The latest info from the investigation into the Northridge Metrolink crash. Go here to read it:http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-metrolink3-2008dec03,0,1876430.story?page=1An excerpt (the subheadline from the story):Red light Metrolink train ran before Chatsworth crash may not have been clearly visibleJack
Assuming with a switch set against him, it would be a restricting signal, why would he keep going if the signals were apparently "dark?"
Alex
Very interesting - thanks !
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-metrolink3-2008dec03,0,1876430.story?page=1
To me its just a news paper trying to keep a dying story from dying. truth is the man ran a stop signal and crashed. killing many inocent people. The news must be slow on the left coast
"The question," Higgins told reporters after the crash, "is did [Sanchez] see it red? "Did he see it as something else?"
These final questions posed by the article seem to explore an entirely new condition on taking responsibility. There is normally a series of requirements placed on an engineer regarding signals as follows:
1) Engineer must posess the visual capability of recognizing a signal aspect.
2) Engineer must observe a signal.
3) Engineer must recognize the signal aspect.
4) Engineer must respond to the aspect.
There is an old psychological premise that notes at least a tendency that one sees what one wants to see. Presumably this attibute varies from one person to the next. Would the common test for color blindness adequately determine whether a person tends to see what they want to see rather than to see what is? Or, would the test fail to measure this tendencay because, in the case of such a test, a person who saw what they want to see, might simply want to see the colors being tested?
There is a story running on AP today that the conductor said he saw the final light, and it was green.
Sioux City Journal : Conductor: Light was green before deadly L.A. crash
I'm somewhat at a loss to explain how a conductor riding in a passenger car observed a signal ahead, except apparently the final signal was visible from the station stop, so perhaps he stepped off the train there and saw the signal.
Item 1 and item 3 are the same and item 2 is the same as item 1 and 3. item 4 is differant than the others but regaurdless what ever your trying to say dont mean nothing. I take your statement as any driver of a car and even passengers of cars as young as 5 can see traffic signals ans know what the aspects are. so nothing new with reading signals and as far as responding to them is a matter of fatigue. or if you are paying attention.. Now this is the most important question. Did this engineer know what the signals mean? I say this because the FRA ( remeber these people) do not require a signal test to get a engineers liceins but if the carrier issues a test for signals they must get a 100% correct. so if the metro link does not issue a test then they just say we require a understanding of the signals. and the UP may not get involved as they lease the rail to these people. Now if they say the signals was flashing yellow ( i have no idea what that is out there) then a solid yellow. ( even me as a NS engineer know solid yellow means whoa) and Im not following a train then this means i am meeting a train so i am stopping for the next signal. then for them to say they can see a clear signal I dont buy it. and also those recorders in the box says the signal was red. I see the man guilty as charged.
A poor attempt to explain the unexplainable.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Items #1, 2, and 3 are not the same thing. By item #1, I am referring to the ability to pass a vision test and a color blindness test.
By item #2, I am referring to the need to observe a signal, as opposed to not observing it due to distraction or intentional failure to look at the signal.
By item #3, I am referring to the mental process of recognition whereby a person might see a red signal as green simply because they expected a green signal, for instance. This item # 3 is what the article is exploring.
So all three items, plus item #4, are different from each other. The lack of any one of them could result in a crash. You have actually added 5th item, which might be a subset of item #3. That is that the engineer must possess the knowledge of what the signal aspects mean. Therefore, I will amend my list as follows:
1) Engineer must possess the visual capability of recognizing a signal aspect.
4) Engineer must know what the signal aspect means.
