Sometimes it is helpful when the dispatcher tells you about a meet. Even with two tracks in CTC we still get stopped to meet someone crossing over or running around us. At some Control Points, if you don't have advance warning from the dispatcher, your first signal indication that your are going to be held is already too late to stop without blocking crossings.
When telling us of a meet, they will say, "meeting one (or whatever number) or holding you for (x number of trains to go around you." That's not the same as a dispatcher saying, "Don't take the signal at CP---- without talking to me again." One is informational and subject to change without further comment, the other is an order account of something unusual happening. (The times I have been told not to take a signal was because the signal department was working/testing at a control point and had local control of it. At that point, the dispatcher didn't have control of the signal until the signal dept released it back.)
There are times when you have to be careful that you don't read too much into the information your given. Between Fremont and Omaha there is still a stretch of double track, current of traffic ABS. The first governing signal for eastward trains is at the control point near Pacific Street. East of this it is CTC, two main tracks. The control point is just behind a curve with trees that obscure the view of the signal. Even in winter with the leaves gone the signal can't be seen until you come around the curve. If you don't have your train prepared to stop when you are wrong mained (against the current of traffic) by the time you see the signal, it is too late. We have had engineers go by this signal. I have had a dispatcher give me the impression that he was going to take us, without actually saying so. I still was prepared to stop and a good thing because we were all red. I always stress to student engineers or new conductors don't read too much into something you are told, be prepared to stop at you won't get into trouble.
Jeff
Railway Man Zardoz, you've been around longer than that! You know how risk-adverse management thinks: "If you make it a practice to tell enginemen to expect a meet, then they'll come to rely on you to tell them that instead of paying attention to the signals and track conditions ahead." Weren't you the guy on another thread telling people you were depressed about the dumbing down of railroading? RWM
Zardoz, you've been around longer than that! You know how risk-adverse management thinks: "If you make it a practice to tell enginemen to expect a meet, then they'll come to rely on you to tell them that instead of paying attention to the signals and track conditions ahead." Weren't you the guy on another thread telling people you were depressed about the dumbing down of railroading?
RWM
Yes, I've been around for quite a while. Although I still cannot seem to be able to think the same way someone in Management thinks. Perhaps I've been a follower of Dilbert for too long.
However, even if the reasoning you suggest is the basis for the not sharing of information, it would seem that the results would be no worse than if the dispatcher only occasionally was able (time issues again) to let the trains involved know what is going on. If an engineer doesn't EVER know about any upcoming meets or delays, he will operate as though he is the only train out there, which is the same way he'd operate if the dispatcher was unable on occasion to inform him about a potential meet.
But I would think that the savings in fuel and brake shoes would justify keeping engineers informed about planned delays.
Wabash: I've never worked on a non-GCOR railway in the operating department, only in other departments, so if you work under some other rule book, I have no idea what they say or don't say.
On a GCOR railway, I agree with you that a dispatcher can instruct a train not to take a signal in CTC territory - and I have done that.
In ABS non-directional (not 9.13/9.14) territory on a GCOR railway, signals do not provide authority. The Track Warrant, Track Permit, Yard Limits, DTC, or OCR provides authority. As a dispatcher if I want to stop a train in ABS territory I take back the warrant or DTC I have already given, if the engineman advises me he can safely stop short of the point where I want to cut the authority off. I do not tell him to "not take the signal" in ABS territory, and in the dispatcher instructions I have written I've listed that as a do-not-do.
The only time I care about signal indications in ABS territory, is if it's an absolute signal displaying red, and the train has a valid authority beyond it and there are no conflicting movements. Then I talk him past on Rule 9.12.1. Otherwise the signal indications are meaningless to me as a dispatcher, and I can't see them anyway. If it's a numberplated signal and it displays red, it's a stop-and-proceed, and that's the engineman's to deal with, not mine. I do care if there are ABS that are red with no conflicting move present, as that can indicate there's a broken rail, a washout, or who knows what, and I might decide to call the roadmaster to inspect the track before I let the train proceed, depending upon what has been out there previously -- a red light left behind a coal or grain train? Possibly a broken rail. Or in a rainstorm? Possibly a washout. But in some territories we just have dirty ballast and lots of red signals every time it gets humid. In that case it slows down trains and means crews hog out.
