Outlawed crews are constantly being transported in the locomotives. Are you saying that this is against the rules or union agreement?
Carl: I looked at my CORA last night and the restricting indication for the PRR type signals was
--- over \
while the color light is red over yellow, which is also an aspect for Diverging Approach. I understand that the train switched tracks at Englewood. Is it possible the engineer thought the signal meant Diverging Approach rather than Ristricting?
I guess we will not know until he testifies in the hearing. It just goes to show, ya gotta know the territory.
ed
CShaveRR wrote: As for the deadheading engineer, he's out of the picture completely (IMO), as far as responsibility goes--his hours of service prevented him from operating, so he could have been asleep or whatever (at least that's what I'd be doing!). Talk about a rude awakening!
Not so fast, If person was outlawed he/she had no business in the cab, One rule violation is already that with multiple people in cab the calling of signals in mandatory, how can a outlawed person comply with such rule when he/she is no longer performing service ????
jeffhergert wrote: Flashing Red also works (UP) for Restricting. Is that acceptable? Jeff
Jeff
Sorry I didn't say anything about this sooner, Jeff.
Flashing Red might even be better--Wabash doesn't like Lunar, and if Flashing Red is replacing Lunar in some applications on both BNSF and UP (so I've been told--I saw one on BNSF once), it could probably go universal just as easily. Just get rid of the yellow for anything but an indication meaning that the track to the next signal will be clear.
Carl
Railroader Emeritus (practiced railroading for 46 years--and in 2010 I finally got it right!)
CAACSCOCOM--I don't want to behave improperly, so I just won't behave at all. (SM)
Color-light signal at Englewood, Ed. Too bad, in a way--a Restricting on a Pennsy position-light signal would have been unmistakable.
As for the deadheading engineer, he's out of the picture completely (IMO), as far as responsibility goes--his hours of service prevented him from operating, so he could have been asleep or whatever (at least that's what I'd be doing!). Talk about a rude awakening!
On the other hand, I can't imagine that if he knew what was going on, that he wouldn't have said something.
I don't know what an Amtrak engineer in his situation (having to be qualified on so many routes) would be required to carry--a CORA book (and they've probably gotten a lot bigger than your version, Ed!) is OK for the area, but it doesn't deal with lines hundreds of miles away from here, which the engineer would have to be qualified on. As I said early on, that's portions of all six major railroads, plus Amtrak's own trackage and some of Metra's as well (the old MILW to Rondout).
Here is my disclaimer up front...."not a railroader, nor an expert"
Does anyone know if the signals at Englewood is an old PRR position light signal? or the color lights?
Looking at my CORA book (very old) the PRR type signals have very similar aspects for Medium Approach, Slow Approach and Ristricting. What I am saying does not relieve the engineer of knowing the rules and abiding by them.
Listening in on the scanner chatter I often hear the dispatcher ask a crew if they are "qualified on the ________". This accident gives a whole new meaning as to why that is important. This engineer obviously was qualified and something bad happened regarding the interpratation of the rules.
BTW...what is the responsibility of the off duty engineer in this situation? Can he be punished for the accident?
Excellent discussions...
My guess all along here has been that the engineer interpreted red-over-yellow as a Medium Approach, because that's precisely what his actions indicate he was following. But the only person who knows that for sure is the engineer himself. It may take a while for that to come out.
Speaking of engineers, thanks, YoungEngineer, for your latest post. The information I base my statements on is the CORA (Chicago Operating Rules Association) book of October 1, 2007, which would contain any updates or revisions to timetable/special instructions up to that time. I didn't see anything affecting this particular stretch, and nothing correcting it has been issued to this date.
While I usually will wait for the NTSB report before commenting extensively on an accident, in this case the NTSB has already released quite a bit of information. There were direct quotes from NTSB Vice Chairman Robert Sumwalt in one of the Chicago papers confirming the signal aspect and the train speed.
as wabash1 stated above, the engineer was exceeding the speed limit, "will we ever know why?"
