June 8 & 9th Caltrain is cancelling all passenger service for a full operational check of the electrification system and schedules. Have to wonder if this includes maximum number of cars during rush hour?
2024 Service Changes | Caltrain
(deleted)
[quote user="Falcon48"]
I wasn't going to write anything more on this, but I stumbled onto something that may be useful to anyone seeking further information on FRA's track standards and track classifications. It's a short quote from a preamble to a 2008 FRA rule dealing with continuous welded rail:
"FRA issued the first Federal Track Safety Standards in 1971. See 36 FR 20336 (October 20, 1971)."
I haven't tried to look this up (I'm a "baby boomer" and not very computer savy, a condition which hasn't improved since I retired). But I'll bet the "36 FR" document is the Federal Register rulemaking document which adopted the original FRA track classification / speed scheme. If so, it should have a pretty good discussion of this feature. It should be pretty easy to find with the citation and the date.
[/quote
This is a nice nugget. I was never able to clearly find out when the track standards came into effect. This was several years earlier then I originally thought.
According to Nippon Sharyo the trucks are rated to 100mph in service, which would indicate they were tested to be stable at 110mph.
Caltrain operates under 79mph restriction for reasons other than truck capacity, and I don't know whether the electrification involves track and signal improvements that would make the retired cars unsuitable for the new track speed. These appear to be inside-swing-hanger trucks with damping and radius rods for bolster control, so the only real 'issues' with 110 prospective mph would be aerodynamics and concerns with loaded roll and hunting control imposed by the car's high roll center and large side area...
Does this commuter equipment have higher speed trucks for mainline passenger service?
blue streak 1Caltrain just "retired" some gallery cars to an off line location. Why can't Amtrak borrow these cars to fill in for the Superliner cars being used for signal enhancement routes?
Article says the cars will be stored in Petaluma on some of the SMART property until 'a buyer can be found'; I suspect Amtrak California will be well aware of the "opportunity" and would make other parts of the Amtrak organization aware too... but it couldn't hurt to let someone in the management of those Midwest trains know earlier...
Have you suggested this to Amtrak?
Caltrain just "retired" some gallery cars to an off line location. Why can't Amtrak borrow these cars to fill in for the Superliner cars being used for signal enhancement routes?
Caltrain Retires 32 Diesel Passenger Cars as Electrification Nears | Caltrain
Falcon48I wasn't going to write anything more on this, but I stumbled onto something that may be useful to anyone seeking further information on FRA's track standards and track classifications. It's a short quote from a preamble to a 2008 FRA rule dealing with continuous welded rail: "FRA issued the first Federal Track Safety Standards in 1971. See 36 FR 20336 (October 20, 1971)." I haven't tried to look this up (I'm a "baby boomer" and not very computer savy, a condition which hasn't improved since I retired). But I'll bet the "36 FR" document is the Federal Register rulemaking document which adopted the original FRA track classification / speed scheme. If so, it should have a pretty good discussion of this feature. It should be pretty easy to find with the citation and the date.
Sorry for all the duplicate posts. It wasn't intentional. But, as I mentioned in one of them, I"m not very computer savy. I'll go back to playing Super Mario Brothers on my Nintendo system, where I can't cause any more damage.
Overmod No. Assuming the original rulemaking was noticed in the "ICC Register", the final rule (but not the explanatory preamble) would have appeared in the Code of Federal Regulations as part of FRA's regulations once FRA adopted it as its own. Although I mentioned the ICC Register, I doubt that any significant ICC safety rulemakings were ever published there. This is strictly from memory but, as I recall, the "ICC Register" appeared subsequent to FRA assumption of safety jurisdiction, and it only lasted a few years. FRA would have published any of its own rulemakings in Federal Register. Falcon48 Also, there was a period (I think it was in the 70's, but don't hold me to that) when the ICC didn't use the Federal Register for their rulemakings. You'd be correct that the ICC wouldn't be using anything of record for rulemakings 'in the '70s'... but wouldn't the FRA have renamed an 'ICC Register' to something with their initials in it after taking over?
No. Assuming the original rulemaking was noticed in the "ICC Register", the final rule (but not the explanatory preamble) would have appeared in the Code of Federal Regulations as part of FRA's regulations once FRA adopted it as its own.