Railway man If I gave you a manditory directive ( for the layman it means tell you) not to pass a signal until you here from me and its a clear signal and you go passed it you will get pulled out of service and have time off. it dont matter if your in ctc or abs. the verbal from the dispatcher will superceed the signal. I run on both ctc and abs and it dont matter if they tell you to stop short of that signal and dont take it. that is what they mean.
zardozRailway Man (P.S. to Zardoz -- that's IF the dispatcher has time, of course. These days with huge territories, not always, especially on daylights with all the MOW work. And some railways discourage this practice.) RWM That is very interesting. I certainly do not doubt you, but I cannot imagine why a railroad would not want to keep everyone equipped with as much information as possible regarding all activities on a segment of railroad. By knowing in advance of a meet, an engineer might want to operate differently. I know what you mean about the large territories--sometimes on the radio it sounds like the poor dispatchers cannot catch their breath.
Railway Man (P.S. to Zardoz -- that's IF the dispatcher has time, of course. These days with huge territories, not always, especially on daylights with all the MOW work. And some railways discourage this practice.) RWM
(P.S. to Zardoz -- that's IF the dispatcher has time, of course. These days with huge territories, not always, especially on daylights with all the MOW work. And some railways discourage this practice.)
That is very interesting. I certainly do not doubt you, but I cannot imagine why a railroad would not want to keep everyone equipped with as much information as possible regarding all activities on a segment of railroad. By knowing in advance of a meet, an engineer might want to operate differently.
I know what you mean about the large territories--sometimes on the radio it sounds like the poor dispatchers cannot catch their breath.
Railway ManWhatever the dispatcher tells an engineman about an impending meet can only be regarded by the engineman as "for information only." It does not supersede signal indication. If the engineman is told by a dispatcher "expect a meet at Able," and the engineman reaches the leaving signal at Able and it displays an aspect more favorable than stop, the engineman takes the signal.
Railway ManI'm perplexed by portions of the on-going discussion that appear to my admittedly jaundiced eyes to be searching for loopholes in the rules or excuses for failing to observe a signal aspect indicating stop. There are none.
Thanks for that information about the verbal instructions. With regard to the ongoing discussion, my only objective over the last couple pages was just to pin down one single point. That is whether or not the engineer would be completely vindicated from blame for the crash if the last signal were green. Now, finally, based your information, along with information given by others in several of the last posts, I conclude that the answer to the question is yes. However, I see no way he could be vindicated if the final signal were red.
The reason that I was exploring this point is that news coverage regarding witnesses saying the light was green seems to imply that Sanchez’s guilt or innocence pivots only on the color of the final signal, which witnesses dispute. If, however, Sanchez had violated a series of signals, violated the delayed-in-block rule, and violated a rule about ignoring verbal information about the meet, (all of which has been asserted) then the aspect of the final signal would not be pivotal, and the testimony of the witnesses would not be as crucial as the news coverage implies.
The discussion about whether Sanchez saw a red light as green comes from that question being asked by NTSB board member Kitty Higgins in the article linked to the first post.
Bucyruszardoz dehusman There is no requirement to notify trains of the movement of other trains when they are moving on signal indication. Quite true. However, a good dispatcher will (when time permits) inform all trains involved of a planned meet. The reason: to make sure everyone is on the same 'page'. Hearing about meets via the radio also helps other engineers in the vicinity be aware of what is going on ahead of them. The CN dispatchers do this quite frequently (at least in Wisconsin). I am curious about this point. In this case of this collision, do we know whether the engineer had been verbally informed that he was going to meet the U.P. train at the final signal? If he had been so informed, and if the final signal were green, would you expect the engineer to stop for the green signal or not pass it until contacting the dispatcher for an explanation? Would that be a typical response? Is there anything in the rules that would require an engineer to disregard a signal if it conflicts with some a verbal agreement or understanding? I vaguely recall hearing about rules controlling or limiting the use of verbal conversation to control train movements which are being controlled by signals.
zardoz dehusman There is no requirement to notify trains of the movement of other trains when they are moving on signal indication. Quite true. However, a good dispatcher will (when time permits) inform all trains involved of a planned meet. The reason: to make sure everyone is on the same 'page'. Hearing about meets via the radio also helps other engineers in the vicinity be aware of what is going on ahead of them. The CN dispatchers do this quite frequently (at least in Wisconsin).
dehusman There is no requirement to notify trains of the movement of other trains when they are moving on signal indication.
There is no requirement to notify trains of the movement of other trains when they are moving on signal indication.
Quite true.