"We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics
CShaveRR wrote: youngengineer wrote: Without a timetable this thread is nothing but pure speculation. Without, NORAC rules, system special instructions, general orders, and other related paperwork for this train, this thread is nothin but pure speculation. Without having the timetable of this area no one, no one, can determine what the speed should have been, the media to get that right I highly doubt it. This signal could have a different meaning than the one that previous posters have given it, NORAC rules are God' words until they are amended by system special instructions, system general orders, or division general orders, or track warrants. (yes you will have track warrants in CTC and yard limits, you must have track warrants for every piece of mainline track you run on, the BNSF calls them general track bulletins). Until someone says yes, this piece of track is CTC and the speed through here, and these are the conditions in this area, this thread is meaningless.YoungEngineer, if you look very varefully at what I wrote, you will find all of that information. The territory is NORAC Rule 261--that's CTC to most of the rest of us. Timetable speed through here is 70 (not 79, as the news reports are saying). NS's definition of Restricted speed says you stop short (half the range of vision) and don't exceed 15 m.p.h.I don't have a NS timetable. But as an employee of another Chicago-area railroad, I do have all of the documentation and instructions and definitions I need to make statements such as I've made about the NS, its trackage, and its signals in the area. Now, is there anything else you'd like to know?
youngengineer wrote: Without a timetable this thread is nothing but pure speculation. Without, NORAC rules, system special instructions, general orders, and other related paperwork for this train, this thread is nothin but pure speculation. Without having the timetable of this area no one, no one, can determine what the speed should have been, the media to get that right I highly doubt it. This signal could have a different meaning than the one that previous posters have given it, NORAC rules are God' words until they are amended by system special instructions, system general orders, or division general orders, or track warrants. (yes you will have track warrants in CTC and yard limits, you must have track warrants for every piece of mainline track you run on, the BNSF calls them general track bulletins). Until someone says yes, this piece of track is CTC and the speed through here, and these are the conditions in this area, this thread is meaningless.
Until someone says yes, this piece of track is CTC and the speed through here, and these are the conditions in this area, this thread is meaningless.
YoungEngineer, if you look very varefully at what I wrote, you will find all of that information. The territory is NORAC Rule 261--that's CTC to most of the rest of us. Timetable speed through here is 70 (not 79, as the news reports are saying). NS's definition of Restricted speed says you stop short (half the range of vision) and don't exceed 15 m.p.h.
I don't have a NS timetable. But as an employee of another Chicago-area railroad, I do have all of the documentation and instructions and definitions I need to make statements such as I've made about the NS, its trackage, and its signals in the area.
Now, is there anything else you'd like to know?
Sorry Carl I guess I did kinda pass over what you had said, and what I said was not really meant for you, rather those making specualtion about what should have been, or could have been without, having experience with the specific rules for this area. I would still like to know if there are any territory specific instructions for this part of the NS, specifically the signal that was passed.
I do find it strange that they would use red over yellow as a restricting signal, but than again for those who havent worked west Im sure we have some strange rules and signals also.
Again sorry for what wasn' t meant as a mean spirited post, just a post to ask for clarity, calmness and less speculation of what might have happened based on media reports.
ChuckHawkins wrote:For the amateurs among us, would somebody please clarify an issue. The statement that the aspect was red over yellow appeared in the thread, and that NORAC rules apply. What specifically was the indication? I assume Rule 286, but don't feel very confident about it.
Looking through my copy of NORAC, I believe it's rule 290 (Restricted), not 286 (Medium Approach). Rule 286 aspects almost all appear to have at least one light flashing - but that does raise another possibility for misinterpretation.
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...
chefjavier wrote: grampaw pettibone wrote: I see that the lawyers are already feeding on this. Somebody is suing both Amtrak and NS. Why NS, other than they have big money? All they did was be there. Hopefully it will be thrown PDQ.NS owns the tracks and they are responsible. Amtrak only pays for "trackage rights".
grampaw pettibone wrote: I see that the lawyers are already feeding on this. Somebody is suing both Amtrak and NS. Why NS, other than they have big money? All they did was be there. Hopefully it will be thrown PDQ.
I see that the lawyers are already feeding on this. Somebody is suing both Amtrak and NS. Why NS, other than they have big money? All they did was be there. Hopefully it will be thrown PDQ.
NS owns the tracks and they are responsible. Amtrak only pays for "trackage rights".
