The Return of a Foggy Day Question

[OldViking]

Thanks to all for their kind replies to my question. In the process of re-reading the question I realized the question could have been more clearly stated. The trials of being old and a being a Viking. I should say I have been hanging around railroads all my life and have a layman's understanding of how signal systems work. My question should have been more along the lines of when running at authorized speed in fog or snow so dense the crew can only see the nose of the locomotive, getting a clear indications from the cab-signal, how does the railroad account for the unseen hazards that may be lurking on the tracks or right next to the tracks? A person(s), a stalled car, heavy machinery next to the tracks that was not called to the railroad's attention, a large object that has fallen on the tracks but did not break the circuit, all scenarios that would be invisible to the crew until they were right on top of the problem. All which could cause the loss of life or a serious wreck. Under normal visibility conditions the crew could warn trespassers or hopefully stop before striking anything fouling the track. The qustion should have been, does the crew on its own, or under orders from the dispatcher, slow down when the visibility is zero or almost zero in cab-signaled territory.

[CShaveRR]

And the return of the first-responder:

Traveling at Restricted Speed is the only thing that requires the speed of the train to be reduced far enough to stop short (within half of the range of vision) of trains, engines, obstructions, or anything that may cause the speed of the train to be reduced. The train crew would be entirely within their authority to proceed at the maximum authorized speed. A dispatcher would expect them to do this, saying that they should know where the grade crossings are, where the construction projects along their line are located, and that he (the dispatcher) had no knowledge of any storm that would have caused any trees to be blown onto the right-of-way. And there is some point where trespassers and people legally going across unmarked railroad crossings have to bear responsibility for their own actions. They should not approach a crossing without eyes and ears open. If they don't think it's safe to cross, they shouldn't be doing it.

But then, I would expect an engineer who has lost track (sorry!) of where he is to proceed more slowly. Most of these guys are familiar enough with their territory to know roughly when to expect the next whistle board to appear, the next signal, and so on. But one overriding rule is, "When in doubt, the safe course must be taken." If, in the engineer's opinion, that course is to slow down--or stop--that's what he should do.

This is, mind you, the opinion of a railroader who does not take a train out on the road, and has only his rulebook and the opinions of others to go by. I'm sure I'll take plenty of flaming for what I've just posted, but it should be interesting, regardless.

[nbrodar]

 There is nothing that requires the engineer to slow down, if he is running under clear signals...

However, if the dispatcher receives a report of trees down, slides, or other incidents, he may issue train orders slowing train speed.   The engineer may also slow down if he thinks conditions warrant.

Nick

[BNSFwatcher]

H*ll with the cab signals.  They won't tell you the Texaco truck is high-centered on the grade crossing.  I'd slow down to a reasonable speed, considering visibility.

Hays

[BaltACD]

OldViking

Thanks to all for their kind replies to my question. In the process of re-reading the question I realized the question could have been more clearly stated. The trials of being old and a being a Viking. I should say I have been hanging around railroads all my life and have a layman's understanding of how signal systems work. My question should have been more along the lines of when running at authorized speed in fog or snow so dense the crew can only see the nose of the locomotive, getting a clear indications from the cab-signal, how does the railroad account for the unseen hazards that may be lurking on the tracks or right next to the tracks? A person(s), a stalled car, heavy machinery next to the tracks that was not called to the railroad's attention, a large object that has fallen on the tracks but did not break the circuit, all scenarios that would be invisible to the crew until they were right on top of the problem. All which could cause the loss of life or a serious wreck. Under normal visibility conditions the crew could warn trespassers or hopefully stop before striking anything fouling the track. The qustion should have been, does the crew on its own, or under orders from the dispatcher, slow down when the visibility is zero or almost zero in cab-signaled territory.

Unless one has a mile or more of unobstructed visibility of a identifiable obstruction to the track in clear weather the train is not getting stopped on visual indications alone, and who can see a obstruction from a mile distance.  The reality, no matter the weather....unless the obstruction is identified to the train crew well in advance of the obstruction....a train operating at track speed will not get stopped in sight distance of the obstruction.

Trains do not have the stopping distances of highway vehicle....either cars or trucks.  Cars & trucks operate on sight.  Railroad operate on signals or block authority.  Clear Signals and/or Clear block (DTC or TWC) authority allow for maximum speed operation, except where otherwise restricted.

