inside Euc's 15 MPH interpertation of Restricted Speed however far outside the 1/2 Range of Vision part of Restricted Speed.
Bucky can throw all the "what if's" in that he wants.
That isn't going to change the premise on which "restricted speed" is based.
About the only time two opposing trains or engines will be approaching each other on the same track under restricted speed will be within yard limits or restricted limits on a main track or controlled (signalled) track. Under the similar "Movement on other than main track" rule, when trains or engines are moving on the same yard track or uncontrolled siding. Remember, yard limits or restricted limits are only on a main track. Other than main track covers everything else.
Another posibility would be when opposing trains have overlapping or joint limits. One would probably have some kind of work authority, allowing movement in either direction within it's authorized limits. The other could either be a straight away move or also have some kind of working limits. When this happens, both would be notified that they are within joint limits and all movement would be at restricted speed within the joint limits.
Outside of the above, movement of opposing trains and engines would be governed by other movement authority. Either verbal or written, with or without block signals or by signal indications. Those rules are designed to keep opposing trains from running into each other. It is assumed that everyone will follow the rules for the respective authority types, that mechanical or signal equipment will function as designed. That's why on a main track or signalled track a collision is more likely to be one train running into the rear end, rather than a head on collision between two trains.
jeffhergert About the only time two opposing trains or engines will be approaching each other on the same track under restricted speed will be within yard limits or restricted limits on a main track or controlled (signalled) track. Under the similar "Movement on other than main track" rule, when trains or engines are moving on the same yard track or uncontrolled siding. Remember, yard limits or restricted limits are only on a main track. Other than main track covers everything else. Another posibility would be when opposing trains have overlapping or joint limits. One would probably have some kind of work authority, allowing movement in either direction within it's authorized limits. The other could either be a straight away move or also have some kind of working limits. When this happens, both would be notified that they are within joint limits and all movement would be at restricted speed within the joint limits. Outside of the above, movement of opposing trains and engines would be governed by other movement authority. Either verbal or written, with or without block signals or by signal indications. Those rules are designed to keep opposing trains from running into each other. It is assumed that everyone will follow the rules for the respective authority types, that mechanical or signal equipment will function as designed. That's why on a main track or signalled track a collision is more likely to be one train running into the rear end, rather than a head on collision between two trains. Jeff
EuclidI asked those questions because the restricted speed rule does not seem to rule out that two-opposing-trains situation. But I understand your point about the other factors that would come into play with that situation, so the control is not just the restricted speed rule.
As has been explained before, the whole idea of restricted speed is that two opposing trains running at restricted speed can stop before a collision can occur.
Any other situation occurring means that someone is not running at restricted speed.
In signaled territory, there is generally enough leeway built into the system to prevent two trains running in opposite directions from being faced with that situation.
In dark territory, occupancy is generally exclusive, so one of the trains is somewhere they should not be.
NORAC Rule 98 is applied to certain areas (terminals, yards, etc) and calls for restricted speed in ALL cases. Some rulebooks even specify a maximum speed that is less than that otherwise specified in the timetable. I'm sure other railroads have an equivalent rule.
At Deshler, OH, it's not unusual to see the interlocking signals go to restricting after a train passes, and until it clears the next control point, at which time the signal will change to an approach aspect.
One thing I learned in my first two weeks of employment on the railroad - reading and writing the words written in the Rule Book don't train you for how the Rule Boo IN ITS ENTIRETY is tied together and applied in the wide variety of situations that routinely occur on a Class 1 railroad. The entire rule book is brought to bear on any situation the crops up - not just one single sentance of a single rule.
That is where Safety Culture comes into the equation. Safety scoffers always want to sharp shoot and parse the wording and application of one rule independent of all others.
tree68 Bucky can throw all the "what if's" in that he wants. That isn't going to change the premise on which "restricted speed" is based.
EuclidThat is not at all what I am doing.
Actually, it's exactly what you're doing - "what if yada yada."
Never said you're trying to rewrite the rules. Usually it's a matter of trying to read something into the topic that isn't there.
tree68 Euclid That is not at all what I am doing. Actually, it's exactly what you're doing - "what if yada yada." Never said you're trying to rewrite the rules. Usually it's a matter of trying to read something into the topic that isn't there.
Euclid That is not at all what I am doing.
Winner, Winner - Chicken Dinner!
If anything, I was the one who came closest to 'trying to rewrite the rule' -- in saying that if the rule reads clearly 'half the distance to the obstruction' any testing for it ought to enforce compliance.
The actual rule for 'restricted speed' was part of the same ICC Order of 1947 that imposed the train control/continuous cab signal requirement in the early Fifties. And both its text and its discussion in the Federal Register clearly state 'stop short of an obstruction' -- which is, of course, how all the railroaders see it being tested.
I encourage anyone to go to the link I posted and read the discussion and text of the Order for themself. Any hypotheticals that involve that definition should be fairly clear to address afterward. All that has apparently 'changed' is that the rule now says 'half the distance' just in case the 'obstruction' happens to be a train moving at restricted speed. And all that remains is to find the "official" time and place that the rule was modified to read as it does... together with, I suspect, the then Government rationale for imposing it (and, hopefully, some insight into how rear-world humans could properly execute it as written).
Overmod If anything, I was the one who came closest to 'trying to rewrite the rule' -- in saying that if the rule reads clearly 'half the distance to the obstruction' any testing for it ought to enforce compliance. The actual rule for 'restricted speed' was part of the same ICC Order of 1947 that imposed the train control/continuous cab signal requirement in the early Fifties. And both its text and its discussion in the Federal Register clearly state 'stop short of an obstruction' -- which is, of course, how all the railroaders see it being tested. I encourage anyone to go to the link I posted and read the discussion and text of the Order for themself. Any hypotheticals that involve that definition should be fairly clear to address afterward. All that has apparently 'changed' is that the rule now says 'half the distance' just in case the 'obstruction' happens to be a train moving at restricted speed. And all that remains is to find the "official" time and place that the rule was modified to read as it does... together with, I suspect, the then Government rationale for imposing it (and, hopefully, some insight into how rear-world humans could properly execute it as written).
Restricted speed was not a rule until sometime in the 1990s the best I can tell. The General Code of Operating Rules, third edition from 1994 is the first GCOR to have it as a rule. The previous two GCORs, and a Conrail 1985 rule book I have, and all other rule books previous, show Restricted Speed as a definition.
The wording about operating at a speed allowing stopping within half the distance was added sometime in the 1980s. The 1980 edition of the Consolidated Code, and rule books I have earlier than this date, don't have the wording. The first GCOR (1985) and the Conrail book do have the wording in the definition.
My personal belief is that the wording, "half the distance," was added to emphasize that restricted speed was not to be construed as a constant speed. Rather, it needed to be modified as conditions (sight distance) dictated.
The B&O Rule book I got when I hired out was published April 26, 1953 and reprinted with updates to December 2. 1964. It defines three speeds -Medium Speed - A speed not exceeding thirty (30) Miles Per HourSlow Speed - A speed not exceeding fifteen (15) Miles Per HourRestricted Speed - Proceed, prepared to stop short of: train, obstruction, improperly lined switch or broken rail
Restricted speed is not defined by MPH and there is no mention of 1/2 the range of vision.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.