5) Engineer must respond to the aspect.
well if it makes you feel special then go ahead list all sorts of special things for something every body who drives already does.just because i run a engine does not make it any differant. you come to a intersection with traffic lights you react to the indication of the signal. nothing more or less, same as on a engine with only 1 differance i get advace notice of the next signal and track condition. so with all this being said you dont get 2 yellow aspects and go track speed thru a stop unless your pre-occupied or just plain stupid ( cleaned up alot) . and this guy from what been said was both. but it seems he made his stop correctly to discharge passengers and pick some others up. But i like your idea. and it might be cheeper to just think that my truck is green instead of red look at the money ill save in having it painted. and if i paint it in camoflage i cant go hunting as i wont be able to find it again.
Well,
Considering that the signal heads in the video are three light signal heads...then on the round signal head, the lower light is a stop indication, the right side light is a approach signal and the left light is a green or proceed, so no matter what color he might or might not have seen, the position of the lit signal should have clued him in...even the up and down three light signal head would have, depending on which lamp was lit, given him the proper aspect...
Plus he passes a flashing yellow (GCOR approach restricting, prepared to pass the next signal at restricted speed) before the station, so knowing his territory, and knowing the next signal was protecting a siding, he should have left the station at restricted speed, prepared to either pass that signal at restricted speed or stop, even if that next signal was green.
The approach restricted signal means just what is says...pass the next signal at restricted speed...it gives no exceptions.
He can not exceed restricted speed, in this case 20 mph, until he passes that signal, no matter what aspect that signal shows.
Even if that next signal changes to a green before he gets there, his still must maintain restricted speed until his leading wheels pass that signal.
Period.
So even if he saw a green, he knows his territory, knows that the only reason he got a flashing yellow before he reached the station is if he is following a train, and he would have know if he was, or he is meeting a train, which he had done several times before at that siding.
And if that other train is not visible in the siding as he approached that signal, then he should have know it was still out on the main ahead of him, headed his way...which means he should have gone looking...and the GCOR has a rule about signals not clearly understood or recognized...any wayside signal that is normally illuminated, but shows dark, or displays a aspect not understood by the crew, must be treated as the most restrictive signal possible, an absolute stop.
The approach restricting should have been the trigger, he was "warned" as he approached the station to pass the next signal at restricted speed, no matter what that signal aspect was, prepared to stop short of men, equipment, train, railcar, switch misaligned or derail lined against his movement.
Had he heeded that warning, he would have been going 20 mph approaching the siding, which would have made all the difference in the world.
Instead, he blew through a red at track speed; 40 mph...the last signal he passed said go looking at 20 mph or less, be ready to stop.
Whether the bulb in the red signal light was as bright as the other lamps is immaterial, he already violated a rule by running at track speed up to the next signal.
He had already been told to pass the next signal at a speed that allows him to stop short of.....
I am pretty sure that Wabash, Zardoz, LC and most of the other engineers here on this forum would have left the station, and gone creeping up on that next signal, no matter what aspect it displayed, looking to see why they had gotten a flashing yellow right before the station.
23 17 46 11
Ed Let us not forget 1 other thing not mentioned. Most all the rules given to us. even as dumb as they seem are because they are written from someones blood. These are rules because someone got hurt or killed, Only when someone sits down and modifies it for todays use is it believable and sometimes usable. And yes some rules are hard to believe it happen or why we have a rule. but even now if you take a signal rule bend it for you own use or perpose. death will occur. on my territory there is a rule being violated regularly it is a life threatniing rule and the train masters let it go and they teach the new hires to break it also. I am only 1 of about 12 engineers who will not violate this rule and have conductors whine when i make them get off the engine to do thier job. i wont run a stop signal until the rule book is satisfied.
With the exception of the cell phone involvement, this incident has the same signature as the MARC/Amtrak collision at Silver Spring, MD several years ago.
The MARC train passed an Approach signal indication prior to making at scheduled station stop. Upon departing the station stop the MARC train operated as if the train were operating on a Clear signal indication, coming around the curve at the control point Georgetown Jct. the MARC train viewed the STOP signal indication, the Amtrak train approaching and lined through the crossovers from #2 track to #1 track. MARC train did apply the brakes in emergency, however, the train did not have stopping distance at the speed it was traveling and ran into the 2nd unit of the Amtrak train. 8 MARC passengers and 3 MARC crew members were killed, including the engineer. Just like Chatsworth, we will never know what the engineer was thinking.
