There are Lunar Lights, and then there are Lunar Lights. They are not the same, and it depends on where they are and how they are displayed.
A Red over Lunar is one kind of a speed control, approach it at the correct speed and expect it to clear for you. If you pick up speed after passing it, there is nothing it can do to you.
There is a YELLOW over lighted number which is another speed control. (I THINK One is grade time, the other is station time, but it could be simply that the red over lunar is the new way of doing Yellow over number.)
A WD signal (Wheel Detector) is a single lunar aspect displayed closer to the track level, and is not located on a regular signal head. It is not displayed with other colors. The Placard reads "WD" below that there is a number representing allowed speed. It works as described above. At the end of the controlled zone there is an "END WD" placard. If you try to pick up speed again before you pass the END placard, it will trip you.
ROAR
The Route of the Broadway Lion The Largest Subway Layout in North Dakota.
Here there be cats. LIONS with CAMERAS
Saving Lives is not good enough? Insurance company's liability policy's usually asses 1,000,000 a person for insurance. If a Amtrak or commuter train collide and 20 people die that's 20,000,000. If a freight trains derails and a boxcar lands on someones car or house thats a a big chunk of change there too. Add to the fact that class one railroads are running naked self insured paying out of there own pocket one big accident could bankrupts the whole company....Look at the wreck of the Washingtonian in Altoona PA in the 1960s
Don't the lunar lights usuallly have a lighted speed limit on NYCTA?
Yup! This is so. But a red signal is a red signal. If you pass it then you were asleep and your train should be stopped. How you do this is your affair, but we have a model for you to look at.
Most transit authorities have the advantage of a fairly uniform equipment fleet and performance characteristics don't vary widely from train to train. What works for a transit operation (trippers and two consecutive red signals) probably won't work for a full-size rail operation with a variety of trains with different speeds and handling.
jeffhergertUnder some cab signal systems, you can acknowledge the change to a more restrictive indication and keep on going. There is no speed component requiring any reduced speed because of a less permissive cab signal aspect.
NYCT has the dreaded "WHEEL DETECTOR". Not the kind you have on your railroad. It is a single lunar lamp that has 3 aspects.
1) OFF: Itdoes not care what you are doing.
2) ON: Approach at and maintain designated train speed until the WD zone ends.
3) FLASHING: YOU ARE TOO FAST: and if you do not attain the correct speed instantly, I will STOP you BIE!
If NYCT can do it, any railroad can do it and some probably will.
466lex According to FRA in 2012: 706 total fatalities Of these: 9 were the result of train accidents 233 were the result of rail/highway crossing accidents 437 were the result of trespassing
According to FRA in 2012: 706 total fatalities
Of these: 9 were the result of train accidents
233 were the result of rail/highway crossing accidents
437 were the result of trespassing
AS owner of railroad, I do not care (too much) about people who walk or drive in front of my trains: I cannot stop them. But that first category: THOSE ARE MY PEOPLE and I fer darn sure do not want them to be injured or killed on my railroad. Not if there is something that I can do about it.
Besides, any work I put into PTC will translate into the possibility of automatic train control.
jeffhergertIt's been reported that some of the fairly recent rear end collisions would not have been prevented by the first generation of PTC that is going to be deployed because they happened in restricted speed circumstances.
On NYCT, passing a red signal puts the train BIE. Is this good enough? Ask the soul of the MM who fell asleep and for whom the stopping distance was not great enough.
NTSB did a report on this accident: the signals have been working perfectly for 100 years, but in those 100 years the cars got heavier, and they shifted to composition brake shoes. The stopping characteristics of the train was changed. The signals were not changed. The NYCT response was to slow all trains down.
They blamed the problems on the signal system and said the whole signals system needs to be replaced. It will be so replaced with CBTC systems. But the problem was of course not the signals and higher speeds could have been maintained with better braking. LION would (and has) recommended track brakes that would be used only in an emergency application. It is a simply yard job to do this, and does not requite taking tracks out of service to make the changes. But apparently NYCT does not always listen to the LION.
On your railroad: The signal blocks are much longer, a mile or more, and they should be sufficient to stop a train. The big boys on the high iron scoff at NYCT's mechanical trippers, but we are glad that we have them. They seem to be the correct solution for this railroad. You solutions may vary.
