The Return of a Foggy Day Question

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

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.

[snipped/ edited for space]

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. 

       LOL - really !   I can relate to all of it - including the wife's thing with not using the 'fancy towel', too. . .   But, what - no cat to trip over as well ?

I think the fancy term for it is 'inertial navigation', or 'dead reckoning' = ''Let's see, I been going in this direction for about this long at this speed [or for this many steps] - the next point to look for [or touch] should be about here'' - then do that, re-set your internal calibration for where you are then, and continue on.

Thanks for that, wabash1. 

- Paul North. 

 

[oltmannd]

Bucyrus

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.

Dark territory = 49 mph max for frt, 59 for passenger

There are two options, here.

1. Train speed is governed by movement authority.

2. Train speed is governed by line of sight.

You have to pick one.

#1 is how things are now. If you do #2, you will slow the RR to a crawl in many, many places, particularly in the east.. There is no fundamental difference between fog and a curve, so you'd have to slow for every curve. I doubt you'd ever get much over 25 mph between Harrisburg and Altoona if you did line of sight.

You need the human on the train to handle the train and take care of all those gremlins that pop up. Separated air hoses, restarting locomotives, knuckle replacement, defective car set-outs, etc., not so much blowing for Xings and following signal indications.

[oltmannd]

Paul_D_North_Jr

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.

[snipped/ edited for space]

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. 

       LOL - really !   I can relate to all of it - including the wife's thing with not using the 'fancy towel', too. . .   But, what - no cat to trip over as well ?

I think the fancy term for it is 'inertial navigation', or 'dead reckoning' = ''Let's see, I been going in this direction for about this long at this speed [or for this many steps] - the next point to look for [or touch] should be about here'' - then do that, re-set your internal calibration for where you are then, and continue on.

Thanks for that, wabash1. 

- Paul North. 

 

Definitely my laugh for the day!

[Murphy Siding]

Bucyrus

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.

     I think this has been explained by a couple of folks already, but let me try again.

     In essence, the railroad is running their trains, on their track.  The issue comes from other people putting themselves in harms way while crossing the railroad's tracks, while trying to avoid the railroad's trains,  on the railroad's track.

     If you start saying that the railroads need to alter their way of operating on a daily basis, trying (in vain) to guess what problems they are going to have with the general public on the railroad's tracks, then you might as well give away the railroads.  It would be a real short jump, to say, in a courtroom,  that the train was going too fast for any one of a million reasons.  "Your honor- the railroad should have known, that there would be 400,000 bikers at the Sturgis Rally, and slowed their trains accordingly.  Instead, they ran their trains on their track, as they're allowed to do, and look what happened......".

    In the end, when it comes down to something that concerns how something is done on the railroad, I give great weight to the answers of those that work on the railroad.  We're lucky to have knowledable railroad employess on our forum , willing to share information, and to tell us how things really are.  Several have been good enough to explain this situation to us on this thread.  At this point, if I don't understand, it might simply be because I don't understand.

[BaltACD]

Bucyrus

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?

What it has to do with the topic is to refute your continued assertion that despite signal indications and Clear Block authorities that trains should only be operating within their range of vision during periods of limited vision.  In most railroad operating terrain the vision is ALWAYS limited, if not by fog, by curvature and elevation changes. 

Clear signals or Clear Block authority = Track Speed.

[Anonymous]

Part of the problem is that several have responded to my question as if I am merely asking about “foggy” conditions where things might only be a little hazy.  They demonstrate this interpretation of my question when they say that fog is no different than curves or running at night. 

 

But I am asking about fog so thick that an engineer is completely blinded by it.  So there is a great deal of difference between that visual impairment and the visual restriction of a curve. 

 

And yet others have declared than no amount of visual impairment requires an engineer to slow down, so they apparently understand my question is predicated on zero visibility.  Indeed it has been suggested that trains can run blind just like airplanes flying on instruments with no line of sight guidance.

[Murphy Siding]

Bucyrus

But I am asking about fog so thick that an engineer is completely blinded by it. 

