Sigh.
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
Which is why we don't post much, it isn't worth being bothered over.
23 17 46 11
VOLKER LANDWEHRMy experience is that railroaders tend to react as a clique when a topic gets questioned by non-railroaders.
I would opine that is because they're all reading out of similar rulebooks and have similar real world experience.
I don't mind folks asking questions. What I do mind is folks who ask a question, don't get the answer they were looking for, then backpedal and rephrase the question. Rinse, lather, repeat. Especially when the answer is the same each time.
And maybe it's not that the forum regulars that are getting meaner. Maybe it's a reaction to what they're seeing from certain participants on the forum. After a while it can get tiring.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
VOLKER LANDWEHR tree68 To which a normal reaction to a correction would be, "Oops, sorry, you're right, I meant..." Everybody has a different kind to admit a mistake and that is what aegrotatio did. I have learned in management training to let people save their face when caught with a mistake when ever possible. Here? The picking starts in many cases. tree68 There was a time when someone knowledgeable in the business was treated as a resource on this forum. We went to them as experts in their field. Nowadays, the same people seem to be regarded by some as a bunch of "know-it-alls" and a clique. Why is that? I'm reading this forum for about 10 years. My experience is that railroaders tend to react as a clique when a topic gets questioned by non-railroaders. And then there are the non-railroaders that adore the railroaders because they are experts. I stated in another thread that I wouldn't have survived in my job if has believed all experts. Having years of experience doesn't make me an expert. And a real expert allows to be questioned and doesn't hide behind being an expert. An example of an unprofessional reactio was the Batory thread were I got the following answer when questioning the necessity of a railroader as head of the FRA:There are enough unknowledgable idiots outside the FRA that think they can tell the FRA what to do, and you are beginning to sound like one of them. Am I an idiot now? Is an insult necessary? I let it go at that time but it shows, at least in my opinion, the reoccuring tension between railroaders and non-railroader It doesn't seem easy for some railroaders to accept different opinions and questioning. Yes, I learn a lot from railroaders here. Are they unerring? For sure not. And I think it is sometimes necessary to get questioned from an outsider to loose ones blinkers.Regards, Volker
tree68 To which a normal reaction to a correction would be, "Oops, sorry, you're right, I meant..."
Everybody has a different kind to admit a mistake and that is what aegrotatio did. I have learned in management training to let people save their face when caught with a mistake when ever possible. Here? The picking starts in many cases.
tree68 There was a time when someone knowledgeable in the business was treated as a resource on this forum. We went to them as experts in their field. Nowadays, the same people seem to be regarded by some as a bunch of "know-it-alls" and a clique. Why is that?
I'm reading this forum for about 10 years. My experience is that railroaders tend to react as a clique when a topic gets questioned by non-railroaders. And then there are the non-railroaders that adore the railroaders because they are experts.
I stated in another thread that I wouldn't have survived in my job if has believed all experts. Having years of experience doesn't make me an expert. And a real expert allows to be questioned and doesn't hide behind being an expert.
An example of an unprofessional reactio was the Batory thread were I got the following answer when questioning the necessity of a railroader as head of the FRA:There are enough unknowledgable idiots outside the FRA that think they can tell the FRA what to do, and you are beginning to sound like one of them.
Am I an idiot now? Is an insult necessary? I let it go at that time but it shows, at least in my opinion, the reoccuring tension between railroaders and non-railroader
It doesn't seem easy for some railroaders to accept different opinions and questioning.
Yes, I learn a lot from railroaders here. Are they unerring? For sure not. And I think it is sometimes necessary to get questioned from an outsider to loose ones blinkers.Regards, Volker
tree68To which a normal reaction to a correction would be, "Oops, sorry, you're right, I meant..."
tree68There was a time when someone knowledgeable in the business was treated as a resource on this forum. We went to them as experts in their field. Nowadays, the same people seem to be regarded by some as a bunch of "know-it-alls" and a clique. Why is that?
aegrotatioI misstated a speed limit.
To which a normal reaction to a correction would be, "Oops, sorry, you're right, I meant..."
Stating assumptions (or agendas) as fact has become far too common here. So has taking offense to being corrected.
There was a time when someone knowledgeable in the business was treated as a resource on this forum. We went to them as experts in their field. Nowadays, the same people seem to be regarded by some as a bunch of "know-it-alls" and a clique. Why is that?
Correcting repeated misinformation is not an ad hominem attack.
Referring to 'pedantic nit-picking corrections', however, is. I'll let the attitude slide since I can't help people get over mean-spiritedness if they choose not to.
Sigh. I give up. This is not a friendly forum. It gets mean in three-year cycles. I guess the cycle has transitioned to the "mean" mode.
Whatever.
Your pedantic nit-picking corrections serve no real purpose except to satisfy yourselves and not further the body of knowledge.
I hope you're satisfied. I misstated a speed limit. That does not invalidate anything else I have ever stated in my decade-plus spent on this forum. That would be called an "ad hominem attack." Don't stoop that low.
Overmod I want to clarify that I was not 'correcting' a 'mistake' in asking for a source. What we had was not a misquotation but a blanket statement, made in fact after attempts to explain the situation: aegrotatio I understand, but the reports state the train was travelling at 80 MPH. All I asked for was citations for the 'reports' that 'stated' this. The material I added afterward was how I understood the restrictions to be in fact, and I did in fact wonder if he was confusing the other accident as the "80mph" figure was not in any of the informed coverage of the Cayce wreck I had seen up to that time, but was prominently bandied about in coverage of the Washington wreck.