Alix a radar set at each restricting signal: Train to fast, radio controls but it BIE. WIll it work 100%? well nobody thinks that it will. Will it save lives. YES. Is that enough? Check with your bean counters. See how many beans your safety is worth.
For as controversial as the PTC mandate seems to be, I don’t find much criticism of it. If the railroads oppose it, they are awfully quiet about it. The article from with the quote in the first post was taken was a piece by George Will warning about the danger and cost of overreaching regulation.
Other than that article, there was a report by the FRA that sought to justify why the deadline cannot be met. That report was by far the most critical analysis of the incredible array of problems facing the execution of the mandate. In just reading between the lines, I expect a spectacular cost overrun in addition to the delay and failing cost/benefit analysis.
jeffhergertConductors have available to them an Emergency Brake Valve handle. They can use it anytime they feel they need to. (I had a student engineer whom I once threatened to pull the air on him if he didn't approach the next signal, on a blind curve, prepared to stop short of it.) What more does the conductor need?
1) The conductor needs to actually be awake. In these accidents both the engineer and the conductor were asleep.
2) On the conductor's side of the cab, he should record by pressing a button the aspect of each signal they pass, and when the conductor's alerter sounds, he must enter the next MILE POST number within x number of seconds depending upon the speed of the train.
If the conductor is awake, he can help keep the train moving, if he is asleep he cannot come complaining to me that he got killed in a wreck.
zugmannIn case we run out of the blue stuff for the toilets?
YOU GET BLUE STUFF???
WoW! That IS a good railroad you work for!
(NYCT: bring you own toilet paper, and a flame thrower if you want a clean place to sit)
BaltACD rfpjohn Just give me cab signals and let me run the train. It's a fantastic tool, you never forget what you're running on. Cab signals also improve train velocity, as when you are following a train, cab signals will upgrade midblock as the preceding movement clears the block. Open a switch, the cab signal drops. Broken rail? You carry a restricting in the cab till you pass it. R.F.&P. has had it in place since 1927! However, because of equipment failure, it frequently gets cut out enroute.
rfpjohn Just give me cab signals and let me run the train. It's a fantastic tool, you never forget what you're running on. Cab signals also improve train velocity, as when you are following a train, cab signals will upgrade midblock as the preceding movement clears the block. Open a switch, the cab signal drops. Broken rail? You carry a restricting in the cab till you pass it. R.F.&P. has had it in place since 1927!
Just give me cab signals and let me run the train. It's a fantastic tool, you never forget what you're running on. Cab signals also improve train velocity, as when you are following a train, cab signals will upgrade midblock as the preceding movement clears the block. Open a switch, the cab signal drops. Broken rail? You carry a restricting in the cab till you pass it. R.F.&P. has had it in place since 1927!
However, because of equipment failure, it frequently gets cut out enroute.
Wow. In Conrail days, cab signal failure was "hardly ever". ...and CSX inherited Conrail's locomotive cab signal guy.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
oltmannd rfpjohn Just give me cab signals and let me run the train. It's a fantastic tool, you never forget what you're running on. Cab signals also improve train velocity, as when you are following a train, cab signals will upgrade midblock as the preceding movement clears the block. Open a switch, the cab signal drops. Broken rail? You carry a restricting in the cab till you pass it. R.F.&P. has had it in place since 1927! And if you don't acknowledge, your train stops.
And if you don't acknowledge, your train stops.
Under some cab signal systems, you can acknowledge the change to a more restrictive indication and keep on going. There is no speed component requiring any reduced speed because of a less permissive cab signal aspect.
My opinion to an earlier question as to why the railroads haven't fought harder against PTC. I think had they been able to go to one person crews, like they tried negotiating for a couple of contracts back, I think they would be fighting tooth and nail against it. Until they get the right political climate, they aren't going to push for single person crews. Even though they know on it's own that PTC won't save them much money from a safety angle, they realize it will give them an argument before an arbitration board that the second person is redundant because of technology.
That and also I agree the railroads bigger worry right now is the renewed push for forced reciprocal switching/open access. They don't want to use any political good will fighting what is sold to the public as a "safety" issue.
Jeff
Yes the RF&P has had it 'forever'. However, because of equipment failure, it frequently gets cut out enroute. Which leads to the biggest question about PTC- what procedures are going to be implemented when PTC equipment on the lead locomotive fails? And they WILL FAIL!