[Anonymous]

This is an interesting question, but maybe it would have been better to clarify the question in the first thread rather than starting a second thread.  If I understand the answer to the question, it is this:

 

If you have clear cab signals, you can proceed at track speed unless told otherwise, even if there is zero visibility ahead.  But if you think it is unsafe to do so, you may slow down to whatever speed you think is safe.

 

Is that the correct answer? 

 

If it is, it seems like an odd way to handle the situation.  It has been mentioned that engineers are supposed to know where the grade crossings are.  It is one thing to know their location in relation to other landmarks, but if you painted the windows black, would engineers know exactly when the train is approaching a crossing?  Would they calculate location by reconciling speed against elapsed time?

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

One incident that pretty much fits your 'hazard hidden by the fog' scenario was the wreck of Amtrak's No. 2, the Sunset Limited, at Big Bayou Canot in Alabama in 1993.  As a result of the fog, the barges hit and damaged the bridge by pushing the track as much as 38'' out of line.  A few minutes later at around 3 AM in the morning and in the same fog, the train comes cruising along at track speed - nothing pulled down the signals otherwise - and ran into the damaged bridge, derailing and killing 47 people.  More details and links to the NTSB report can be found over on the recent Railroad Bridge Failures thread in this Forum.

Basically, it seems the accepted standard here is that the train is entitled - but not required - to proceed at full track speed on its supposedly exclusive right-of-way, unless there's an obstacle of such a nature that would affect the signal system, or some other supervening warning or notice, such as from the dispatcher or observed extreme conditions as noted above, etc.  That such operations have been occurring for many years without a huge loss of life - the wreck above, and some collisions of trains at unprotected grade crossing with vans full of migrant farm workers and the like in California's notorious valley fogs, etc., excepted - says that the judgment and consensus of society via the regulators and legal system is that an appropriate balance between speed and safety has been achieved.  Such events can and will continue to occur, but they will be 'off-the-wall' type scenarios, which seem to be accepted as an inherent risk of doing business and keeping  the operation running more or less on-time.  Without a doubt more can and will be done to improve safety in those conditions - such as adding crossing signals and vehicle presence detectors, and maybe infra-red video cameras to the locomotives to help the crews see further through the fog, etc. - but in the meantime, the status quo ante seems acceptable, despite how nerve-wrecking it may be to the train crews at times.

- Paul North. 

[zugmann]

BNSFwatcher

H*ll with the cab signals.  They won't tell you the Texaco truck is high-centered on the grade crossing.  I'd slow down to a reasonable speed, considering visibility.

Hays

 

 

That is not the point of cab signals.  Any person will slow down if they see a truck high-centered on the crossing (and any sane person would probably dump the train).   But I could give you a list of grade crossings over hills or around bends that you can't see until you are on top of them.  Are we supposed to run prepared to stop short of every crossing? 

[Anonymous]

zugmann

BNSFwatcher

H*ll with the cab signals.  They won't tell you the Texaco truck is high-centered on the grade crossing.  I'd slow down to a reasonable speed, considering visibility.

Hays

 

 

That is not the point of cab signals.  Any person will slow down if they see a truck high-centered on the crossing (and any sane person would probably dump the train).   But I could give you a list of grade crossings over hills or around bends that you can't see until you are on top of them.  Are we supposed to run prepared to stop short of every crossing? 

You say any prudent person would slow down if they see a truck stalled on a crossing.  But isn’t the point of this thread whether or not it is required or necessary to run slower in limited visibility when they can't see ahead, even though cab signals are clear? 

 

The prevailing point of view seems to be that it is not necessary to run slow under such circumstances because there is no hazard that running slow could prevent.

 

I think that one could compile a long list of track or right of way contingencies capable of causing death or injury to the crew that could be avoided by direct sight ahead, or by running slower if the sight ahead is limited by fog or other obstructing weather conditions.  I am surprised that anyone could conclude otherwise.

 

Cab signals cannot possibly guarantee that the way ahead is safe to run blind.

[wabash1]

Bucyrus

zugmann

BNSFwatcher

H*ll with the cab signals.  They won't tell you the Texaco truck is high-centered on the grade crossing.  I'd slow down to a reasonable speed, considering visibility.