However, a good dispatcher will (when time permits) inform all trains involved of a planned meet. The reason: to make sure everyone is on the same 'page'. Hearing about meets via the radio also helps other engineers in the vicinity be aware of what is going on ahead of them. The CN dispatchers do this quite frequently (at least in Wisconsin).
Is there anything in the rules that would require an engineer to disregard a signal if it conflicts with some a verbal agreement or understanding? I vaguely recall hearing about rules controlling or limiting the use of verbal conversation to control train movements which are being controlled by signals.
The tapes, pulled about 1 minute after the collision, no doubt, revealed all conversations, and relevant transcripts will appear in the NTSB report when released.
Whatever the dispatcher tells an engineman about an impending meet can only be regarded by the engineman as "for information only." It does not supersede signal indication. If the engineman is told by a dispatcher "expect a meet at Able," and the engineman reaches the leaving signal at Able and it displays an aspect more favorable than stop, the engineman takes the signal.
There is one exception only on a GCOR-governed railway under which an engineman may regard a dispatcher instruction as superior to the signal indication, when a train is operating on signal indication. That exception is Rule 9.12.1, where a dispatcher authorizes a train to proceed past an absolute signal displaying stop indication. (Track and Time or suspension of block system operation are cases where trains operate in CTC territory not on signal indication.)
The dispatcher shall not advise a train crew of signal indication or aspect to expect.
The dispatcher, by the way, can see no signals or signal indications from his console. He does not need to see any signals. What appears on the dispatcher's console is little "signal icons" that are either red or green, and they represent only the absolute signals, not the intermediate signals, which have no icons. The icons are there as a graphic device for the dispatcher to see at a glance his selections of priority and precedence of train movement. The dispatcher makes requests to the signal system for priority and precedence, informing the signal system about which direction of movement and entry or exit to controlled tracks to prioritize. The signal system checks to see if those requests are safe, and if so, it grants them. The little signal icons turn green to indicate to the dispatcher that he has requested a specific direction of movement to have precedence, and red to indicate the opposite direction which does not have precedence. Or entry to and exit from a siding -- same thing. But just because the signal on his screen is red or green indicates NOTHING about the condition of that signal in the field, which could be red, green, flashing yellow, or burned out. It only shows the dispatcher how he is orchestrating the movement of trains. Dispatchers do not control signals, only make requests.
I'm perplexed by portions of the on-going discussion that appear to my admittedly jaundiced eyes to be searching for loopholes in the rules or excuses for failing to observe a signal aspect indicating stop. There are none. There is very little to discuss. There are only three realistic causes for the collision:
I am curious about this point. In this case of this collision, do we know whether the engineer had been verbally informed that he was going to meet the U.P. train at the final signal? If he had been so informed, and if the final signal were green, would you expect the engineer to stop for the green signal or not pass it until contacting the dispatcher for an explanation? Would that be a typical response?
Bucyrus 1) Even if the final signal were green, the engineer violated the first or second preceding signals by not approaching the final green signal at restricted speed. 2) Even if the final signal were green, the engineer violated the delayed-in-block rule by not approaching the final signal at restricted speed. 3) Even if the final signal were green, the engineer should not have passed it because he was told that he was to have met another train there.
This is what is frustrating about these threads, so many people quote old rules, the wrong rules, misunderstand rules and assume things that it gets wadded completely up.
1. There is NO reason under the rules in effect at the time the train should have been operating at restricted speed. NONE of the signal indications required operating at restricted speed. Delay in a the block doesn't require restricted speed.
2. The delay in the block rule does NOT require operating at restricted speed. In CTC GCOR Rule 9.9 delay in the block requires the train to proceed prepared to stop at the next signal until the signal is visible and is seen to display a proceed indication. That is essentially the same operation as the approach signal (the approach signal is MORE restrictive since it put a limit of 45 mph on the train, there is no speed limit associated with rule 9.9 in CTC). Operation at restricted speed is required in ABS, but this was CTC territory.
3. I have never read that the engineer was told anything about a meet. Since this is CTC, there would be no reason to tell him there is going to be a meet. There is no requirement to notify trains of the movement of other trains when they are moving on signal indication.