I am not in any way defending the engineer against blame for this wreck. I understand that there was more than one signal involved, and that their aspects consisted of position as well as color. However, I do find it interesting that the article linked to the first post seems to be exploring the idea of excusing the engineer for looking at a red light and seeing it as a green light. This could happen with color blindness, but I assume Sanchez was known to not be color blind according to a prior test. So seeing a color wrong, while not being color blind, would have to occur at a purely mental level of the recognition process. This is the area that, it seems to me, the article is exploring. I am only listing the breakdown steps of signal compliance in order to position the theory being offered by the article.
But aside from that theory of the engineer seeing the signal aspect, but failing to recognize it, there is a second, parallel theory that the signal was displaying a false clear. Witnesses at the station say the signal was green, and now the conductor is saying it was green. What is interesting is that this theory of a signal malfunction and the above theory of a signal misinterpretation are mutually exclusive. It is impossible for both theories to be correct. Therefore each of these two competing theories tends to discredit the other. In other words, because there are two competing theories, each theory is weaker than it would have been had not the other theory existed.
I believe that the pop culture news media these days places a perpetrator against a template of expectations based on how the media’s worldview ideology applies to the perpetrator. And if the perpetrator does not fit that template, they want to place the blame elsewhere and make the perpetrator into a victim. In my opinion, this dynamic is playing a strong role in this crash, and yet, in their zeal to defend the engineer, the newspaper has actually weakened his defense by offering the competing theory of what caused the crash. That’s what I am getting at—not defending the engineer.
I agree that people sometimes see what they want to see.
During several investigations, I have had eyewitnesses swear events occurred in a pattern or a manner that, for lack of a better description, would be improbable or unbelievable.
Yet these people can, and have passed polygraph test, proving that they believe, completely, what they are sure they saw or "know", when every bit of physical evidence says other wise.
I was not assuming you were defending the engineer...it would be a moot point anyway, considering the outcome of his actions.
I was simply pointing out he had already violated one rule by ignoring the first warning signal aspect...assuming he even saw that signal...for all we know, he was running on his own, internal and personal autopilot....every one of us has, at some point, driven to work, parked, got out of our car, and realized we don't remember a thing about the drive in...simply because we have driven the same route so many times.
As for the competing theories...
I agree, each makes the other weaker...but I have a sneaky suspicion the media simply wants to downplay the cell phone involvement, and find any other acceptable reason for this wreck, because cell phone companies are big advertisers, both in print, radio and TV...I wonder who owns the LA times, and if they have any connections to a cell phone company or service provider.
Think about how much of a status symbol a cell phone is in our culture, and how much money it generates for all parties involved.
Personally, I think the guy simply got used to things being the same day after day, expected no changes in that routine, allowed himself to be distracted, then caught up in a text/conversation, and simply forgot or never saw the signal(s)...he was "driving to work" so to speak.
For some reason, the media in LAC--the print and talk radio segment--just won't let this go. They need to quit hyping this, let it go and move on. More important issues, such as the state budget mess, should be the stories bing investigated.
edblysardPlus he passes a flashing yellow (GCOR approach restricting, prepared to pass the next signal at restricted speed) before the station, so knowing his territory, and knowing the next signal was protecting a siding, he should have left the station at restricted speed, prepared to either pass that signal at restricted speed or stop, even if that next signal was green.
Ed,
You bring up an interesting point about the engineer violating the approach signal. I know the details of the signals have been laid out by others in previous threads, and perhaps they were thoroughly explained and explored, but I do not completely understand a few issues. These are some of the points as I understand them.
