I think you're asking two questions ...
1. Can signal aspects be standardized? (More accurately, can all Methods of Operation such as CTC, DTC, TWC, Form B, OCS, etc., be unified into a few standard types with standard rules and procedures)?
2. Can operational control of railways be federalized?
The answer to both questions is yes. But the benefits would be dwarfed by the implementation and subsequent operating costs, operating efficiency would decline significantly, and safety would not be meaningfully improved.
I think you're seeing signal aspects in isolation from the rest of the railroad, like wrapping on a package, and that is not the case. Signal aspects are just an exterior manifestation of the entiire railroad infrastructure and organization. Railways in North American are characterized by a tremendous amount of geographic variation, purpose variation, and historical variation, and signal systems, like everything else on the railroad, have diverged in subtle ways in order to optimize the efficiency of each railroad. Establishing a single type of signaling is like assuming every person in the world the same height and weight -- it would be quite the economy for the clothing industry but the product would fit almost no one. It would require an investment of at least $1 trillion, because, you're not just changing signal aspects, you're throwing out and reinstalling all the electronics and electrical systems for all the signaling all the way back to the dispatching office; respacing all the signals; replacing all the dispatching offices; adding cab signals to every locomotive in the country (all of one type); making vast changes in track configurations; relocating a huge number of facilities and industries; retraining everyone in the entire industry; writing all new rule books; and so forth.
One of the constant discussions we have with clients and internally -- sometimes rather heated discussions -- is just how closely we adhere to standards, when we vary, and how we justify variation. Each railroad has a very large set of standards. Signals, for instance, run to thousands of pages of "typicals" for circuit design, hundreds of pages of field layouts, thousands of pages of procedures, instructions, and criteria, and all of that is intertwined with track design, operating rules, and a broad body of experience and knowledge of how it is done and why it's done that way.
RWM
chefjavier wrote:Make one Federal Traffic control for railroads as the airlines have the Air Traffic controllers.
Why? What is the benefit?
An "expensive model collector"
I agree with Railway Man; though IMO it primarily comes down to $$$. American railroads are extremely cash-intensive and under just ordinary maintenance consume large amounts of cash to keep the MOW safe and current operations moving. Going to a common standard of signalling might be nice for, say, one company like CSX but as Railway Man says, it would not be suitable for the entire nation.
What money can be put into new signalling is probably going to busy lines that have complicated signal systems that engineers from other roads (Amtrak, say, or some sort of haulage) might find confusing. It amazes me that there are still parts of exx-Pennsylvania RR that carry "bridge" signals whose message doesn't get across until the engineer figures out the context of other signals (directional-arrows, say) in addition to the usual color, position and whether a flashing light changes the meaning. Rather than work through complicated syllogisms, though, veteran railroaders on their line simply read them and understand them, the same way a bridge player's bid of "Two Notrump" can mean anything from "Shut up, partner," to "We're headed for a slam!" At its most complex, RR signalling goes from symbolism to being a language all its own.
Isn't there a pretty fresh, similar thread on this site?
chefjavier wrote:Can anyone explain me why the railroads can establish one standard signal system? Make one Federal Traffic control for railroads as the airlines have the Air Traffic controllers. I know the railroad lines are privately own but it just a question.
A pilot may fly anywhere, and has to be able to communicate with the ground in terms that both understand.
A locomotive engineer operates over lines of a single company, on routes where (s)he is familiar with the existing system and rules. If (s)he never runs in (fillintheblank) territory, (s)he has no need for that system's special knowledge. [(S)he? Yes, Matilda, there are female locomotive engineers.)
As the old adage goes, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
Chuck
al-in-chgo wrote:. What money can be put into new signalling is probably going to busy lines that have complicated signal systems that engineers from other roads (Amtrak, say, or some sort of haulage) might find confusing.
What money can be put into new signalling is probably going to busy lines that have complicated signal systems that engineers from other roads (Amtrak, say, or some sort of haulage) might find confusing.