It does hinge on whether the last signal was red or something else. The only way it could be other than red is if the signal system had a serious failure. If it was red then going by it would involve some failure on his part. There can be dozens of reasons why he failed to see or recognize or obey the red signal. Since the signal system has not had any documented failures and the engineer has documented failures (texting while operating, running through a switch, failing to put the train in emergency before impact) it would appear that human failure is more probable than signal failure.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
wabash1 ok guys what im about to say is gospol anywhere in the united states. If you have a green proceed take off or keep going at track speed. a yellow ( approach) means proceed to next signal prepared to stop. train or engine exceeding 30 mph ( my road medium speed) must at once reduce to that speed. simple get your train down to 30 mph or less and prepared to stop at next signal. Now this signal is only telling you of track condition. next block is occupied, or the dispatcher has not lined you up. that is what this signal means now if you can see the next signal even at a 1/2 mile away and it is green get going. track speed. most of the guys here wont but you can as the restriction is gone. now a approach restricted ( flashing yellow and there is others) means proceed by next signal not exceeding restricted speed ( not exceeding 15 mph may be 20 on other roads) this is a signal that means what it says if the next signal is green ( not likley ) you still do restricted speed til the head end goes past this signal. if your going faster than 15 mph and the fra man is there with radar gun in hand you will be told to stop your train and you will be releaved. ( or train master and road forman also) .after passing signal do as indication says do.. Now there is signals i have no idea what they mean nor care. ( sorry csx guys but medium clear , green over yellow flashing to the 3rd power of pie ) yea right... thats why i like the old southern signal green means go a yellow means slow down and a red is stop. if you put a number plate on it then its restricting. thats it. I hope this helps in understanding that in most cases the signal is conveying track conditions but in ctc the dispatcher may not have you line up. but in this case the man at the throttle was wrong, and why did this happen many times you go by the signal and its clear you never meet anyone here but this timeyou had a yellow but in past you always had a green you text message someone forget about that signal leave like you always do in a hurry to get done and get by the stop and run into a train. why do i know this because ive done it. Not by a stop but stopped set out some cars thinking about going home last signal was clear but was stopped for 20 min. when i rounded corner and remebered what happen i slapped the throttle off when I did see the signal it was green, it could have been otherwise i lucked out. but its easily done it happens quick and it can be deadly, that is why i am not for 1 man crews it was the conductor who reminded me. heck i was going home. its easy to lose focus, just to prove it show me one person who has never daydreamed or had other thoughts while going down the road driving there personal vehicle. you dont haft to have a close call or even screwed up but see how easy it was, and if you say you didnt i will call you a liar.
ok guys what im about to say is gospol anywhere in the united states. If you have a green proceed take off or keep going at track speed. a yellow ( approach) means proceed to next signal prepared to stop. train or engine exceeding 30 mph ( my road medium speed) must at once reduce to that speed. simple get your train down to 30 mph or less and prepared to stop at next signal. Now this signal is only telling you of track condition. next block is occupied, or the dispatcher has not lined you up. that is what this signal means now if you can see the next signal even at a 1/2 mile away and it is green get going. track speed. most of the guys here wont but you can as the restriction is gone. now a approach restricted ( flashing yellow and there is others) means proceed by next signal not exceeding restricted speed ( not exceeding 15 mph may be 20 on other roads) this is a signal that means what it says if the next signal is green ( not likley ) you still do restricted speed til the head end goes past this signal. if your going faster than 15 mph and the fra man is there with radar gun in hand you will be told to stop your train and you will be releaved. ( or train master and road forman also) .after passing signal do as indication says do.. Now there is signals i have no idea what they mean nor care. ( sorry csx guys but medium clear , green over yellow flashing to the 3rd power of pie ) yea right... thats why i like the old southern signal green means go a yellow means slow down and a red is stop. if you put a number plate on it then its restricting. thats it.
I hope this helps in understanding that in most cases the signal is conveying track conditions but in ctc the dispatcher may not have you line up. but in this case the man at the throttle was wrong, and why did this happen many times you go by the signal and its clear you never meet anyone here but this timeyou had a yellow but in past you always had a green you text message someone forget about that signal leave like you always do in a hurry to get done and get by the stop and run into a train. why do i know this because ive done it. Not by a stop but stopped set out some cars thinking about going home last signal was clear but was stopped for 20 min. when i rounded corner and remebered what happen i slapped the throttle off when I did see the signal it was green, it could have been otherwise i lucked out. but its easily done it happens quick and it can be deadly, that is why i am not for 1 man crews it was the conductor who reminded me. heck i was going home. its easy to lose focus, just to prove it show me one person who has never daydreamed or had other thoughts while going down the road driving there personal vehicle. you dont haft to have a close call or even screwed up but see how easy it was, and if you say you didnt i will call you a liar.