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
rfpjohn Yes, the ATC does stop you. There are three overspeed settings. 60 for clear, 45 for approach-medium or limited and 25 for approach or restricting (red in the cab). The red for restricting does not relieve you from complying with the rule; able to stop within one-half the range of vision, able to stop short of train, obstruction or switch improperly lined, looking out for broken rail, not to exceed 15mph.
Yes, the ATC does stop you. There are three overspeed settings. 60 for clear, 45 for approach-medium or limited and 25 for approach or restricting (red in the cab). The red for restricting does not relieve you from complying with the rule; able to stop within one-half the range of vision, able to stop short of train, obstruction or switch improperly lined, looking out for broken rail, not to exceed 15mph.
oltmannd BucyrusSo if not for arguments that fail at the boundaries, how else to explain why we have the mandate? Congress passed a knee-jerk, bad law. They've done it before. They'll do it again.
BucyrusSo if not for arguments that fail at the boundaries, how else to explain why we have the mandate?
Congress passed a knee-jerk, bad law. They've done it before. They'll do it again.
Well yes, I agree. And I would say that a part of their rationale was that if it saves one life, it is worth it; or as you put it, an argument that fails at the boundaries.
Just to stimulate discussion of alternative strategies to PTC for saving lives in railroad industry- related accidents:
Or, if one prefers, look at 2008, the year of the Chatsworth accident:
803 total fatalities
Of these: 27 were the result of train accidents
290 were the result of rail/highway crossing accidents
456 were the result of trespassing
Consider a mandate to invest $10 billion to reduce railroad-related fatalities. Simply in terms of the size of the problem indicated by fatality counts, the top priority would clearly be reduction in deaths due to trespassing. Reduction in crossing deaths would be second, and train accident death reductions would be a very distant third.
But, of course, the cost of strategies to reduce deaths in each of these categories would need to be considered. Perhaps $10 billion invested in PTC to eliminate 9 (or 27) deaths per year is relatively inexpensive compared to reducing trespass and crossing deaths.
I believe some simple round-number analysis would indicate that further, detailed study should have been undertaken before enacting the PTC mandate:
$10 billion invested in grade separation of rail and highway crossings @ $5 million per crossing would eliminate virtually all risk of fatalities at the 2,000 most high-risk crossings in the country. Predicted lives saved annually? Probably more than 9 or 27, in my opinion, but this could have been rigorously estimated. (Or, perhaps more thorough protection by means of full-gate protection, etc. would be an attractive alternative in many cases.) Study, study, analyze, analyze.
$10 billion invested in high-quality fencing of railroad yards and right-of-way in urban and suburban areas @ $1 million per mile would provide 10,000 miles of protection from unauthorized intrusion. I understand … maintenance, patrolling, etc., etc. But study, study, analyze, analyze. Predicted lives saved annually? As above.
Do some of both? Optimize.
oltmannd BucyrusCould the money spent on PTC stop more accidents than PTC if the money were spent on a systems other than PTC? You mean like fencing, grade Xing elimination, education, better sleep/wake cycles for employees, and more RR police?
BucyrusCould the money spent on PTC stop more accidents than PTC if the money were spent on a systems other than PTC?
You mean like fencing, grade Xing elimination, education, better sleep/wake cycles for employees, and more RR police?
No, I was referring to things like the following that you mentioned in another post:
"But, even if you mean "reduce train to train accidents", you would likely get better bang for the buck with reactive train stop system or cab signal/ATC system. It might get you 80% of the way to the goal for 20% of the cost.
When was the last time you heard of a big wreck in NS cab signal territory or Amtrak NEC, or ATSF trains stop territory that PTC could have prevented?"
oltmannd Bucyrus Do the railroad companies oppose PTC just because it does not have enough benefit to justify the cost? Maybe the reason they don’t speak out against it is because they are not against it. Maybe this is just a version of “seatbelt law” for the railroads. There are a lot of people who will insist if it saves just one life, it is worth it. That is their cost/benefit analysis. Should we divert the entire GDP of the country to save "just one life"? That argument fails at the boundaries (both of them).
Bucyrus Do the railroad companies oppose PTC just because it does not have enough benefit to justify the cost? Maybe the reason they don’t speak out against it is because they are not against it. Maybe this is just a version of “seatbelt law” for the railroads. There are a lot of people who will insist if it saves just one life, it is worth it. That is their cost/benefit analysis.