    You seem to be asking for 100%, black and white answers, so.......if the fog is so thick that wabash1 is completely blinded by it, then it's a moot point anyway, because he can't find his way into work on the highway.  No engineer, no moving train, no worries about speed.

[Anonymous]

I just called the FRA and got the answer to the question. 

 

The answer:   An engineer must be able to know where he is in order to run the train. 

 

Therefore, in a fog condition of zero visibility, where the fog is so thick that an engineer cannot see beyond the window glass, the engineer cannot move the train.

[blownout cylinder]

Bucyrus

I just called the FRA and got the answer to the question. 

 

The answer:   An engineer must be able to know where he is in order to run the train. 

 

Therefore, in a fog condition of zero visibility, where the fog is so thick that an engineer cannot see beyond the window glass, the engineer cannot move the train.

Seems to work fine for me. If you're driving and get blindsided by one of our lovely snowsqualls up here in the snowbelt that produces an absolute white out condition, are you going to continue driving if'n you cannot see ANYTHING past the windshield?

[samfp1943]

I guess the important lesseon to be taken away from this exercise is the wisdom of the NS's (nee N&W/Southern) policy of running long hood forward.

Note to Wabash1: Is the rule there lid up or down?    Around here it is now lid up, always; since the night the kids put the cat in the toilet, and left the lid down.       You've never heard a scream like the one the wife uttered at 2AM when that wet cat went between her legs as she was about to do what she needed to do!

One more question:  Regular or double stuff?  

[schlimm]

Bucyrus

I just called the FRA and got the answer to the question. 

 

The answer:   An engineer must be able to know where he is in order to run the train. 

 

Therefore, in a fog condition of zero visibility, where the fog is so thick that an engineer cannot see beyond the window glass, the engineer cannot move the train.

Bucyrus:  At the risk of missing your point again I'd say you just nailed it with the FRA.  Zero visibility could also be present in so-called "white-out" conditions, where blowing snow can reduce visibility to a few feet.  Speed could be a factor, too.  Standing still or moving slowly, one might be able to see a fair distance in fog or snow, but visibility would be inversely related to speed.  Night worse than day (usually).  The thought of driving blind, whether a car, truck or train, is not a pleasant one.

[Murphy Siding]

Bucyrus

I just called the FRA and got the answer to the question. 

 

The answer:   An engineer must be able to know where he is in order to run the train. 

 

Therefore, in a fog condition of zero visibility, where the fog is so thick that an engineer cannot see beyond the window glass, the engineer cannot move the train.

     You're right.  You've just proved what the railroaders who have responded to this thread have been telling you.  An engineer must be able to know where he is in order to run the train.  As both wabash1 and Zugmann have pointed out,  knowing where you are, and being able to see long distances down the track are two entirely different things.

[schlimm]

I believe it depends on exactly what the FRA would answer to "How great visibility is needed and at what speeds to be allowed to move."  You could easily "know where you are" with a good GPS.  If that is all there is to it, then why bother with a windshield (and engineer)?

[Anonymous]

Murphy Siding

Bucyrus

I just called the FRA and got the answer to the question. 

 

The answer:   An engineer must be able to know where he is in order to run the train. 

 

Therefore, in a fog condition of zero visibility, where the fog is so thick that an engineer cannot see beyond the window glass, the engineer cannot move the train.

     You're right.  You've just proved what the railroaders who have responded to this thread have been telling you.  An engineer must be able to know where he is in order to run the train.  As both wabash1 and Zugmann have pointed out,  knowing where you are, and being able to see long distances down the track are two entirely different things.

I disagree that there has been any consensus here on this question.  Go back and read this thread.  I clearly stated my question in post #6.  Responses have been all over the map, mainly rejecting the possibility that fog could be sufficient to make running impossible, although a few have indeed said that you can't run if you don't know where you are, confirming what the FRA said. 

 

Others, however, have contended that trains can run full speed in zero visibility as if they were airplanes running on instruments.  And then you suggested my question is moot because if it is so foggy you can’t see, you can’t drive to work anyway.  What if it is not foggy going to work, and then turns foggy after work begins? 