I agree with everything you said here. It does appear that the engineer was at fault for running the final signal, which was red. The explanation appears to be a lack of attention due to text messaging. I don’t know if that is the final official conclusion, as I am not aware of how the investigation process plays out and when or if it is finished.
However, there are witnesses who say the final signal was green. They may be mistaken, or they may be lying, or they may be correct. There are no witnesses who say the final light was red. Under the circumstances, it should have been red. Testing failed to find a reason why it would not have been red.
So this raises this question: Would the engineer’s guilt or innocence pivot solely on whether the final signal was red or green? Some have suggested that it would not for various reasons as follows:
1) Even if the final signal were green, the engineer violated the first or second preceding signals by not approaching the final green signal at restricted speed.
2) Even if the final signal were green, the engineer violated the delayed-in-block rule by not approaching the final signal at restricted speed.
3) Even if the final signal were green, the engineer should not have passed it because he was told that he was to have met another train there.
I do not see how reason #1 can apply. I don’t know if reason #2 applies because I don’t know if there was a delayed-in-block rule or what it says if there was one. I don’t know if reason #3 applies because I don't know how the knowledge of an intended meet is to be reconciled against signal indications.
wabash1ok guys what im about to say is gospol anywhere in the united states. If you have a green proceed take off or keep going at track speed. a yellow ( approach) means proceed to next signal prepared to stop. train or engine exceeding 30 mph ( my road medium speed) must at once reduce to that speed. simple get your train down to 30 mph or less and prepared to stop at next signal.
Except on roads covered by GCOR (most of the western US) where the rules read just like I outlined in my previous post. On those roads passenger trains have a higher speed (40 advance approach, 45 approach) and Metrolink is a passenger train. You are correct for freight trains.
Jack_S SFbrkmn 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. It has been reported that SoCal Metrolink accidents account for 2/3 of ALL the recent commuter rail fatalities in the USA. In light of that, I rather think that continued media attention is well justified. And the LA Times has assigned the task to a pair of reporters who are doing an excellent job, in my opinion. The maps that appear in the Times are particularly good. Jack
SFbrkmn 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.
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.
It has been reported that SoCal Metrolink accidents account for 2/3 of ALL the recent commuter rail fatalities in the USA. In light of that, I rather think that continued media attention is well justified. And the LA Times has assigned the task to a pair of reporters who are doing an excellent job, in my opinion. The maps that appear in the Times are particularly good.
Jack
I think thats a little unfair though, the previous worst accident, the Burbank collision had nothing to do with anything Metrolink directly did, but everything to do with a deranged nutjob out to create mayhem, add in the deaths from auto/train collisions, most due to people either trying to beat the train or ignoring the "Do Not Stop On The Tracks" warnings, and the pedestrian/train deaths, (darn all that noise I cant hear my Ipod on my earplugs) and the numbers attributable directly to Metrolink actions are actually much lower. Accidents happen, but fault is not always where the media lays it.
Have fun with your trains
Bottom line. First signal was advance approach. Second signal was approach. Third signal would have been at stop.
Advance approach indication says that the train should proceed prepared to stop at the second signal Freight trains have to reduce immediately to 40 mph. Passenger trains must reduce speed to pass the next signal at 40 mph.
Approach indication says that the train must proceed prepared to stop before passing the next signal. Freight trains must immediately reduce speed to 30 mph and passenger trains exceeding 45 mph must reduce speed to not exceed 45 mph.
The switch was lined against Metrolink's movements, the dispatcher had lined an opposing movement against the Metrolink and an opposing train was in the block beyond the signal. Any one of those conditions would have caused the signal at the end of the siding to display stop.
The advance approach and the approach signals were entirely proper and correct for the situation immediately prior to the accident.
There are only two possibilities for the signal at the end of the siding. Either the signal displayed stop or it displayed something other than stop. Since there are multiple conditions that would have caused it to display a stop indication, if it displayed something other than stop that would require a serious failure on the part of the signal system. I have not read of the NTSB finding any defective part or operation of the signal system. There has been no physical evidence presented that the signal displayed anything other than stop. The only criticism I have read of the signal system is that the bulb red signal was dim, but it was still functioning. So either there was some unspecified failure which no one has been able to replicate in a signal system that by all accounts operated properly prior to the accident, passed all the post accident testing and has by all accounts operated correctly since the accident or the signal was, in fact, displaying stop.