Only by coincidence. 100% of the investment in signaling is going for (1) capacity expansion (2) replacement of old 2nd generation equipment with new 3rd generation to improve reliability and reduce maintenance expense.
In rough terms you can think of signaling as having three generations. 1st generation used semaphores arranged on the overlap system and mostly battery powered, and often just 3-aspect, using a pole line to carry information between adjacent signals. 2nd generation is relay-based, color-light, usually 4-aspect, mostly powered off a pole line, arranged on the Absolute Permissive Block system, and uses coded signal lines instead of hard-wire for central office commands to control points. 3rd generation is microprocessor based, color light, usually speed-signaled, and Electrocode (the information exchanged between the dispatching office and control points, and between signals, is in the rail) to eliminate the pole line. Utility drops provide power to each field location; sometimes solar if utility power is a long way away.
1st generation is virtually extinct. 2nd generation is now approaching 50-60 years old and is coming out wholesale to eliminate the maintenance headache and frequent outages of the pole lines, which of course is a significant cause of train delays. In 10 years 2nd generation signaling will be fairly uncommon, and in 15 years it will be about as scarce as semaphores are now.
As old comes out and new goes in, railroads are eliminating some of the funky aspects they inherited from predecessors and olden times. However, in most of the Class I rule books you can still find some leftover aspects that are geographically limited. Trainmen in those territories have to know what they're doing; that's why they qualify on their territories and if they're on a reroute have to have a pilot. It's a fair question to ask if trainmen are in some instances asked to qualify on too much territory to stay current on all of it (the so-called "super boards" now common in large terminals come to mind), but that's really a question for another thread. Unfamiliar signal aspects are just ONE of the the problems they are up against.
Railway Man wrote: It would require an investment of at least $1 trillion, because, you're not just changing signal aspects, you're throwing out and reinstalling all the electronics and electrical systems for all the signaling all the way back to the dispatching office; respacing all the signals; replacing all the dispatching offices; adding cab signals to every locomotive in the country (all of one type); making vast changes in track configurations; relocating a huge number of facilities and industries; retraining everyone in the entire industry; writing all new rule books; and so forth. RWM
It would require an investment of at least $1 trillion, because, you're not just changing signal aspects, you're throwing out and reinstalling all the electronics and electrical systems for all the signaling all the way back to the dispatching office; respacing all the signals; replacing all the dispatching offices; adding cab signals to every locomotive in the country (all of one type); making vast changes in track configurations; relocating a huge number of facilities and industries; retraining everyone in the entire industry; writing all new rule books; and so forth.
They can herd cats.. uhh.. airliners and seperate them using 3 dimensional space. Trains max out a single track line in a certain amount of room they need for braking, acceleration etc.
They can always add airliners to the "Cloud" but not more than X trains.
The entire system is based on fail safe. Something breaks and the most restrictive indicator is displayed. I can imagine the chaos at Center should the Double track mainline suddenly show red because a mouse chewed through the cable. (I know.. bear with me)
spokyone wrote:RWM. Could you give us a $ estimate about converting signals on a double main line track (directional running) to two main tracks? Oh let's say 100 miles between two points.
RWM. Could you give us a $ estimate about converting signals on a double main line track (directional running) to two main tracks? Oh let's say 100 miles between two points.
Let's assume the following fairly standard details:
1. Universal crossover every 8-10 miles
2. No major grades, moderate curvature, no major bridges or tunnels, no slide fences.
3. Dragging equipment detectors at intermediates; hot-box detectors every 8-10 miles.
4. Grade crossings with signals every 4 miles, half of them 2-lane, half of them 4-lane.
5. Utility power is readily available.
6. New turnouts, insulated joints.
7. A modest number of leaving signals on industry and side tracks, not too many additional control points for junctions, outside sidings, etc.
Including design, overhead, permitting, the total would be between $600K and $1 mm per mile.
n012944 wrote: chefjavier wrote:Make one Federal Traffic control for railroads as the airlines have the Air Traffic controllers. Why? What is the benefit?