Although I mentioned the ICC Register, I doubt that any significant ICC safety rulemakings were ever published there. This is strictly from memory but, as I recall, the "ICC Register" appeared subsequent to FRA assumption of safety jurisdiction, and it only lasted a few years. FRA would have published any of its own rulemakings in Federal Register.
Falcon48 Also, there was a period (I think it was in the 70's, but don't hold me to that) when the ICC didn't use the Federal Register for their rulemakings.
You'd be correct that the ICC wouldn't be using anything of record for rulemakings 'in the '70s'... but wouldn't the FRA have renamed an 'ICC Register' to something with their initials in it after taking over?
Overmod Falcon48 Also, there was a period (I think it was in the 70's, but don't hold me to that) when the ICC didn't use the Federal Register for their rulemakings. You'd be correct that the ICC wouldn't be using anything of record for rulemakings 'in the '70s'... but wouldn't the FRA have renamed an 'ICC Register' to something with their initials in it after taking over?
Falcon48Also, there was a period (I think it was in the 70's, but don't hold me to that) when the ICC didn't use the Federal Register for their rulemakings.
One final point about researching old ICC rulemaking decisions (like the ICC signal rules). The decisions adopting and explaining ICC safety rules may not be in the Federal Register. The Federal Register publication (if there is one) may be just the text of the rule, without any discussion. The actual discussion and explanation of ICC safety rules will be in ICC Reports, like other ICC regulatory decisions of the era. Also, there was a period (I think it was in the 70's, but don't hold me to that) when the ICC didn't use the Federal Register for their rulemakings. Rather , they used their own publication - I believe it was called "ICC Register". However, I'm pretty sure this was after FRA took over safety regulation.
Were the cars that CalTrain removed off the property bought with any federal funds. If so, will the disposal of them be restricted? Maybe have to be offered to other rail asgencies and which ones?
Overmod Yes, but the eCFR doesn't go back further than 1984, which is worthless for finding what the 1950s rules actually might have been when made. For example I think it's highly likely that changes were made at about the time the track-class information was adopted, but we have no idea what the discussion concerning them was because they are only carried over as rules in the 1984 version of the CFR. Apparently the only source for 'pre-digitized' CFR detail is at Federal depository libraries, of which one is conveniently about ¾ of a mile from me. So I should get somewhere in a coupla days... I was just delighted that the back issues of the Federal Register have been put up as PDFs. The last time I tried searching for the original form of the ICC order on the Internet it was like pulling teeth to find the actual number -- everyone "knew" there was an ICC order in 1947 that re-imposed the "less than 80mph speed limit" but no one could actually quote you the text. With the PDFs online, it took less than 30 minutes to debug the traditional confusion over the actual order date (I had to do it by page number, but the PDFs aren't yet indexed that way) and read exactly what was issued. Now, the follow-up with all the waivers that were said to be asked for is another story entirely... but a few hours of perusing the relevant issues of the FR ought to let someone set up a timeline with details.
Yes, but the eCFR doesn't go back further than 1984, which is worthless for finding what the 1950s rules actually might have been when made.
For example I think it's highly likely that changes were made at about the time the track-class information was adopted, but we have no idea what the discussion concerning them was because they are only carried over as rules in the 1984 version of the CFR.
Apparently the only source for 'pre-digitized' CFR detail is at Federal depository libraries, of which one is conveniently about ¾ of a mile from me. So I should get somewhere in a coupla days...
I was just delighted that the back issues of the Federal Register have been put up as PDFs. The last time I tried searching for the original form of the ICC order on the Internet it was like pulling teeth to find the actual number -- everyone "knew" there was an ICC order in 1947 that re-imposed the "less than 80mph speed limit" but no one could actually quote you the text. With the PDFs online, it took less than 30 minutes to debug the traditional confusion over the actual order date (I had to do it by page number, but the PDFs aren't yet indexed that way) and read exactly what was issued. Now, the follow-up with all the waivers that were said to be asked for is another story entirely... but a few hours of perusing the relevant issues of the FR ought to let someone set up a timeline with details.
At least on my day, the computerized versions of ICC decisions didn't go back to the days of yore. That's probably changed since I retired, but I haven't had any reason to check it out.
JL ChicagoCheck out page 448
What is extremely fun is to look at the article a few pages earlier, on page 421, discussing something acknowledged to be tantamount to science fiction in 1925, but effectively reduced to practice by the same time as continuous signaling in late 1928. We'd go on to see it revolutionize operations in the early Thirties -- CTC.