The engineer passed a flashing yellow before entering the station. This would tell him that the he should proceed, expecting the next signal to be red. I did not know that once he passed the flashing yellow, he could not exceed 20mph between the flashing yellow signal and the next signal, regardless of what aspect the next signal displayed once it came into view.
So after passing the flashing yellow, the engineer stopped at the station, and by that point, the next signal was within his view, and it was red. So the engineer sat at the station for some brief period, facing a red signal that was within his sight. Then he left the station, accelerated to track speed, approached the red signal, and ran past it. So as I understand it, the red signal that he ran past, would have been red from the moment it first came into his sight, which must have been prior to his stopping at the station. Even with extreme distraction, it is hard to imagine how he could have failed to recognize the red signal, considering that it was within his sight for probably several minutes, including a period when he was stopped.
Now some are saying that the final light was green when he left the station. But you are saying that even if it were green, he was still obligated to stay under 20 mph until he passed it. And evidence indicates he accelerated way beyond the 20 mph restricted limit.
Those who contend that the final light was green seem to be suggesting that his guilt or innocence pivots on the color of the final signal. They seem to be ignoring the issue of the engineer violating the preceding signal, which required him to stay under 20mph no matter what color the next signal was. So if their signal failure theory were true, it would mean that two relatively rare events occurred almost simultaneously. Those two events would be that he (1) violated the first signal, which was directly related to the second signal, and then (2) the second signal malfunctioned. I am suggesting that violating the approach signal was a relatively rare event because it does not seem likely that an engineer could routinely do it and stay out of trouble.
However, aside from the forgoing, as I read the account in Trains, it seems quite different than my understanding as given above. They don’t say anything about an approach signal. They say the engineer was obligated to approach the red signal at restricted speed because his station stop meant he was delayed in block, not that he was obligated to approach the red signal at restricted speed because of a preceding flashing yellow signal.
But an approach obligation arising from being delayed in block seems moot because he could already see the red signal, so there was no question about approaching it prepared to stop in case he found it to be red.
Flashing yellow is a very useful signal for the dispatcher...it tells the engineer that no closer than two blocks away something is in the way or not lined up, be it a train he is following, one he is meeting or a MOW crew, miss aligned switch....you get the point.
If you have an approach restricting signal, flashing yellow, the next signal you see will never be a more permissive signal...it will always be either another flashing yellow, solid yellow or red, never green.
That is because an approach restricting is an advance warning signal, not intended to stop the train or prevent it from proceeding into the next block, but a way to simply slow the train down and hold it at restricted speed as it proceeds.
It tells you to proceed, passing the next signal, at restricted speed.
That next signal may be a solid yellow, an approach signal, telling you to be prepared to stop at the very next signal.
Approach does not mean you will stop, it tells you to be ready to...you may have a green or proceed signal when you get there, but you still have to proceed from the solid yellow to that next signal prepared to stop no matter what that next signal shows.
Or, if you are following a slower train, you may have a whole series of flashing yellow signals...which allows you to proceed past the next signal if that signal is not red, but be prepared to stop short of the following signal...the train ahead of you might have stopped, MOW may still be fouling track, switch may still be lined against you, so forth.
Flashing yellow is a way to progressively slow down a train and if needed, hold it at restricted speed until the track ahead is clear.
If you have a flashing yellow, you will have to pass at least one more restricting signal before you get a green or proceed signal.
This is a safety measure, supposed to prevent just this type of accident.
If I understand the events correctly, Sanchez had a flashing yellow, followed by a solid yellow just before the station...these two signals should have told him, in order...
Flashing yellow...Proceed passing the next signal (the solid yellow before the station) at restricted speed, prepared to stop short of the signal beyond that one.
Solid yellow, proceed, prepared to stop short of the next signal.
He then should have been looking at a red signal at the siding.
The flashing yellow provides you at least a two block cushion of restricted speed, so if you have to stop the train, you can, and if you are going to bring the train back to track speed, you can/have to do so gradually.