Do the railroad companies oppose PTC just because it does not have enough benefit to justify the cost? Maybe the reason they don’t speak out against it is because they are not against it.
Maybe this is just a version of “seatbelt law” for the railroads. There are a lot of people who will insist if it saves just one life, it is worth it. That is their cost/benefit analysis.
Should we divert the entire GDP of the country to save "just one life"? That argument fails at the boundaries (both of them).
Sure the argument fails at the boundaries, but it has apparently won the day in the case of PTC. We all agree that the benefit exceeds the cost. So if not for arguments that fail at the boundaries, how else to explain why we have the mandate?
BucyrusThere are a lot of people who will insist if it saves just one life, it is worth it. That is their cost/benefit analysis.
And they would be as wrong as someone who asserts 2+2 =5
zugmann Bucyrus I don't know. Let's say any kind of systems. I am just asking whether PTC gives the biggest bang for the buck compared to other approaches for preventing accidents. Can a question like that be answered?
Bucyrus I don't know. Let's say any kind of systems. I am just asking whether PTC gives the biggest bang for the buck compared to other approaches for preventing accidents.
I don't know. Let's say any kind of systems. I am just asking whether PTC gives the biggest bang for the buck compared to other approaches for preventing accidents.
Can a question like that be answered?
Yes. But, I would take it back up one level. Are we trying to prevent train to train accidents or are we trying to improve over all safety - meaning reduce injury and death?
But, even if you mean "reduce train to train accidents", you would likely get better bang for the buck with reactive train stop system or cab signal/ATC system. It might get you 80% of the way to the goal for 20% of the cost.
When was the last time you heard of a big wreck in NS cab signal territory or Amtrak NEC, or ATSF trains stop territory that PTC could have prevented?
The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs assigns a value to a life when figuring out whether the cost is worth the benefit.
Bucyrus BroadwayLion Is PTC going to stop many accidents? Yes. Could the money spent on PTC stop more accidents than PTC if the money were spent on a systems other than PTC?
BroadwayLion Is PTC going to stop many accidents? Yes.
Is PTC going to stop many accidents? Yes.
Could the money spent on PTC stop more accidents than PTC if the money were spent on a systems other than PTC?
Yes, but those things stop many, small disasters, not the very few, big, spectacular wrecks.
BroadwayLion Is PTC going to stop many accidents? Yes. Will it stop all accidents? No. Will crews still fall asleep? Yes BUT, wouldn't you rather be stopped by this than by running into a train in front of you? Every little bit helps.Having it does not allow crews to go to sleep. But LION thinks that both the Conductor AND the Engineer should have their own alerters. They cannot reset each others alerter. LION thinks they should have a kitchen with a fridge full of diet Dr. Pepper and ham sandwiches. It seems that many conductors are also qualified as engineers, they should both have a full set of controls. ROAR
Will it stop all accidents? No.
Will crews still fall asleep? Yes
BUT, wouldn't you rather be stopped by this than by running into a train in front of you?
Every little bit helps.Having it does not allow crews to go to sleep.
But LION thinks that both the Conductor AND the Engineer should have their own alerters. They cannot reset each others alerter.
LION thinks they should have a kitchen with a fridge full of diet Dr. Pepper and ham sandwiches.
It seems that many conductors are also qualified as engineers, they should both have a full set of controls.
It's been reported that some of the fairly recent rear end collisions would not have been prevented by the first generation of PTC that is going to be deployed because they happened in restricted speed circumstances.
Conductors have available to them an Emergency Brake Valve handle. They can use it anytime they feel they need to. (I had a student engineer whom I once threatened to pull the air on him if he didn't approach the next signal, on a blind curve, prepared to stop short of it.) What more does the conductor need?
Thoughts not even worth 2 cents- It's a big ol' poker game. The railroads took the hand they were dealt, and played it the best way they knew how. Fighting it would have made them appear to be against safety. So, they bit the bullet, knowing, they they'll be in a better bargaining position when: They need to raise rates to cover new expenses due to new equipment requirements Re-regulation pops up again. Open access & bottlenecks pop up again A similar weight is proposed to be around the neck of the railroads' competition- trucks.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.