I think if we have a standard signal system in US we could benefit on time arrival and departure for both Passerger and Freight trains. The system should be broken down to regional area but have Central area. If a train derails it would automatically diverted to other lines instead calling and asking for permision. I know it would cost alot of $$ to install and train staff but once it runs. It would have a positive impact in the business. Amtrak would benefit 100% The question you be asking> How would railroad charge other railroads? Using the old system of tonnage. Does anyone have a better answer?
chefjavier wrote: n012944 wrote: chefjavier wrote:Make one Federal Traffic control for railroads as the airlines have the Air Traffic controllers. Why? What is the benefit? I think if we have a standard signal system in US we could benefit on time arrival and departure for both Passerger and Freight trains. The system should be broken down to regional area but have Central area. If a train derails it would automatically diverted to other lines instead calling and asking for permision. I know it would cost alot of $$ to install and train staff but once it runs. It would have a positive impact in the business. Amtrak would benefit 100% The question you be asking> How would railroad charge other railroads? Using the old system of tonnage. Does anyone have a better answer?
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
When operating a car, you can respond to operational contraints within sight distances. With trains, especially 9000 foot and longer or 20000 ton or heavier freight trains, you have to make train handling decisions for the safe and efficient operation of the train, long before you see that next signal or slow order board.
Any idiot can pull the throttle and move a train....it takes an engineer to perform all the other operations that will safely and efficiently get the train to destination without incident....braking and slack handling and manging the intrain forces are a constant battle for the engineer with the train dynamics versus the actual terrain of the route.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Not to mention that the federal gov't is not going to commit billions to a project with no demonstrable decrease in accidents and injuries.
chefjavier wrote:If they spend Billions in Iraq a few billions won't hurt for the future of passenger trains.
Well, I wish the gov't would spend billions on passenger trains and almost as much on infrastructure repair and replacement. I just don't see it happening at this time. For me to say any more would get into politics, so I'll stop . . .
Actually, the railroads do have a fairly standard signal system. Red means stop, yellow means slow down, green means go. The devil is in the details, of course, as has been discussed in another thread. Plus you have situation where a specific set of aspects is needed to do the job. The major railroads are working to standardize the signalling on their own lines (another reason why semaphores, position lights and CPLs are disappearing). But it's going to take time. Eventually you may see more cohesive signalling schemes, but as long as there are dollars involved, they will be driven by when those dollars are available.
As far as centralizing dispatching - that's already being done. Both BNSF and UP have exactly one dispatch center each. CSX handles it's own lines out of JAX (reconfiguration being noted, however), while their former Conrail lines are dispatched out of their old centers. Not sure about NS, KCS, CP, CN, etc - never really followed them.
What this means is that it is entirely conceivable that all of the railroads could be dispatched out of one center, no matter who ran it, but benefits wouldn't justify the cost, since all of the individual railroad's lines would still be dispatched only for that railroad.
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 wrote:Actually, the railroads do have a fairly standard signal system. Red means stop, yellow means slow down, green means go. The devil is in the details, of course, as has been discussed in another thread. Plus you have situation where a specific set of aspects is needed to do the job. The major railroads are working to standardize the signalling on their own lines (another reason why semaphores, position lights and CPLs are disappearing). But it's going to take time. Eventually you may see more cohesive signalling schemes, but as long as there are dollars involved, they will be driven by when those dollars are available.As far as centralizing dispatching - that's already being done. Both BNSF and UP have exactly one dispatch center each. CSX handles it's own lines out of JAX (reconfiguration being noted, however), while their former Conrail lines are dispatched out of their old centers. Not sure about NS, KCS, CP, CN, etc - never really followed them.What this means is that it is entirely conceivable that all of the railroads could be dispatched out of one center, no matter who ran it, but benefits wouldn't justify the cost, since all of the individual railroad's lines would still be dispatched only for that railroad.
It's conceivable but in my opinion not practical and not advisable either. I'm not sure it ever made sense to consolidate offices beyond the regional consolidations of the 1980s.