The flashing yellow was intended to force him to proceed up to the signal at the siding at restricted speed, as well the solid yellow, which was telling him to be prepared to stop short of the next signal, the one at the siding, no matter what the siding signal aspect was...it was not telling him he had to stop, but simply be moving at a speed that would allow him to if needed.
He ignored both of those warnings, for whatever reason, and went to track speed upon leaving the station.
By rule, he should have left the station and proceeded at restricted speed no matter what the siding signal aspect was...and I doubt it was green, unless there was a major malfunction of the signal system...remember, he already had a flashing yellow 2 signals before the siding, so it was working then...based on the "he saw what he wanted to" theory, he willfully miss interpreted two restricting signals before he passed the siding signal...I don't quite buy that...one signal maybe, but two, one of which was flashing?
With a full stop at the station thrown in.
As you pointed out, he was "delayed in block", and even if the siding signal was green, by rule he should have approached it at restricted speed anyway...if it was green, he could have gone to track speed only after his leading wheels passed that green signal.
No matter what spin the news folks want to put on this, and I dislike saying this about a fellow railroader not here to defend himself, he blew past at least two signals, more than likely three, all of them telling him to be ready to, or to stop at the siding signal.
Like I said, I doubt there is a single current or former engineer here on the forum who would have left that station at anything other than restricted speed.
Dakguy201There is a story running on AP today that the conductor said he saw the final light, and it was green. Sioux City Journal : Conductor: Light was green before deadly L.A. crash I'm somewhat at a loss to explain how a conductor riding in a passenger car observed a signal ahead, except apparently the final signal was visible from the station stop, so perhaps he stepped off the train there and saw the signal.
The full story was in the LA Times on Friday. The signal at the siding switch one mile north of the station is visible from the station platform. The statement by the conductor says that he saw the signal when he was about to close the doors and was checking for late passengers, and it was green.
Go here for the full story:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-metrolink5-2008dec05,0,3449298.story
Jack
A flashing yellow on the UP at least, is Advance Approach, proceed prepared to stop at the second signal, trains exceeding 40 mph must slow to 40mph. There is a passenger version marked with a "C" on a diamond plate that allows passenger trains a higher speed.
When you are delayed in the block, either because you stopped or your speed dropped below 10mph, you are to proceed in CTC prepared to stop at the next signal until the next signal is visable and is seen to display a proceed indication. In ABS, you are to proceed at restricted speed until the next signal is visable, the track is seen to be clear to the signal and it displays a proceed indication. In either case once the conditions are met speed may be increased. You don't have to wait for the leading wheels to pass the signal.
Jeff
Suppose the second signal had been a couple hundred feet north of the station platform. One wonders if that might have prevented the accident.
As Ed noted above, the train should not have resumed track speed upon leaving the station, regardless of what the light down the track was indicating. An additional clue that something was wrong was that the siding switch was set against the commuter as it was found broken by the investigators (from a newspaper article not referenced in this forum).
Thanks for that explanation of the constant yellow (approach) versus flashing yellow (approach restricting) aspect. I knew what approach meant, but I did not know what approach restricting was. I want to understand what role these two preceding signals played if the final signal were green. I am still not sure if I quite understand your explanation of the scenario. For instance, you say that even if the final signal were green, the engineer would have to approach it at restricted speed because of being delayed in block. Yet I thought the delayed in block meant that he had to approach the next signal prepared to stop in case it was red. That is what the Trains article said. Since he could see the green signal from the station (if it were green) he would have known it were green, so why would he have to approach it prepared to stop in case it were red?
This is how I understand it:
Sanchez may not have violated either the flashing yellow or the following constant yellow as he approached the station and stopped, taking into account a slowing as he prepared to stop. So, the only issues of signal compliance came after he left the station. At that point, the issues would pertain to the aspect of the next signal and of the last signal, which was constant yellow or approach.