Hays

 

 

That is not the point of cab signals.  Any person will slow down if they see a truck high-centered on the crossing (and any sane person would probably dump the train).   But I could give you a list of grade crossings over hills or around bends that you can't see until you are on top of them.  Are we supposed to run prepared to stop short of every crossing? 

You say any prudent person would slow down if they see a truck stalled on a crossing.  But isn’t the point of this thread whether or not it is required or necessary to run slower in limited visibility when they can't see ahead, even though cab signals are clear? 

 

The prevailing point of view seems to be that it is not necessary to run slow under such circumstances because there is no hazard that running slow could prevent.

 

I think that one could compile a long list of track or right of way contingencies capable of causing death or injury to the crew that could be avoided by direct sight ahead, or by running slower if the sight ahead is limited by fog or other obstructing weather conditions.  I am surprised that anyone could conclude otherwise.

 

Cab signals cannot possibly guarantee that the way ahead is safe to run blind.

ROFLAC

[Murphy Siding]

Bucyrus

zugmann

BNSFwatcher

H*ll with the cab signals.  They won't tell you the Texaco truck is high-centered on the grade crossing.  I'd slow down to a reasonable speed, considering visibility.

Hays

 

 

That is not the point of cab signals.  Any person will slow down if they see a truck high-centered on the crossing (and any sane person would probably dump the train).   But I could give you a list of grade crossings over hills or around bends that you can't see until you are on top of them.  Are we supposed to run prepared to stop short of every crossing? 

You say any prudent person would slow down if they see a truck stalled on a crossing.  But isn’t the point of this thread whether or not it is required or necessary to run slower in limited visibility when they can't see ahead, even though cab signals are clear? 

 

The prevailing point of view seems to be that it is not necessary to run slow under such circumstances because there is no hazard that running slow could prevent.

 

I think that one could compile a long list of track or right of way contingencies capable of causing death or injury to the crew that could be avoided by direct sight ahead, or by running slower if the sight ahead is limited by fog or other obstructing weather conditions.  I am surprised that anyone could conclude otherwise.

 

Cab signals cannot possibly guarantee that the way ahead is safe to run blind.

    If you can say that a train ought to run slower when it's foggy, because visibility could be hampered, wouldn't you have say that the trains should run slower whenever there's a possibilty of hampered vision by the engineer?  So, now we'd be running slower during fog, heavy rain, snow, sleet, hail, and darkness.  We'd also be running slower anytime we're not on the open prairie, running on flat ground, because vision is hampered by trees, buildings, curves and hills.

[Anonymous]

Murphy Siding

Bucyrus

zugmann

BNSFwatcher

H*ll with the cab signals.  They won't tell you the Texaco truck is high-centered on the grade crossing.  I'd slow down to a reasonable speed, considering visibility.

Hays

 

 

That is not the point of cab signals.  Any person will slow down if they see a truck high-centered on the crossing (and any sane person would probably dump the train).   But I could give you a list of grade crossings over hills or around bends that you can't see until you are on top of them.  Are we supposed to run prepared to stop short of every crossing? 

You say any prudent person would slow down if they see a truck stalled on a crossing.  But isn’t the point of this thread whether or not it is required or necessary to run slower in limited visibility when they can't see ahead, even though cab signals are clear? 

 

The prevailing point of view seems to be that it is not necessary to run slow under such circumstances because there is no hazard that running slow could prevent.

 

I think that one could compile a long list of track or right of way contingencies capable of causing death or injury to the crew that could be avoided by direct sight ahead, or by running slower if the sight ahead is limited by fog or other obstructing weather conditions.  I am surprised that anyone could conclude otherwise.

 

Cab signals cannot possibly guarantee that the way ahead is safe to run blind.

    If you can say that a train ought to run slower when it's foggy, because visibility could be hampered, wouldn't you have say that the trains should run slower whenever there's a possibilty of hampered vision by the engineer?  So, now we'd be running slower during fog, heavy rain, snow, sleet, hail, and darkness.  We'd also be running slower anytime we're not on the open prairie, running on flat ground, because vision is hampered by trees, buildings, curves and hills.