Overmod No worries! I forget lots of things these days, LOL. Check out page 448. Article might have what you're looking for. https://www.google.com/books/edition/Railway_Signaling/wPv1eecBai8C?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=automatic+train+control+on+chicago+north+western+railway+signaling&printsec=frontcover JL Chicago The C&NW had continuous cab signals with automatic train control speed enforcement Chicago to Omaha. See Railway Signaling magazine December 1928. Can't believe I forgot this. https://www.jonroma.net/media/signaling/railway-signaling/1928/Automatic%20Train%20Control%20on%20the%20Chicago%20%26%20North%20Western.pdf Wish there was a clear picture of the 'relay' described so I could verify whether it was a vane type or not. Note that when the two-speed control was actuated in reduction, there was an 'electronic dashpot' on the calculated trip speed, which was decreased at a rate not visible to the engineer. Note is made that it is less than the rate the engineer should be taking way off the train for the indicated speed reduction. (Incidentally, the amplifying tubes were still called by their proprietary name, 'pliotrons', rather than triodes... ... here's how to make one: https://hackaday.com/2018/12/13/how-to-make-a-pilotron-the-forgotten-tube/ ).
No worries! I forget lots of things these days, LOL.
Check out page 448. Article might have what you're looking for.
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Railway_Signaling/wPv1eecBai8C?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=automatic+train+control+on+chicago+north+western+railway+signaling&printsec=frontcover
JL Chicago The C&NW had continuous cab signals with automatic train control speed enforcement Chicago to Omaha. See Railway Signaling magazine December 1928.
Can't believe I forgot this.
https://www.jonroma.net/media/signaling/railway-signaling/1928/Automatic%20Train%20Control%20on%20the%20Chicago%20%26%20North%20Western.pdf
Wish there was a clear picture of the 'relay' described so I could verify whether it was a vane type or not.
Note that when the two-speed control was actuated in reduction, there was an 'electronic dashpot' on the calculated trip speed, which was decreased at a rate not visible to the engineer. Note is made that it is less than the rate the engineer should be taking way off the train for the indicated speed reduction.
(Incidentally, the amplifying tubes were still called by their proprietary name, 'pliotrons', rather than triodes...
... here's how to make one:
https://hackaday.com/2018/12/13/how-to-make-a-pilotron-the-forgotten-tube/ ).
Falcon48 You are correct. Only the CNW portion east of Wyeville got ATS in 1952. Ironically, the Omaha Road portion had a 100 mph limit and when dropped to 79 the schedule was not changed. Makes me wonder how much actual 100 mph running they had. JL Chicago The C&NW had continuous cab signals with automatic train control speed enforcement Chicago to Omaha. See Railway Signaling magazine December 1928. Very detailed. Even presented a graphic of the braking operating curves established by train control. So not science fiction in 1928 but reality. To my knowledge, the portion of CNW that was slowed down because of the ICC signal rule revisions in the early 1950's was the Chicago-Twin Cities line west of Wyeville. WI (not the Chicago-Omaha line). The affiliated Omaha Road didn't install enhanced signalization on its portion of the Twin Cities line in response to then new ICC rules requiring cab signals, ATS or ATC for train speeds over 79 MPH. So, train speeds on this portion of the route were limited to 79 MPH after 1952.
You are correct. Only the CNW portion east of Wyeville got ATS in 1952. Ironically, the Omaha Road portion had a 100 mph limit and when dropped to 79 the schedule was not changed. Makes me wonder how much actual 100 mph running they had.
JL Chicago The C&NW had continuous cab signals with automatic train control speed enforcement Chicago to Omaha. See Railway Signaling magazine December 1928. Very detailed. Even presented a graphic of the braking operating curves established by train control. So not science fiction in 1928 but reality.
The C&NW had continuous cab signals with automatic train control speed enforcement Chicago to Omaha. See Railway Signaling magazine December 1928. Very detailed. Even presented a graphic of the braking operating curves established by train control. So not science fiction in 1928 but reality.
To my knowledge, the portion of CNW that was slowed down because of the ICC signal rule revisions in the early 1950's was the Chicago-Twin Cities line west of Wyeville. WI (not the Chicago-Omaha line). The affiliated Omaha Road didn't install enhanced signalization on its portion of the Twin Cities line in response to then new ICC rules requiring cab signals, ATS or ATC for train speeds over 79 MPH. So, train speeds on this portion of the route were limited to 79 MPH after 1952.