 

Many, including Wabash, have responded to my zero-visibility question as though they could see despite having zero visibility.  Wabash then made a blanket statement suggesting that fog simply does not matter by saying:

 

“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)”   

[Murphy Siding]

     You know......if it was late at night, and we were playing poker......this is about the time I'd throw in my cards and say "Well boys, it's late, and I have to work in the morning". 

[jeffhergert]

General Code of Operating Rules

Rule 6.21 Precaustions against unusual conditions

http://www.railroadcontrols.com/gcor/movement.html#6.21  (The link is to an older version of GCOR, but the rule is still there in current versions.)

The applicable part of that rule to this discussion is:  "When conditions restrict visibility, regulate speed to ensure that crew members can observe and comply with signal indications."

Open to interpretation, just as is the answer from the FRA.

I am beginning to understand why some railroaders (current and former) have left or cut back their participation in the forums.

Jeff

[henry6]

Yes, the FRA and Bucyrus are right.  But in the end the engineer has to know his job, his train, his right of way, his railroad, his own "feelings".  It is his judgement as to how things proceed.  What's the argument?

[BNSFwatcher]

I believe my comment was:  "I'd move the train IAW visibility".  H*ll with the FRA loons and "cab signals".  That Texaco truck is still high-centered!  Not a nice way to go!

Hays

[zugmann]

BNSFwatcher

I believe my comment was:  "I'd move the train IAW visibility".  H*ll with the FRA loons and "cab signals".  That Texaco truck is still high-centered!  Not a nice way to go!

Hays

 

 

And you wouldn't last long on the railroad.  You'd either be written up repeatedly for "delay of train", or you would stall on the many grades that require a "run at it" to get over.  

 

[Anonymous]

Actually, the FRA said they make a special exception for Wabash because he is just as efficient in fog as he is on a clear day.  

[zugmann]

 And did this FRA person you speak to ever operate something larger than a pencil?

[Anonymous]

henry6

Yes, the FRA and Bucyrus are right.  But in the end the engineer has to know his job, his train, his right of way, his railroad, his own "feelings".  It is his judgement as to how things proceed.  What's the argument?

Henry,

These are the questions:

  

1)      If visibility is poor, but not zero, does an engineer have the authority to slow down if he feels that it would be safer, or is he not allowed to slow down in such circumstances because it would delay the train?

 

2)      If visibility is zero, does the engineer have the option to run blind, or is he required to stop running?  Or is he not allowed to slow down in such circumstances because it would delay the train?

 

The FRA says the answer to question #2 is that the engineer is required to stop running.

I could not get a clear answer from the FRA to question #1, but I did not press it. 

[zugmann]

 An engineer (and conductor) have full authority to run at a reduced speed that they feel is safe.  

 

Rule number one is that safe course must ALWAYS be taken.  But if it is a crystal clear day and you are operating at 5mph on a 50mph train, then there will be questions asked.  

[Anonymous]

zugmann

 And did this FRA person you speak to ever operate something larger than a pencil?

I don't know what his qualifications were, but he was not the first guy who answered the phone.  Why do you ask?  Do you disagree with what he said? 

Norris said that what the FRA guy said is what you said earlier in this thread.

[zugmann]

Bucyrus

zugmann

 And did this FRA person you speak to ever operate something larger than a pencil?

I don't know what his qualifications were, but he was not the first guy who answered the phone.  Why do you ask?  Do you disagree with what he said? 

Norris said that what the FRA guy said is what you said earlier in this thread.

 

 

No, but just like everyone else in life, there's great FRA guys, and there's some that should stick to toy trains in a basement.  

 

Honestly, I think we beaten this to death.  You just don't like the answers.

[schlimm]

zugmann

Honestly, I think we beaten this to death.  You just don't like the answers.

 

No, it isn't a matter of Bucyrus, henry or myself not "liking" the answers, the problem is that many of the "answers" violate any common sense.  I sort of wonder if this is regarded as a joke?  Running a train blind at 40 to 60 mph is dangerous regardless of whether or not it is on "your own property."  It isn't a case of "too bad" if a trespassing truck or person is on the track; there could be other obstacles that could cause a derailment.  Recall the trees down in the Pennsylvania snow storm?  I suppose it is exercising prudence to speed up so you can blast it off the tracks for fun?