I think it is a matter of degrees.  At night, the headlight is deemed sufficient to assure safe running at the speed limit.  So are curves and other visibility obstructions considered in establishing the proper speed limit.  Some latitude for less than perfect vision is reasonable as in the case of rain, snow, etc.  I am considering the issue in terms of the worst case such as fog where the visibility can be zero; like wearing a blindfold.

 

I cannot see how this fact of 100% loss of forward visibility can be deemed irrelevant to safe operation, even if cab signals are clear.

[Murphy Siding]

   Could it be, because the foggy conditions do not hamper the operation of the train?  It hampers the operation of other people and things that should be watching out for the train.

     Not to sound callous, but the train is made to operate on the railroad's tracks, at a given track speed.  For better, or for worse, it's the job of others around to keep themselves and their vehicles off the railrod's tracks, and out of the way of the trains.  Folks should be resonsible around trains, no matter what the weather or visabilty.

   

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

Bucyrus

[snip] But isn’t the point of this thread whether or not it is required or necessary to run slower in limited visibility when they can't see ahead, even though cab signals are clear? 

Yes, that's the question, as I understand it; and the answer seems to be, ''No''.

Bucyrus

The prevailing point of view seems to be that it is not necessary to run slow under such circumstances because there is no hazard that running slow could prevent.

 

I think you're overstating that a bit.  More accurately, while there may be hazards that running slow could prevent, those hazards are usually not the railroad's responsibility - the railroad is entitled to assume and rely that the track is clear, if that's what the cab signals indicate.  The cab signals and signal circuits are set up to detect and warn of all of the usual and severe hazards - mainly stopped and opposing trains, switches lined wrong, broken rails, anything else that might shunt the track circuit. and maybe the slide detector fences and the like - that's about it.  So, once those hazards have been addressed and cleared, the railroad is then entitled to run at full speed, if it chooses to assume the risks and rewards of doing so under such circumstances - a very libertarian view of the issue, don't you think ? 

 

Bucyrus

I think that one could compile a long list of track or right of way contingencies capable of causing death or injury to the crew that could be avoided by direct sight ahead, or by running slower if the sight ahead is limited by fog or other obstructing weather conditions. . . .

 

Yes, that could be done - and I'll even grant you that those contingencies are likely ones that the signals can't detect or warn of, and that running slower might minimize the hazard if not avoid it entirely.  But the prevailing consensus seems to be that they are just that - contingencies - very remote ones at that, and not ones that the railroad is responsible for, or even to have to take care to avoid or plan around them.  There seems to be a general acceptance of the risk of such remote, random, and - important word coming here - unforseeable events occurring.  That we can imagine it does not necessarily make it forseeable; it has to be the kind of event that reasonable minds would agree is likely or probable if the precaution is not taken.  Once or twice in 10 or 20 years over nationwide operations does not qualify for that, in my opinion.

 

Bucyrus

. . . Cab signals cannot possibly guarantee that the way ahead is safe to run blind.

They can as against almost all of the obstructions and hazards that are within the railroad's control - other trains, broken rails, open bridges and switches, and recurring obstructions such as rock slides, etc.  There's not much else that can stand up against the force of a speeding train - even Hay's Texaco tanker won't survive, though it will take the train crew with it - so from that standpoint, the slowdown that you seem to be suggesting would benefit mainly people and objects that aren't even supposed to be on the tracks in the first place - correct ? 

Bucyrus

. . . So are curves and other visibility obstructions considered in establishing the proper speed limit.  . . . 

 

Not so far as I am aware, in most situations.  The physics of the curves - degree and super-elevation - is what establishes the speed limit from a track and civil engineering standpoint, not sight distance or visibility.  With fast train speeds commonly requiring a mile or more to stop, few trains would ever be able to stop within their sight distance on most curves.  And the signals are usaully placed far enough back from the point of concern - that distance being calculated on the basis of the maximum track speed as determined by what I just stated - so as to provide the required visibility and aspect far enough in advance, not the other way around, with some limited exceptions.

 

Bucyrus

. . . I cannot see how this fact of 100% loss of forward visibility can be deemed irrelevant to safe operation, even if cab signals are clear. 