When he passed the flashing yellow, he was required to not exceed 20mph until passing the next signal. That signal was constant yellow, so when he passed that constant yellow, the requirement of the flashing yellow expired, and was replaced by the requirement to approach the next signal prepared to stop for it should it be red.
In addition to the “approach” requirement imposed by the constant yellow, was a duplication of the “approach” requirement imposed by the fact that he was delayed in block by the station stop.
So, while standing at the station—
1) The engineer has a red signal within his sight.
2) The engineer has passed an approach signal, which told him to be prepared to stop at the next signal.
3) The engineer is considered delayed in block, which tells him to be prepared to stop at the next signal.
So there are three independent reasons why the engineer should be prepared to stop at the next signal.
1) The approach requirement imposed by both the previous constant yellow signal and the delayed in block status has expired.
2) Because the engineer can see the green signal while standing at the station, he is free to leave the station and accelerate to track speed.
edblysard If I understand the events correctly, Sanchez had a flashing yellow, followed by a solid yellow just before the station...these two signals should have told him, in order... Flashing yellow...Proceed passing the next signal (the solid yellow He then should have been looking at a red signal at the siding........He ignored both of those warnings, for whatever reason, and went to track speed upon leaving the station.
Flashing yellow...Proceed passing the next signal (the solid yellow
He then should have been looking at a red signal at the siding........He ignored both of those warnings, for whatever reason, and went to track speed upon leaving the station.
Unless he received the yellow signals as he was approaching the station, and during his station stop, the dispatcher lined his route, which would then give him the 'clear' indication.
edblysard By rule, he should have left the station and proceeded at restricted speed no matter what the siding signal aspect was...and I doubt it was green, unless there was a major malfunction of the signal system...remember, he already had a flashing yellow 2 signals before the siding, so it was working then...based on the "he saw what he wanted to" theory, he willfully miss interpreted two restricting signals before he passed the siding signal...I don't quite buy that...one signal maybe, but two, one of which was flashing? With a full stop at the station thrown in. As you pointed out, he was "delayed in block", and even if the siding signal was green, by rule he should have approached it at restricted speed anyway...if it was green, he could have gone to track speed only after his leading wheels passed that green signal. No matter what spin the news folks want to put on this, and I dislike saying this about a fellow railroader not here to defend himself, he blew past at least two signals, more than likely three, all of them telling him to be ready to, or to stop at the siding signal. Like I said, I doubt there is a single current or former engineer here on the forum who would have left that station at anything other than restricted speed.
Unless the rules have changed in the few years since I was running Metra (C&NW) passenger trains (or perhaps the rules are different for Amtrak/UP), but my understanding of the rule is that a station stop is part of the train's schedule, and as such, stopping there does not constitute a "delay in the block". So even if he made his stop under an approach aspect, once he saw the next signal to be clear, he could then proceed at normal speed.
zardozSo even if he made his stop under an approach aspect, once he saw the next signal to be clear, he could then proceed at normal speed.
That would be my take on it.
If the final light were red, Sanchez violated it by passing it, and he also violated the preceding solid yellow by exceeding “approach” speed after leaving the station. But if the final light were green, I don’t see where Sanchez violated any signal.
In either case, I don’t know of any evidence that he violated the flashing yellow, which was the first of the three signals.
I think it was significant that railfans and/or bystanders at the station said they saw the final light as green. However, it seems very significant that the conductor of the train has now stated that he saw the final signal as green. Possible ulterior motive notwithstanding, he would have high credibility as the conductor of the train, to not have mistakenly interpreted the signal aspect.
zardoz Unless the rules have changed in the few years since I was running Metra (C&NW) passenger trains (or perhaps the rules are different for Amtrak/UP), but my understanding of the rule is that a station stop is part of the train's schedule, and as such, stopping there does not constitute a "delay in the block". So even if he made his stop under an approach aspect, once he saw the next signal to be clear, he could then proceed at normal speed.