CSX is in the process of decentralizing dispatching. NS never did. KCS only needed one to begin with. BNSF and UP have partially decentralized with multi-desk joint offices in San Bernardino, Spring, and Kansas City, and UP has a one-desk office recently reopened at Roseville, Calif. The trend appears to be away from centralization.
There are some very strong negatives of centralization many of which are subtle but powerful:
1. Network vulnerability. Even with communications links and power supply redundancy, the single office is vulnerable to shutdown both direct and indirect. An example of indirect includes, say, a massive snowstorm and none of the personnel can make it to work.
2. Sadie Hawkins Day. Every time a desk is consolidated or split it ripples through the seniority roster and everyone jumps desks, resulting in massive network inefficiencies while everyone requalifies and learns new territories.
3. Don't know the territory. It's very expensive for dispatchers to ride trains on their territories or meet any of the people in the field they work with, so this practice has fallen into disuse.
4. Work stoppage. In a labor action, the whole place shuts down.
5. The dinosaur syndrome. There's so much invested in fixed plant and a certain way of doing things that change becomes very hard; there's no place to go experiment with a different way of doing things to see if it works.
6. I don't want to live THERE. The talent pool gets very shallow because not everyone wants to live in City X, and there's less and less fresh blood coming in. Disevolution sets in.
7. Enslaved to the vendor. With one system, one vendor, and incentive to innovate evaporates. Competitors are shut out and shut down, and pretty soon you're buying your technology from overseas -- which might not be the technology you really want -- because you've killed everyone off.
8. No opportunity for advancement. Management ranks become so thin that it's a bloodbath leading up the ladder, and selection starts being based on everything but merit.
9. Lack of control. You'd think the centralized center would enhance control but they tend to become out of control, answering only to themselves, and since there's not an alternative, nor any other talent anywhere else, there's no choice but to let them do whatever they want.
If you wanted to crush North American railroading and the North American economy into rubble, one good way to do it would be to centralize dispatching into one center.
Not even close. The European Union would like to have standardized signaling. As for the non-EU European nations, it's unlikely very many will feel the need to adopt EU standards, if and when EU standards even become widespread.
Railway Man wrote: Not even close. The European Union would like to have standardized signaling. As for the non-EU European nations, it's unlikely very many will feel the need to adopt EU standards, if and when EU standards even become widespread.RWM
I read an article on Economic Journal a few years back. They talk about using one currency and banking, gov't, military, and transportation. So far they got the Currency and the banking. Don't be surprise to see the railroads merge to one system. What would be the official language?
Just because you are qualified on a signal system does not mean that you are qualified on the entire railroad. Someone who works out of Chicago can not just get on a train in Boston and take off, they have to get qualified on the territory, which involves a lot more than just signals.
tree68 wrote: As far as centralizing dispatching - that's already being done. Both BNSF and UP have exactly one dispatch center each. CSX handles it's own lines out of JAX (reconfiguration being noted, however), while their former Conrail lines are dispatched out of their old centers.
As far as centralizing dispatching - that's already being done. Both BNSF and UP have exactly one dispatch center each. CSX handles it's own lines out of JAX (reconfiguration being noted, however), while their former Conrail lines are dispatched out of their old centers.
CSX also has dispatchers in Calumet City, IL. Which is a "old" CSX center.
chefjavier wrote: I read an article on Economic Journal a few years back. They talk about using one currency and banking, gov't, military, and transportation. So far they got the Currency.
I read an article on Economic Journal a few years back. They talk about using one currency and banking, gov't, military, and transportation. So far they got the Currency.
R W M
Maybe you should research before you start saying anything, We have dispatchers riding with us all the time. its a practice that has been going on for several years . The practice or the want of the foamers to have a standard signal sytem so they would know what the signals mean should never happen, A engineer knows the signal of the territory he travels and a engineer who runs trains from st.louis -to chicago can not get on a train from jacksonville to washington dc with out being qualified, no matter how much someone wants to change the signal system it will not happen and does not need to happen.
wabash1 wrote:R W M Maybe you should research before you start saying anything. We have dispatchers riding with us all the time. its a practice that has been going on for several years .