JL ChicagoThe C&NW had continuous cab signals with automatic train control speed enforcement Chicago to Omaha. See Railway Signaling magazine December 1928.
timzAs long as they're making 5 stops or more, 90 mph saves less than a minute.
When I go to Bethesda I usually fly into Baltimore and shuttle over to get on a Penn Line train -- these routinely get up to 114mph between stops and you start to get a little bit of a roller-coaster effect as the curves come at you a bit too fast at times. That was my introduction to the joys of a HHP8 a few years ago...
I do think that a great deal of the reason for 'electrification' is in the zero-carbon promise rather than deep cuts in overall trip time. But then again there are plenty of people who pay a ridiculous surcharge to ride Acela when it's only a few minutes different over a much longer run with fewer stops.
Overmod Is there a listing of the annual 'reports' filed with Congress under PL 91-458, title II, sec 211(a)(2)? The first of these would have been May 1971, and the second May 1972; one of these would contain the discussion of how 49 CFR 213.9 came to include nominal track classes, and we could determine from that how the classes were determined. (I had always ASSumed that track classes were derived from AREA/AREMA standards or data...) Likewise, do you have dates (or Federal Register listings) for the signalization rules adopted in the 1950s? In a pinch it would be possible to 'walk' the newly-digitized archives of the FR during these years and, day by day, look at the ICC business based on the headings -- but man, that's tedious work! I think there are issues with PTC as mandated being suitable as a replacement for true continuous cab signal indication or CBTC, in no small part because the PTC system was developed as an overlay to existing signals rather than being a functional replacement that would provide both continuous and predictive train-control information.
Is there a listing of the annual 'reports' filed with Congress under PL 91-458, title II, sec 211(a)(2)? The first of these would have been May 1971, and the second May 1972; one of these would contain the discussion of how 49 CFR 213.9 came to include nominal track classes, and we could determine from that how the classes were determined. (I had always ASSumed that track classes were derived from AREA/AREMA standards or data...)
Likewise, do you have dates (or Federal Register listings) for the signalization rules adopted in the 1950s? In a pinch it would be possible to 'walk' the newly-digitized archives of the FR during these years and, day by day, look at the ICC business based on the headings -- but man, that's tedious work!
I think there are issues with PTC as mandated being suitable as a replacement for true continuous cab signal indication or CBTC, in no small part because the PTC system was developed as an overlay to existing signals rather than being a functional replacement that would provide both continuous and predictive train-control information.
Here's how to do it (using the FRA Part 236 signal rules as an example):
1. Go to the following address on the Code of Federal Regulations website.
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-49/subtitle-B/chapter-II/part-236?toc=1
2. This will take you to the current version of FRA's Part 236 signal rules.
3. You'll also see notations like this following the rule text:
"Source: 33 FR Dec 25, 1968 unless otherwise noted" or "49 FR 3382 Jan 26, 1984".
Clicking on the FR citation will take you to the portion of the Fedral Register which discusses the section of the rule in question and explains why FRA adopted it.
Overmod Something I have not done is timelined the many waivers given to various railroads that needed 'more time' to implement solutions. That might give the Q enough 'loophole' to keep 90mph in the timetable until the final delays timed out. I wonder if you could keep 90mph in the timetable, but foist it entirely on the crews to keep at 79mph or below in actual practice. That doesn't seem sensible to me, but I don't know.
Something I have not done is timelined the many waivers given to various railroads that needed 'more time' to implement solutions. That might give the Q enough 'loophole' to keep 90mph in the timetable until the final delays timed out.
I wonder if you could keep 90mph in the timetable, but foist it entirely on the crews to keep at 79mph or below in actual practice. That doesn't seem sensible to me, but I don't know.
That could be. I don't know what precipitated the slowing to 79 in 1957.
Timetable west of Rochelle all the way to LaCrosse was 90 until 1957.
I think class 4 track was always just 60 for freights. When I mentioned 79/80 I meant just for pax.
I didn't know that. Thanks for the lesson. I did know the same was true for Savanna to LaCrosse. Note however that the 90 was only permitted with electro pneumatic brakes. Just plain air brakes were limited to 79. I'm guessing the ICC gave the Q a sweetener as even back in those days the regulators were pushing for electric actuated brakes. But I have nothing to back up my argument.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.