I've also thought yellow meant to be ready to stop at the next signal, assuming it's a red signal, but that if the signal became a less restrictive indication, then you coudl adjust to the higher speed immediately, assuming no slow orders are in effect for an area. This is at least, how I thought it was supposed to be. So if the next signal becomes green, then I'd think you would be able to accelerate once again, as soon as that signal cleared.
Normally, a green signal simply shouldn't revert to red. If you're given track to go on by the dispatcher, you should have it up to a certain point, and it shouldn't be possible for anything to be signalled to come the other way, or to cross over a track, without you at least having a yellow before, and a red one at the end (and many railroads having flashing yellow before solid yellow). If you're following a train, and it clears a signal, it should allow the ones behind it to advance a step. The train shouldn't be able to move backward and suddenly mess your signal.
Basically, the only reason a signal could go from green to red is if something bad has happened, or at least somebody getting track that they shouldn't, and that can happen anywhere, not just after getting yellow. Also, as different railroads have different rules, I'm not sure what the rule was on teh line where the crash happened, as for when you can accelerate again.
I will defer to Dave’s information for the current rules, which are not available to me. However, I do have an older rulebook that covers signal aspects, and it addresses the same issues we are discussing here, and it concurs with Dave’s information.
Flashing yellow restricts your speed up to the next signal. The rule says to reduce to a certain definition of reduced or restricted speed, and then says to approach the next signal at that speed or to not pass that signal at more than the restricted speed. So the rules about flashing yellow specifically stay in effect up to the next signal. In this wreck, the next signal was solid yellow.
The meaning of solid yellow in my rulebook is:
Proceed prepared to stop at next signal. Train exceeding 30 miles per hour must immediately reduce to that speed.
Now it might be easy to assume that this would apply up to the next signal, but it does not say that. If you do assume it applies up to the next signal even if that signal is clear, then why not assume that it applies to the signal after that? Why not assume that it applies forever? The rule simply does not say how long one must stay at 30 mph.
However the meaning of a green signal is: Proceed on main route. It is like any other green signal, which would authorize full track speed and thus, cancel any speed restriction imposed by a previous signal.
So, after passing a solid yellow, you see the next signal to be green from say a distance of ½ mile, the observation of that green signal ahead cancels the effect of the previous solid yellow.
So the yellow signal does not say how long it stays in effect. But a green signal simply overrides it. But say you were to assume that the yellow signal stays in effect all the way up to the next signal even if that signal shows green. Well then you would have to not only maintain restricted speed up to that green signal, but you would also have to stop for that green signal.
This is because if you were say 50 feet from that green signal, running at 30 mph, and it suddenly changed to red, which can always happen, then you would run past that red signal. And if you ran past it, you would be in violation of the previous yellow signal, which required that you be prepared to stop at the next signal.
I still don't get it. It seems there is confusion on what the last signal displayed. If it was red, I doubt any engineer would have left the station at any significant speed. Also, from what I understand, it seems that it had been red while he was at the station, then became green, which I assume is when he took off at full speed. It wouldn't have gone from red to green under normal conditions, but I don't know what all he might have been busy with at the station. But I take it that when he eventually checked it again, it looked green. Could the red have failed at that point, making it seem like the red had gone to green? Could other lighting of some type have falsely illuminated the signal (like you get when the sun hits a traffic light)? I still don't get exactly how that was set up. I just know the basics of green, flashing yellow, solid yellow, and red.
Even if he was screwing around on his phone, something had to make him think he was able to leave the station at full speed when he departed, and teh red wasn't fully lit. We may never know what exactly had happened, or it may still take some time. But could anyone at least clear thsi up for me a bit? Thanks.
henry6But also isn't the rule that you are governed for the entire block by the signal you recieve upon entering? Just because you see a better aspect for the next block you still must proceed under the aspect of the block you are in until reaching and passing the next signal?
No. GCOR Rule 9.8 allows you to take the more favorable signal as long as you weren't operating on restricted speed.
GCOR Rule 9.9 delayed in block, says if you enter the block on a proceed indication, and stop in the block, you have to proceed prepared to stop at the next signal until it can be seen and it displays a proceed indication..