 

It probably seems weird to the outside world, where operation of motor vehicles is totally dependent on such visibility.  But the railroad seems to operate on the basis that its R-O-W and clearance diagram is an 'exclusionary zone', and within that its operation is primary and paramount.  Compare with flying and landing airplanes in fog - that system places its trust in radar and limited ground visibility when taking off, landing, and taxiing around the airport.  There may be other obstacles there, too - but systems and procedures are put into place to prevent them from interfering with the safe operations most of the time.  Same here.

 

Good discussion, anyway.  Thanks. 

 

- Paul North. 

[oltmannd]

Cab signals or not, I think I can sum this up pretty easily.

Visibility has to be good enough for the engineer to know where he is on the railroad. His knowledge of his territory and movement authority (by any means) takes care of the rest. There are no other provisions that tie safe operations to visibility.

[zugmann]

oltmannd

Cab signals or not, I think I can sum this up pretty easily.

Visibility has to be good enough for the engineer to know where he is on the railroad. His knowledge of his territory and movement authority (by any means) takes care of the rest. There are no other provisions that tie safe operations to visibility.

 

 

With the notable exception of 'restricted speed'. 

[Anonymous]

Paul and Norris,

 

Where to begin?  You guys misunderstand my viewpoint on this, and I think you are going overboard in your assumption of the supremacy of running trains full speed with no visibility because cab signals tell them everything they need to know, and they can’t stop in time for the unexpected anyway.

 

First of all, with regard to my viewpoint on this, set aside completely any concern about running into people who should not be in the way.  What I am saying in previous posts here has nothing whatsoever to do with that issue.  Bystanders and motorist are supposed to stay out of the way of trains, and if it is too foggy to see, they must act accordingly. 

 

I am not suggesting that trains slow down to make anybody safer except for those on board.  But if railroad companies or engineers don’t want to slow down, I could not care less.  Run as fast as you want.   I am just looking at the objective reality that there is a windshield and a view ahead of a thousand things that could be wrong.  So it seems bizarre to suggest that there is no difference between seeing the view ahead and not seeing it.  This is not analogous to flying airplanes with instruments.  Why place signs along the track if there is no need to see them? 

 

My point about the speed limit and curves was directed at Norris’s suggestion that if an engineer were expected to slow down for the visibility limitations of fog or weather, might they not be expected to also slow down for the visibility limitations of curves?  What I meant in my response to him was that the limited sight of curves is a known, and unchanging limitation that is deemed acceptable for the maximum allowable speed at the location of curves, whereas fog is a variable occurrence that can reduce the visibility more than the curves do.

 

Don said: “visibility has to be good enough for the engineer to know where he is on the railroad. His knowledge of his territory and movement authority (by any means) takes care of the rest. There are no other provisions that tie safe operations to visibility.” 

 

Does not that provision in and of itself completely tie safe operation to visibility?  How can an engineer know where he is at on the railroad if he cannot see beyond his windshield?

[wabash1]

Bucyrus

Paul and Norris,

 

Where to begin?  You guys misunderstand my viewpoint on this, and I think you are going overboard in your assumption of the supremacy of running trains full speed with no visibility because cab signals tell them everything they need to know, and they can’t stop in time for the unexpected anyway.

 

First of all, with regard to my viewpoint on this, set aside completely any concern about running into people who should not be in the way.  What I am saying in previous posts here has nothing whatsoever to do with that issue.  Bystanders and motorist are supposed to stay out of the way of trains, and if it is too foggy to see, they must act accordingly. 

 

I am not suggesting that trains slow down to make anybody safer except for those on board.  But if railroad companies or engineers don’t want to slow down, I could not care less.  Run as fast as you want.   I am just looking at the objective reality that there is a windshield and a view ahead of a thousand things that could be wrong.  So it seems bizarre to suggest that there is no difference between seeing the view ahead and not seeing it.  This is not analogous to flying airplanes with instruments.  Why place signs along the track if there is no need to see them? 

 

My point about the speed limit and curves was directed at Norris’s suggestion that if an engineer were expected to slow down for the visibility limitations of fog or weather, might they not be expected to also slow down for the visibility limitations of curves?  What I meant in my response to him was that the limited sight of curves is a known, and unchanging limitation that is deemed acceptable for the maximum allowable speed at the location of curves, whereas fog is a variable occurrence that can reduce the visibility more than the curves do.