My sister-in-law's brother is a conductor for NS, and at my brother's wedding reception in October, I asked him his views on the crash. He agrees with me in that if the engineer was paying attention, he would have realized that the switch was lined against him, no matter if the signal was displaying stop or clear. If he had been paying attention, he would have noticed the switch and should have immediately stopped the train and contacted the dispatcher.
Kevin
http://chatanuga.org/RailPage.html
http://chatanuga.org/WLMR.html
BaltACD zardoz Unless the rules have changed in the few years since I was running Metra (C&NW) passenger trains (or perhaps the rules are different for Amtrak/UP), but my understanding of the rule is that a station stop is part of the train's schedule, and as such, stopping there does not constitute a "delay in the block". So even if he made his stop under an approach aspect, once he saw the next signal to be clear, he could then proceed at normal speed. CSX, in response to the Silver Spring MARC/Amtrak collision changed their rule to make a scheduled station stop be considered delayed in the block and requires restricted speed until the next signal. I don't know if this was in response to an FRA mandate or if it was a unilateral decision by CSX for it's own property.
It may have been an FRA mandate. I ride Metra's Southwest Service twice daily. The Ashburn station is within the interlocking limits for Ashburn crossing and signs have been posted trackside for inbound trains advising the engineer of appropriate speed restrictions since he had passed the prior signal. Similar signs are posted at Wrightwood (Landers) for outbound runs.
I don’t know what the current U.P. rule for a signal displaying a solid yellow or approach aspect is, but in reviewing an older rulebook, here is how the approach aspect is defined for several railroads, including U.P.:
Proceed prepared to stop at next signal. Train exceeding 30 miles per hour must immediately reduce to that speed.
But here is the question I have: What if, after passing a solid yellow, the next signal is seen to be green or change to green as it is being approached? The rule for approach does not address that. The only thing that addresses that is the rule for a green or clear aspect, which is:
Proceed on main route.
So, I conclude that after passing a solid yellow signal, if the next signal is green or changes to green after passing a previous solid yellow signal, the rule for approach ends and the engineer can then resume track speed even though he has not yet reached that second signal.
There is nothing in the rules that says that after passing a solid yellow, the approach rule stays in effect until passing the next signal.
chatanuga My sister-in-law's brother is a conductor for NS, and at my brother's wedding reception in October, I asked him his views on the crash. He agrees with me in that if the engineer was paying attention, he would have realized that the switch was lined against him, no matter if the signal was displaying stop or clear. If he had been paying attention, he would have noticed the switch and should have immediately stopped the train and contacted the dispatcher. Kevin
That's easy to say, but with all due respect, it is also total BS.
If you're running on a clear indication, you MIGHT glance at a set of switch points as you approach them; however, you might also be glancing at your orders; you might be looking at your watch to see how fast you need to go to ensure that you arrive at the next station on time; you might be reaching into your grip; you might be taking a sip of your beverage; you might be looking at the cute girls or a cool sports car; you might be doing any number of things at the instant you pass the switch points, because since you are proceeding on a clear signal there is no compelling operating nor legal reason to be looking at the points.
Yes, in an idea world an engineer would notice the switch points as he approached them. Of course, the world we are in is far from ideal, and when you run 200+ miles a day, day after day, over the same piece of railroad, your ability to pay attention to minute details tends to diminish.
Questions: During your last drive home from work, at every intersection that you went through on a green light, did you ascertain that there was no traffic approaching from any direction before proceeding through the intersection? Did you notice with certainty that the light for intersecting traffic was red before you proceeded? Of course not: you put some faith in the technology built to control the traffic.
Bucyrus So, I conclude that after passing a solid yellow signal, if the next signal is green or changes to green after passing a previous solid yellow signal, the rule for approach ends and the engineer can then resume track speed even though he has not yet reached that second signal. There is nothing in the rules that says that after passing a solid yellow, the approach rule stays in effect until passing the next signal.
That is correct. Out.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.