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.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
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.
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...
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.
Jeff
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?
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
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?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.