 

Don said: “visibility has to be good enough for the engineer to know where he is on the railroad. His knowledge of his territory and movement authority (by any means) takes care of the rest. There are no other provisions that tie safe operations to visibility.” 

 

Does not that provision in and of itself completely tie safe operation to visibility?  How can an engineer know where he is at on the railroad if he cannot see beyond his windshield?

I will jump in here now, You dont understand either, You think that a engineer is running by looking out the front windshield and knowing where he is, To those who  dont know a engineer does not run a train by speedometer he runs according to the terrain, and meaning he looks out the side glass he knows where he is by the little bride or culvert at the bottom of the hill a tree at the track side is top mile post then the whistle boards for crossings all are markings used to give us clues to where we are. those little thigs dont mean squat to you but is how we keep the train running at track speed, and make are stops. so when we say know your territory we mean know the territory the trees the rocks the bridges the farmers crossing all mean something to us. thats how trains are run so i dont need to see 1 mile up the road i need a few feet out the side window.

[Anonymous]

wabash1

You dont understand either

What don’t I understand?  You say you look out the side windows for landmarks rather than looking out the windshield for landmarks.  If the fog is so thick that you can’t see out the windshield, how do you see out the side windows?

[CShaveRR]

The view of the ground out the side window is much closer to you than the view over the nose. And if you had a little bride at the foot of the hill, wouldn't you be looking for her, too?

[zugmann]

Bucyrus

wabash1

You dont understand either

What don’t I understand?  You say you look out the side windows for landmarks rather than looking out the windshield for landmarks.  If the fog is so thick that you can’t see out the windshield, how do you see out the side windows?

 

 

Even in the thickest fog that I have run in... it was not that thick that you could not see the signals and reflective milepost and whistlepost signs as you whizzed by them.   Same with overpasses and underpasses.   You also get a feel of where you are at all times, just like driving a car. The territories I run in on the road were pitch black at night.  Even with the headlights, it still didn't change the fact all you saw out the side windows was black.  But you keep track where you are via signals, milepost signs, crossings and other landmarks as Wabash pointed out.  Even if you lose track of where you are for a split moment (usually when sleep-deprived) you quickly hit a patch of RR that you instantly recognize. 

 

For example, when you are driving in your neighborhood, I bet you slow to a stop at the intersections with stop signs, even without concentrating on the red octagons placed there for that purpose.  Why?  Those are "your" streets and you know them.  You know the bumps, the potholes, the blindspots... not that much different than out on the rails.  

 

And where I run there's very few long stretches of flat, boring, same speed RR.  There's different speed limits, hills, upgrades, downgrades, interlockings, detectors, crossings... most people break the RR down into smaller, more manageable segments.  

 

As pointed out we run on signal/paper authority in most cases.  If we hit something big, then we stop and figure out what it was.   Sounds crude, but it is what it is.  There has been more than one case of a train hitting someone and not knowing about it. 

 

PS.  Now switching in a yard in the fog where restricted speed is the rule?  Now THAT is the real pain. 

[BaltACD]

Bucyrus

 

I cannot see how this fact of 100% loss of forward visibility can be deemed irrelevant to safe operation, even if cab signals are clear.

The operating terrain of railroads....in PERFECT weather with 100% maximum visibility has countless locations where sight distance is far, far less than stopping distance of the train.  As I have previously noted....Trains do not operate on sight, their stopping distances at normal track speeds are far longer than sight distances in almost all circumstances. The act of placing the train braking system in emergency when a significant obstruction is observed is done with little real expectations that the train will be stopped before striking the obstruction if the train is move at track speed in areas where normal speeds are 40 MPH and higher.

There are countless road crossings, bridges and other locations of potential obstruction, where the sight lines to those locations are 1/4 mile and less....with emergency braking distances being 1 mile and more...what real effect does putting the train in emergency have in avoiding the obstruction...NONE.  The obstruction will be hit.  If speeds are to be limited to sight distances to obstructions....track speed will become 20 MPH and less for the entirety of the rail system....Great for truckers, not great for railroads or their customers.

[Anonymous]

BaltACD

Bucyrus

 

I cannot see how this fact of 100% loss of forward visibility can be deemed irrelevant to safe operation, even if cab signals are clear.