No. That's not the deal that Amtrak has with the frt carriers. Amtrak carries all the liability for their trains and passengers when operated over the frt roads.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
YoungEngineer, if you look very carefully at what I wrote, you will find all of that information. The territory is NORAC Rule 261--that's CTC to most of the rest of us. Timetable speed through here is 70 (not 79, as the news reports are saying). NS's definition of Restricted Speed says you stop short (half the range of vision) and don't exceed 15 m.p.h.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUF19acPBZA&feature=related
Check this video on a control crash in the rear of a standing freight. Look at the engine jump. Our friend is right with theory of speed.
Tom
COAST LINE FOREVER
It is better to dwell in the corner of a roof than to share a house with a contentious woman! (Solomon)
A contentious woman is like a constant dripping! (Solomon)
Without a timetable this thread is nothing but pure speculation. Without, NORAC rules, system special instructions, general orders, and other related paperwork for this train, this thread is nothin but pure speculation. Without having the timetable of this area no one, no one, can determine what the speed should have been, the media to get that right I highly doubt it. This signal could have a different meaning than the one that previous posters have given it, NORAC rules are God' words until they are amended by system special instructions, system general orders, or division general orders, or track warrants. (yes you will have track warrants in CTC and yard limits, you must have track warrants for every piece of mainline track you run on, the BNSF calls them general track bulletins).
The paranoiacs at railroad.net wasted little time locking their thread on this crash. Surprise surprise.
motor
wabash1 wrote: CShaveRR wrote: Yes, Wabash, Medium Speed (or slow speed) are defined on railroads that use indications with those words in them. But, if this engineer thought he had a Diverging Approach (I know, not thinking NS), the speed is specified--30 mph on BNSF, 40 on CN, CP, or UP. Medium Approach has a defined speed of 30 on Amtrak as well.The signal encountered at Englewood is a high signal, on a bridge.I have read the rest of the post now before replying, I agree that the signal was misunderstood. in that it was human error, but to change all the signal systems because of this is wrong, You are trained on the trackage you run on, and that includes signals ( as you know) there is conductors out there working the same jobs who can't tell you what the signal aspect is much less the meaning, these also are your future engineers. How long has this student engineer been working this line why was the lead engineer not paying attention? these wont be answered anytime soon, I work the old southern side of the ns, i have looked at and even run on trackage of the old n&w side, Not knowing the signal mast or the territory I can give a good guess on what it indicated, Like what was stated in the past post there can be as many as 3 meanings for that signal i can think of, as well as differant meanings for slow speed medium speed , this is why i have no problem with the southern railway signals red yellow and green. red= stop or if number plate restrictingyellow = approachgreen = go. real simple, time table tells your speeds to run . But i still say no lunar white the light blends in to other lights in some areas makes it hard to see. flashing red works just go slow and make sure its not connected to another train.
CShaveRR wrote: Yes, Wabash, Medium Speed (or slow speed) are defined on railroads that use indications with those words in them. But, if this engineer thought he had a Diverging Approach (I know, not thinking NS), the speed is specified--30 mph on BNSF, 40 on CN, CP, or UP. Medium Approach has a defined speed of 30 on Amtrak as well.The signal encountered at Englewood is a high signal, on a bridge.
Yes, Wabash, Medium Speed (or slow speed) are defined on railroads that use indications with those words in them. But, if this engineer thought he had a Diverging Approach (I know, not thinking NS), the speed is specified--30 mph on BNSF, 40 on CN, CP, or UP. Medium Approach has a defined speed of 30 on Amtrak as well.
The signal encountered at Englewood is a high signal, on a bridge.
I have read the rest of the post now before replying, I agree that the signal was misunderstood. in that it was human error, but to change all the signal systems because of this is wrong, You are trained on the trackage you run on, and that includes signals ( as you know) there is conductors out there working the same jobs who can't tell you what the signal aspect is much less the meaning, these also are your future engineers. How long has this student engineer been working this line why was the lead engineer not paying attention? these wont be answered anytime soon, I work the old southern side of the ns, i have looked at and even run on trackage of the old n&w side, Not knowing the signal mast or the territory I can give a good guess on what it indicated, Like what was stated in the past post there can be as many as 3 meanings for that signal i can think of, as well as differant meanings for slow speed medium speed , this is why i have no problem with the southern railway signals red yellow and green.
red= stop or if number plate restricting
yellow = approach
green = go.
real simple, time table tells your speeds to run . But i still say no lunar white the light blends in to other lights in some areas makes it hard to see. flashing red works just go slow and make sure its not connected to another train.