Maybe you should research before you start saying anything. We have dispatchers riding with us all the time. its a practice that has been going on for several years .
I work directly for all of the Class Is and the large regionals on train control (signaling, dispatching, and rules). If you care to send me a p.m. I'll share with you some of the things I've done in the past few years. I assume you work for a Class I or a regional?
Dispatcher territory rides is a practice that until about 10 years ago was folllowed religiously and has declined substantially. Two of the Class Is have essentially discontinued the practice unless the dispatcher wants to take his own time and pay his own expenses. When I was a trick dispatcher many years ago we had to take our vacation time or days off; the company wouldn't pay for the time.
The practice or the want of the foamers to have a standard signal sytem so they would know what the signals mean should never happen, A engineer knows the signal of the territory he travels and a engineer who runs trains from st.louis -to chicago can not get on a train from jacksonville to washington dc with out being qualified, no matter how much someone wants to change the signal system it will not happen and does not need to happen.
Did I disagree with those points ever? Perhaps you're mistaking me for someone else.
Railway Man wrote: Dispatcher territory rides is a practice that until about 10 years ago was folllowed religiously and has declined substantially. Two of the Class Is have essentially discontinued the practice unless the dispatcher wants to take his own time and pay his own expenses. When I was a trick dispatcher many years ago we had to take our vacation time or days off; the company wouldn't pay for the time. RWM
I work for a Class 1, and road reviews are given, at the companys expense. In fact, it is in our contract that they must be given so often, I think it is every other year.
I'd appreciate if you would check and see if that's a universal practice on your railroad or only according to your local agreement. In 2005, the FRA and NTSB said it wasn't universal at any railroad, but maybe practices have changed on your railroad since then under FRA pressure.
It used to be on the roads I worked for that the territory ride was every six months, and you couldn't mark up on a new territory until you'd ridden it. I'm disheartened to hear that at your railroad it's declined to once every other year.
I often would look at signals, and note that each railroad here in the Chicago area is different, and I just kind of figured that trying to overhaul something as large, complex, and diverse as the signaling systems of the various railroads would be at the very least prohibitively expensive. It would make no sense to me anyway, to try and change it. Not only that, but if you leave it to the government to fix, you can count on a hugely expensive system that won't work.
As far as centralized dispatching goes, 9-1-1 centers have been cropping up all over for years, but then, fire departments and railroads are two different things, but the concepts are the same. It all works well when everything is up and running, but if something goes wrong, (power outage, computer failure, or weather related event) everything goes to hell in a handbasket, and quickly too. I have never worked in a centralized center a la DuComm,or Northwest Central, but I have been working in other places when the big centers have gone down, and in one case, I had to pick up part of the slack for one of the big centers when it went down for few hours. When the regional center crashed, a bunch of the local departments, as per agreement, took up the slack. They could still dispatch, but they couldn't answer 9-1-1, so, we took up the 9-1-1 slack, and radioed the calls back to them as their entire phone and computer systems had failed for one reason or another.
In the above case, there were other departments with their own dispatchers, and there was an agreement in place to take up the slack. What happens in a centralized railroad dispatch center? You can build redundancy into the systems, like phones, radios, and computers. But, in general, and in many cases, the redundancy is limited, and still hamstrings operations. There is a rule, the bigger the center, and the busier it is, the more likelihood that something will go wrong. Where would the centralized railroad dispatch center send operations if it went down? Are there back up dispatch positions in the field? Or, woiuld all traffic have to come to a stop while the problem is corrected?
I know from experience, that centralization has some good points, but it also has some big negatives as well.
It's been repeated here a couple of times that each individual railroad has it's own characteristics, geography, etc. etc. etc. And trying to fold all of those into one centralized system would be difficult at best.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.