The operating terrain of railroads....in PERFECT weather with 100% maximum visibility has countless locations where sight distance is far, far less than stopping distance of the train.  As I have previously noted....Trains do not operate on sight, their stopping distances at normal track speeds are far longer than sight distances in almost all circumstances. The act of placing the train braking system in emergency when a significant obstruction is observed is done with little real expectations that the train will be stopped before striking the obstruction if the train is move at track speed in areas where normal speeds are 40 MPH and higher.

There are countless road crossings, bridges and other locations of potential obstruction, where the sight lines to those locations are 1/4 mile and less....with emergency braking distances being 1 mile and more...what real effect does putting the train in emergency have in avoiding the obstruction...NONE.  The obstruction will be hit.  If speeds are to be limited to sight distances to obstructions....track speed will become 20 MPH and less for the entirety of the rail system....Great for truckers, not great for railroads or their customers.

But there are 100,000 possible visible hazards where their sight distance is more that than the stopping distance of trains.  Even Wabash says that he speeds up if he sees a trestle on fire.  There are many hazard too close to stop in time, but if you hit them, the slower the better.

[wabash1]

Maybe this will clear up some loose ends in regaurds to running a train in bad visability and a late night here at my house.

230am wake up haft to go t bathroom get out of bed and its dark walk to end of bed turn left walk step step step step doorway thru doorway turn right down hall way step step step stop, turn left step step night light walk walk stop turn left raise lid......ah......................done ( didnt want to keep you all waiting that long older guys do take longer)  ok step to left reach turn on water a little soft soap wash wash wash rinse oh gee cold cold water. turn off water dry hands on fancy towel. ( oh well i been yelled at before) turn left to doorway into hall dark again turn left walk step step step end of hall bear left a step now walk walk walk walk  OUCH. darn hasac step right turn right step step step into kitchen turn on light  AHHH turn off light to bright .  wait for eyes to re-adjust..........

Now in kitchen step step step reach into cabinit get glass turn around open refrigerator door get milk out pour glass of milk put jug back. step step step stop at table sit down glass and go over to stove turn on oven light, walk back over to table sit down. open up oreo package get a cookie out dunk dunk dunk eat. ahh get another cookie dunk dunk dunk dunk eat mmmmm get another cookie out dunk dunk dunk. eat  reach for another. ( i realy should stop bad for diet) dunk dunk dunk. eat, mmmmm , Just one more dunk dunk dunk eat ahhh good but i really should stop  reach dunk dunk dunk dunk eat why cant a person stop at 1 or 2, im gonna hate myself and my waist line.  reach search search, package empty. gulp gulp gulp refreshing. put glass in sink rinsing out first.

step step step thru door step step turn left step step step bear left into hallway step step step end of hall turn left into bedroom step step step turn right step step stop move 3 dogs to crawl back in bed waking wife in prossess she ask where you been, i was just getting a drink.

Point is limited light in the dark but knew where i was and what i needed to do same out there on my territory looking a couple feet from side window and know where i am and what to do next. so what if a tree has fallen across tracks even in perfect conditions i plow right thru them. cant stop just because its foggy doesnt change anything the railroad still runs with no speed restrictions.

[wabash1]

Bucyrus

BaltACD

Bucyrus

 

I cannot see how this fact of 100% loss of forward visibility can be deemed irrelevant to safe operation, even if cab signals are clear.

The operating terrain of railroads....in PERFECT weather with 100% maximum visibility has countless locations where sight distance is far, far less than stopping distance of the train.  As I have previously noted....Trains do not operate on sight, their stopping distances at normal track speeds are far longer than sight distances in almost all circumstances. The act of placing the train braking system in emergency when a significant obstruction is observed is done with little real expectations that the train will be stopped before striking the obstruction if the train is move at track speed in areas where normal speeds are 40 MPH and higher.

There are countless road crossings, bridges and other locations of potential obstruction, where the sight lines to those locations are 1/4 mile and less....with emergency braking distances being 1 mile and more...what real effect does putting the train in emergency have in avoiding the obstruction...NONE.  The obstruction will be hit.  If speeds are to be limited to sight distances to obstructions....track speed will become 20 MPH and less for the entirety of the rail system....Great for truckers, not great for railroads or their customers.