In my opinion we should have one signal system just like we one standard gauge track. It doesn't take a Ph.D to figure that out.
karldotcom wrote: Well, I am not sure what is accurate in the above, but on Metrolink here in LA they have a lunar signal, which is sometimes used to put two trains into one siding.....usually a long siding that can fit two trains. Even sometimes one freight is dead, they will put a passenger train in behind it, let a train pass, then back it out and send it on its way. Very rare but have heard it done.Now this case sounds like permission was given to proceed after stopping for a red, restricted speed, train ahead.You arent going to need black box as this will be recorded and should be written down on the track warrant in the cab.
Well, I am not sure what is accurate in the above, but on Metrolink here in LA they have a lunar signal, which is sometimes used to put two trains into one siding.....usually a long siding that can fit two trains. Even sometimes one freight is dead, they will put a passenger train in behind it, let a train pass, then back it out and send it on its way. Very rare but have heard it done.
Now this case sounds like permission was given to proceed after stopping for a red, restricted speed, train ahead.
You arent going to need black box as this will be recorded and should be written down on the track warrant in the cab.
what does a track warrent haft to do with it? track warrents are used on main line movements outside of yard limits, i would think this is yard limits . and permission is never written on track warrents, its a verble recorded over the radio, and one last thing ( the guys in chicago can answer this) isnt that area ctc?
pic here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22070473/
I guess he could have mistook (and I am assuming the signal displayed was a restricting,which has not fully been determinded,regardless of current statements by all involved) for a more favorable aspect,I'm just spectulating on what I have read. I think I read that the train operated at less than the 15 mph required past the the signal and through the limits of the interlocking,then accelerated. A question I would ask is..Was the train previously stopped at Englewood,then accelerated after receiving a signal? (that would account for the slower speed through the interlocking as it would take time to accelerate,thereby not giving a clue as to what signal that was belived to have been seen. On the other hand,if the train slowed from a faster speed to the speed reported as passing the signal,then accelerated again,that seems to imply interpreting the signal as one that says decrease speed.If that was the case,I would not think he misinterpreted the signal.
tomwazy wrote: Chris The Amtrak was operating on ex Conrail (nee PRR) trackage at the time,governed by NORAC rules. NORAC signals convey track condition and speed as opposed to track condition and direction,ie diverging. I have worked in this territory for many years as a Conrail engineer. Only knowing what I read,it appears the Amtrak engineer used restricted speed to cross over and through the limits of the interlocking,but then for some reason,increased speed afterwards. The speed should have been mainted at or below 15mph looking out for any of a number of reasons for the restrictive signal.The block he was entering is well over 3 miles in length and curvy in nature. As an engineer,if I am operating on a restrictine signal,and have a limited line of sight,I would be certain to be able to stop in an extremely short distance.
The Amtrak was operating on ex Conrail (nee PRR) trackage at the time,governed by NORAC rules. NORAC signals convey track condition and speed as opposed to track condition and direction,ie diverging. I have worked in this territory for many years as a Conrail engineer. Only knowing what I read,it appears the Amtrak engineer used restricted speed to cross over and through the limits of the interlocking,but then for some reason,increased speed afterwards. The speed should have been mainted at or below 15mph looking out for any of a number of reasons for the restrictive signal.The block he was entering is well over 3 miles in length and curvy in nature. As an engineer,if I am operating on a restrictine signal,and have a limited line of sight,I would be certain to be able to stop in an extremely short distance.
You're basically agreeing with me, Tom. You're absolutely correct in what the engineer should have done under NORAC rules. But those rules are the only ones I can find in my CORA book in which a yellow light in the aspect doesn't assure one of an unobstructed block to the next signal. He apparently was going under a general (though incorrect) idea of the authority he had--I don't believe that he realized that his signal was a Restricting. I don't think he was being inattentive, as it sounds like he braked as soon as the train ahead (obscured by the curve and trains on adjacent tracks) became visible to him.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
That signal is goverened under NORAC rules. A restricting signal does not convey route,only track condition and speed. The Amtrak could have received that same signal and not been lined to diverge. Those who use the term "NS operating rules" have to differeniate as to which operating rules apply to a given territory as there are two different rules applied. All ex Conrail territory,on which this incident occurred,is NORAC rules.
Chris
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.