Lee Koch wrote: I don't buy the exaggerated costs being estimated here either. Every Class I has CTC on their main lines. Most of them use color signal lights in some combination of green, red and yellow. Switch the oculars if you have to (20 minutes), reprogram your signaling software (expensive, but not in the billions), perhaps change a relay here and there, and adapt your rules book. Traffic lights for roads all work the same, and can be adapted to VERY different situations. It can be done, and at lower cost than has been claimed here.And railroads have been known to invest plenty of money in their infrastructure at minimal return just because it improves operations. See the fly-over through Wichita, KS. That cost a bundle compared to the costs of grade crossing incidents on that particular stretch!
I don't buy the exaggerated costs being estimated here either. Every Class I has CTC on their main lines. Most of them use color signal lights in some combination of green, red and yellow. Switch the oculars if you have to (20 minutes), reprogram your signaling software (expensive, but not in the billions), perhaps change a relay here and there, and adapt your rules book. Traffic lights for roads all work the same, and can be adapted to VERY different situations. It can be done, and at lower cost than has been claimed here.
And railroads have been known to invest plenty of money in their infrastructure at minimal return just because it improves operations. See the fly-over through Wichita, KS. That cost a bundle compared to the costs of grade crossing incidents on that particular stretch!
Lee: Thanks for sharing your opinions so candidly. My day job includes directing a 20-person signal design team, preparing cost estimates of signal installations, and writing railroad business plans including return-on-investment calculations for everything from new main tracks to short-line rail rehabilitations to freight opportunities large and small, so if there's anything further I can add or explain, please don't hesitate to ask.
RWM
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
bwisch wrote:In my day a lunar signal on the MoPac was used to designate going from a signal controlled track to an unsignal controlled track and if you hit anything you were history. Rules were rules.
No different now on any railroad I work for.
I guess Railroading has changed since my time in the Signal Dept. To operate a track car or an engine (that is be an engineer) you had to pass a rules exam which very clearly said what the signal aspects meant on the division you authority to operate on. If you were an engineer on ABC RR you did not operate on XYZ RR therefore you could not confuse signal aspects. I donj't understand why all the bickering. And the exzaggerated costs for changing to a standard.
blue streak 1 wrote:I believe that the point that several people have made is that at different locations different aspects indicate restricting. As management or as a operator I don't want to miss a restricting indication. I have observed that CSX engineers near where i live will do anything not to operate on a restricting aspect. The northbound interlocking signal will give a restricting as soon a train clears the interlocking as soon as the switch is properly aligned for a following movement. However the engineers almost always wait until they have at least an approach indication. That shows how much they respect restricting. To missinterpret an aspect as not restricting is not to be taken lightly. That is why there needs to be standardization of at least this indication.
It has nothing to do with respect, as it does speed. With a restricting they can only go, for the most part, walking speed. An approach allows for much faster movement and less looking out.
An "expensive model collector"
Railway Man is, unfortunately, on the money. Not surprising. It's not as simple as changing something during regular maintenance. It would be necessary to change over all at once, and retrain all your road people -- and it's not just changing a few bulbs. More like a few thousand miles of wire and who knows how many relays.
The Canadian problem was much easier: when it was done, there were only two railroads in the country, and one of them was a Crown corporation. And the differences there were minor. The differences in the US are very very significant.
blue streak 1 wrote:These cost estimates seem way out of line. Why not just modify the offending signals during normal maintenance or upgades? Some More descriptive signals would still allow for the older aspects.
Why do you think those estimates are out of line?
Perhaps I can help, but I would first need to know:
Lee Koch wrote: tree68 wrote: This has been discussed at some length already, as a search on signals and signalling will show. You just have to weed through the model-type posts.I tried the search and found no posts on the topic within the last 2 years. Perhaps it has been discussed at length, but I thought that the recent mishap warranted bringing up the topic again.And I still say that, if the Canadians could do it (albeit per decree), so could the US railroads.I have checked Mr. Krug's site before, and it is very informative!
tree68 wrote: This has been discussed at some length already, as a search on signals and signalling will show. You just have to weed through the model-type posts.
This has been discussed at some length already, as a search on signals and signalling will show. You just have to weed through the model-type posts.
I tried the search and found no posts on the topic within the last 2 years. Perhaps it has been discussed at length, but I thought that the recent mishap warranted bringing up the topic again.
And I still say that, if the Canadians could do it (albeit per decree), so could the US railroads.
I have checked Mr. Krug's site before, and it is very informative!
The two threads that discussed this are:
http://cs.trains.com/forums/1386705/ShowPost.aspxhttp://cs.trains.com/forums/1346122/ShowPost.aspx
I don't think anyone arguing it could not be done. It's merely a matter of money.
Anything is possible, but who in their right mind would propose spending $30 billion dollars for a return of $5 million. Even if the US dollar is cheap.
"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
blue streak 1 wrote:Guys read Al Krug's page on signals on aspect and indication. That reference will give you a good idea of signals and tells me no more heads would be required bot might take some reprograming of newer type signals and maybe a flasher installed in the signal cabin. Older all mechanical systems might take more work.
About $30 billion to do the job. This is in an industry with an annual capital expenditure capability of approximately $12 billion and an annual misinterpreted-signal casualty cost of maybe $5 million.
IIRC, there are several kinds of signalling - occupancy, speed, interlocking. Given the number of aspects required, and the resources available to provide those aspects, you can easily get to the point of needing to duplicate signal aspects in order to confer different meanings, given a specific location.
That's not to say that there couldn't be some streamlining, but you still have to reconcile several rules systems, a plethora of different specific situations, and years of corporate philosophies (dating back through several generations of mergers in some cases) in order to come up with a single unified schema.
Heck, just a look at the Rochelle webcam points up some of that. BNSF runs right-handed, UP runs left handed. In the case of UP, that is even more interesting, since I believe the bulk of the UP system generally runs right handed. The line through Rochelle is former C&NW - a corporate legacy.
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...
I read an article in a recent issue of "Trains Magazine" about a passenger train accident due (most likely) to confusion on the part of the engineer as to the meaning of a red over yellow signal aspect. The author made the suggestion that US railroads could follow the example of their Canadian competitors and adopt common signaling practices. The main argument against doing so is that railroading in different parts of the country are so different that they require different signaling.
Now I don't buy that! Canada has any terrain that we've got in the US with the exception of deserts, and they've managed it. Don't misunderstand me, I'm not up on my high horse here! Europe sure has nothing close to uniform signaling practices outside of individual countries. Heck, Germany has 4 different signal systems in effect: upper quadrant semaphore signals, Hp Signals (former Federal DB), Hl Signals (former East German DR), and the new Ks Signals, which are supposed to eventually replace all previous signal systems. But until then... And Europeans can't even agree on right-hand running on their double tracked mains!
Still, it seems like since Canadian and US railroading are so similar, couldn't all North American railways agree on common signaling?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.