[beaulieu]

Bucyrus

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.

 

I think what he is saying is that he has never experienced conditions where he couldn't tell whether he was inside the locomotive or not, strictly by eyesight. Ergo visibility was never zero. Anything better is someones judgment call and with fog you can have minimal visibility at one location and significantly better just a very short distance away. Indeed I would expect when traveling in a locomotive that the Engineer might experience a moment where he could not tell where he was, and a moment later having traveled one hundred feet or so would spot a landmark he would recognize, and he would not be uncomfortable with the momentary lapses in visibility. I expect you would be straining to see if any switch in the distance was misaligned. I remember a story in Trains magazine by Ed King talking about a trip on the Wabash, where the oldhead Engineer was blowing the whistle for crossings where Ed couldn't see them until he could either see the red flashing lights as they passed the crossing, or from the headlights of the vehicles waiting at the crossing. IIRC he felt that you could have blindfolded the Engineer and he still could have replicated the feat, he knew his railroad that well that his butt told him where he was from every jolt from a switch or highway crossing. It also reminds me of a story about oldtime Engineers on the GM&O testing the newcomers to stop the locomotive with the front steps within ten feet of the switchstand from 60mph with a 150 car train with one single application of the automatic brakes. When you could do that you were an Engineer, one of them, and worthy of respect. Until then you where just a wannabe. Because of where the GM&O was built and the fact that it was cheaply built your braking points were normally blind, i.e. you couldn't see where you wanted to stop, you had to know your braking points as "MP 321 plus two locomotive lengths past the three-quarter milepole".

[zugmann]

schlimm

zugmann

Honestly, I think we beaten this to death.  You just don't like the answers.

 

No, it isn't a matter of Bucyrus, henry or myself not "liking" the answers, the problem is that many of the "answers" violate any common sense.  I sort of wonder if this is regarded as a joke?  Running a train blind at 40 to 60 mph is dangerous regardless of whether or not it is on "your own property."  It isn't a case of "too bad" if a trespassing truck or person is on the track; there could be other obstacles that could cause a derailment.  Recall the trees down in the Pennsylvania snow storm?  I suppose it is exercising prudence to speed up so you can blast it off the tracks for fun?

 

  Let's say I'm on a train doing 60mph at night.  You really think we can stop for something we can see in the headlights?  Sorry, not going to happen.  That is why signals were invented many years ago - to permit operations faster than "line of sight".

 

And yes it is a case of "too bad".  If you become a blood stain on the plow of a locomotive? too bad,and it sucks to be you!  I won't lose a minute of sleep over it.  Funny you mention snow. A lot of places you are going to have a hard time clearing a drift off the rails if you are moving at 2mph. 

 

You can NOT run a viable railroad if you are 100% restricted speed.  PERIOD.  END OF ARGUMENT.

 

You guys have the answer, but since you don't like it - it must be wrong.  Sorry.  

[zugmann]

jeffhergert

I am beginning to understand why some railroaders (current and former) have left or cut back their participation in the forums.

Jeff

 

 

Thank you sir; you speak the truth.  

[blownout cylinder]

blownout cylinder

Bucyrus

I just called the FRA and got the answer to the question. 

 

The answer:   An engineer must be able to know where he is in order to run the train. 

 

Therefore, in a fog condition of zero visibility, where the fog is so thick that an engineer cannot see beyond the window glass, the engineer cannot move the train.

Seems to work fine for me. If you're driving and get blindsided by one of our lovely snowsqualls up here in the snowbelt that produces an absolute white out condition, are you going to continue driving if'n you cannot see ANYTHING past the windshield?

I hate doing this but I screwed summat here.

What I should have said was that knowing where I am I'm more able to do the driving around here than some guy who was just plopped into this area sight unseen.

Then it becomes a much more relative scenario. I have something of a mental map of where I am in the fog---is the guy who never went through there?

Doubt it.