But there are 100,000 possible visible hazards where their sight distance is more that than the stopping distance of trains.  Even Wabash says that he speeds up if he sees a trestle on fire.  There are many hazard too close to stop in time, but if you hit them, the slower the better.

No you  are wrong if a fuel truck is stopped on the tracks at a crossing i am going to go faster, and may end up speeding, but lets maybe look at this at a differant light. are you talking in town or rual america, if in town at track speed of 35mph or less i will bust them and jump. why because i have a chance to survive the jump , if running 35 mph and faster open it up and fly get past that fire ball,

Now you keep bringing signals into this, there is hundreads of miles of rail that is still dark territory, no signals and these guys run 49 mph and as fast as 60 in places there could be a switch lined wrong a car rolled out of industry vandals park a bull dozer on tracks, any number of things and if its a clear night it wont make any differance if i am about to hit a bull dozer i rather it be foggy as i dont want to see what im hitting,it wont matter how fast you want us to go we are just as efficient in fog as we are on a clear day, ( or at least i am) now i dont know how to make it any clearer and wont attempt to try again, maybe the other engineers on this site might want to try . heck even a good conductor could give it a shot . No wait they slept thru it never mind

[BaltACD]

Bucyrus

But there are 100,000 possible visible hazards where their sight distance is more that than the stopping distance of trains.  Even Wabash says that he speeds up if he sees a trestle on fire.  There are many hazard too close to stop in time, but if you hit them, the slower the better.

Your perfect visual operating system is defined on the railroad in two words....

Restricted Speed.

Nothing more and nothing less.  A speed that will permit stopping the train within 1/2 the range of vision.

[zugmann]

 Thankfully, despite all safety and liability concerns, the powers that be do recognize the fact that we have to move freight a little bit faster than 5mph to remain a viable transportation option. 

[Anonymous]

BaltACD

Bucyrus

But there are 100,000 possible visible hazards where their sight distance is more that than the stopping distance of trains.  Even Wabash says that he speeds up if he sees a trestle on fire.  There are many hazard too close to stop in time, but if you hit them, the slower the better.

Your perfect visual operating system is defined on the railroad in two words....

Restricted Speed.

Nothing more and nothing less.  A speed that will permit stopping the train within 1/2 the range of vision.

I understand restricted speed, but are you saying that trains are ordered to run at restricted speed when visibility is limited by fog? 

I thought the whole thrust of this conversation was that if trains have clear cab signals, they can run full track speed even if fog is so thick that the visibility is zero. So, what does restricted speed have to do with anything in this topic?

[henry6]

There is an inherent feeling of safety in that a train is on a track, thus guided without having to steer. It is also usually a private right of way an probably with a certain "normal" situation at any given time. A signal system, where available, helps ease the operation, too.  But most of all the intellegence, the knowledge, the ability, the skill, all the faculties combined, of any given engineer will govern the situation.  If he feels he has to "feel" his way along he will.  The engineer is the last in command to determine his abilities matched with his train and the right of way before him.  In commuter rail and along non commuter tracks I have seen cautious movements as well as full throttle.  And I'm sure radios today help train movements through thick fogs and other weather conditions as never before.  Lets give credit where credit is due: the judgement of the engineer in the circumstance.

[Anonymous]

wabash1

Now you keep bringing signals into this, there is hundreads of miles of rail that is still dark territory, no signals and these guys run 49 mph and as fast as 60 in places

there could be a switch lined wrong a car rolled out of industry vandals park a bull dozer on tracks, any number of things and if its a clear night it wont make any differance if i am about to hit a bull dozer i rather it be foggy as i dont want to see what im hitting,it wont matter how fast you want us to go

we are just as efficient in fog as we are on a clear day, ( or at least i am)

 

 

 

So, just to get this straight:  You are saying that, in dark territory where no signals exist, engineers may run 60 mph in zero-visibility fog, with track authority alone.

 

It is interesting that every time the subject of automating train operation comes up on this forum, everybody says that would be impossible because human eyeballs riding the locomotive are necessary for safe operation.  And then, oddly enough, it is all about the worry of hitting cars at grade crossings.  We are told that the trial lawyers would have a field day trying a case where a train hit a car with no engineer on board watching ahead.

 

And now we are telling those same trial lawyers that engineers run 60 mph over grade crossings in fog so thick they can’t see past the windshield.