But also isn't the rule that you are governed for the entire block by the signal you recieve upon entering? Just because you see a better aspect for the next block you still must proceed under the aspect of the block you are in until reaching and passing the next signal? An engineer must not only know his aspects, but also his track, his train, and his railroad. Yes, there may be times and places he can glance to the side or over to read orders or timetable, but also there are times he should know he can't.
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
wabash1 If the next signal is red then changes to green there is no reason to stop. but if you here the other train is comming after he calls the signal and then the light turns green i still would not pass it. the key is he knew( from reports i have read that he was meeting a train there) he was to meet a train so unless the dispatcher said your not meeting a train there i would question the signal. 2nd from what every source said that he passed his approach and then they could see the clear. not buying it.and i would say to limit his liability the conductor is saying the signal was green.
If the next signal is red then changes to green there is no reason to stop. but if you here the other train is comming after he calls the signal and then the light turns green i still would not pass it. the key is he knew( from reports i have read that he was meeting a train there) he was to meet a train so unless the dispatcher said your not meeting a train there i would question the signal. 2nd from what every source said that he passed his approach and then they could see the clear. not buying it.and i would say to limit his liability the conductor is saying the signal was green.
Wabash, you posted this as I was composing my previous post.
You describe exactly what I was refering in my post, that a lot depends on the situation and the awareness of the engineer.
If the Metrolink engineer had been paying attention, he would have known something wasn't right.
wabash1 If you have a approach signal and can see the next signal is green and not by the approach signal yet you better stop your train before the next signal as it is displaying a improper aspect.
If you have a approach signal and can see the next signal is green and not by the approach signal yet you better stop your train before the next signal as it is displaying a improper aspect.
Perhaps it is the 'approach' signal that is malfunctioning. A lot depends on the situation.
If I can see that the signal beyond the clear signal in question is also clear, then I would conclude that the approach is the bad-order signal, especially if I know I am the only train on the segment of track. I doubt I would proceed throught the block in question at full-tilt speed (I'd probably make a reduction, get the slack and speed under control, just in case....), but I doubt I would treat the "clear-following-an-approach" signal as red. Again, a lot depends on the situation and the location.
In my 20 years of running, I have seen quite a few signals displaying "approach (with the next signal clear)" signals, but only one time did I observe a genuine false-clear.
SFbrkmnFor 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.
wabash1 If you have a approach signal and can see the next signal is green and not by the approach signal yet you better stop your train before the next signal as it is displaying a improper aspect. there is no reason to have a yellow if the next one is green. and you can say if the engineer was paying attention he would have seen the bad switch. and for a conductor with nothing else to do yes he is right that he would have seen the switch points but a engineer i might be looking at the rear of my train making sure no wheels are smoking i might glance out the window at track side for pictures with rail buffs or i might be text messaging. or even talking on the phone. either way i might not see the switch points and i dont think you would feel the switch points as you go thru them. the key is anyone who says they would have seen the switch being bad still at that speed would not stop in time and by the time you got the dispatcher the other train would already have hit you anyways.
If you have a approach signal and can see the next signal is green and not by the approach signal yet you better stop your train before the next signal as it is displaying a improper aspect. there is no reason to have a yellow if the next one is green. and you can say if the engineer was paying attention he would have seen the bad switch. and for a conductor with nothing else to do yes he is right that he would have seen the switch points but a engineer i might be looking at the rear of my train making sure no wheels are smoking i might glance out the window at track side for pictures with rail buffs or i might be text messaging. or even talking on the phone. either way i might not see the switch points and i dont think you would feel the switch points as you go thru them. the key is anyone who says they would have seen the switch being bad still at that speed would not stop in time and by the time you got the dispatcher the other train would already have hit you anyways.
Yes even if he did feel the switch split or see it misaligned, it’s still too late to get stopped if the other train is right around the corner.
But I have a question for you. You say that a yellow means the next signal is red. So if you see a yellow, and at the same time, see the next signal is green, something is wrong. I understand.
But if you pass a yellow, and the next signal is red, isn’t it possible for that red light to change to green before you get to it? You wouldn’t stop for that green light would you?
zardoz 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.
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
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.
But he also said that he would have felt the points as he went through them, not just seen them visually.
As far as my drive to work, I drive across Columbus (Ohio) every day to work. I'm used to taking a quick glance at each intersection because I'm used to seeing up to six cars fly through an intersection after their light has gone red and mine has turned green.
http://chatanuga.org/RailPage.html
http://chatanuga.org/WLMR.html
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.