I want to clarify that I was not 'correcting' a 'mistake' in asking for a source. What we had was not a misquotation but a blanket statement, made in fact after attempts to explain the situation:
aegrotatio I understand, but the reports state the train was travelling at 80 MPH.
All I asked for was citations for the 'reports' that 'stated' this. The material I added afterward was how I understood the restrictions to be in fact, and I did in fact wonder if he was confusing the other accident as the "80mph" figure was not in any of the informed coverage of the Cayce wreck I had seen up to that time, but was prominently bandied about in coverage of the Washington wreck.
Johnny
aegrotatioI understand, but the reports state the train was travelling at 80 MPH.
aegrotatio Overmod aegrotatio I understand, but the reports state the train was travelling at 80 MPH. Please quote these reports. If this is regarding the "Cayce" accident, the NTSB has provided a definitive reading off the locomotive EDR, for the timeline in question. Permissible speed (for TWC during a signal suppression) is 59mph -- that figure representing 'not 60mph' just as 79mph represents 'not 80mph' -- and in any report I have seen based on fact, the locomotive never exceeded that speed in the signal-suppressed zone, particularly from the time the locomotive approached the switch to the point the train went into emergency. Are you confusing this with the derailment on the speed-restricted bridge in Washington? That's a whole different set of circumstances. No. I am talking about the CSX incident. I merely misquoted the speed. Get over it.
Overmod aegrotatio I understand, but the reports state the train was travelling at 80 MPH. Please quote these reports. If this is regarding the "Cayce" accident, the NTSB has provided a definitive reading off the locomotive EDR, for the timeline in question. Permissible speed (for TWC during a signal suppression) is 59mph -- that figure representing 'not 60mph' just as 79mph represents 'not 80mph' -- and in any report I have seen based on fact, the locomotive never exceeded that speed in the signal-suppressed zone, particularly from the time the locomotive approached the switch to the point the train went into emergency. Are you confusing this with the derailment on the speed-restricted bridge in Washington? That's a whole different set of circumstances.
Please quote these reports.
If this is regarding the "Cayce" accident, the NTSB has provided a definitive reading off the locomotive EDR, for the timeline in question. Permissible speed (for TWC during a signal suppression) is 59mph -- that figure representing 'not 60mph' just as 79mph represents 'not 80mph' -- and in any report I have seen based on fact, the locomotive never exceeded that speed in the signal-suppressed zone, particularly from the time the locomotive approached the switch to the point the train went into emergency.
Are you confusing this with the derailment on the speed-restricted bridge in Washington? That's a whole different set of circumstances.
No. I am talking about the CSX incident. I merely misquoted the speed. Get over it.
I was well over it long BEFORE you made YOUR MISTAKE. Sorry you take correction so poorly.
However, in the real world of both incidents - that kind of mistake by the parties involved would be the prime factors in the cause of the incidents.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Got over it long ago. It's just sad that people say these sorts of wacky thing without any sort of reason and then get snotty when called on them.
For the record, 'misquoting' only applies when you have an actual, quotable original source ... which is what I was requesting. I'd still like to see what it was.
BaltACD aegrotatio I'm having a problem understanding the rationale of running a passenger train at track speed (79 MPH) when the signals are out of service. I have a problem understanding how some one can conflate two distinctly different incidents that happen on different sides of the country.
aegrotatio I'm having a problem understanding the rationale of running a passenger train at track speed (79 MPH) when the signals are out of service.
I have a problem understanding how some one can conflate two distinctly different incidents that happen on different sides of the country.
I'm not conflating anything. I merely misquoted the speed. Get off that high horse.
aegrotatioI'm having a problem understanding the rationale of running a passenger train at track speed (79 MPH) when the signals are out of service.
I understand, but the reports state the train was travelling at 80 MPH.
I'm having a problem understanding the rationale of running a passenger train at track speed (79 MPH) when the signals are out of service.
They don't. Maximum speed without signals is 59 mph. Freight is 49 mph.
Jeff
tree68 CandOforprogress2 Does anyone here have a stock photo of a unpowred railroad relay switch in question? cant find one online. Is this what you're looking for?
CandOforprogress2 Does anyone here have a stock photo of a unpowred railroad relay switch in question? cant find one online.
Does anyone here have a stock photo of a unpowred railroad relay switch in question? cant find one online.
Is this what you're looking for?
The switch circuit controller, the silver box on the tie, is the thing that ties the switch position into the signal system. Notice the rod running parallel to the ties between the two siver boxes. One end is attached to the far switch point, the other to a lever on the side of the controller box. ALL hand throw switches, and some derails, not equipped with electric locks in signalled territory have them. (Depending on the equipment, I've seen pictures of electric lock equipped switches with the controller boxes.) It is to ensure that the signal system is shunted when the switch is operated. As Overmod said in a post, it's not safe to depend on the switch itself to shunt the signals.
There are a few different types of Electric Locks. All keep the switch from being thrown until the system has determined there is no closely approaching movement or a time period has elapsed. The ones I'm most familiar with locked the handle in place. As Balt said, you remove the lock and it allows a foot pedal operated blocking device to slightly move, but not enough to release the handle, that starts the process. If the adjacent block is clear, a light comes on and it will allow the pedal to be depressed and the handle to be moved. If the block isn't clear or it's not working right, it will run time. Ours usually were 7 to 11 minutes and the maintainers usually had painted the time period on the mechanism box. Once the timer had run down, the light was supposed to come on and you could again operate the pedal, release and operate the handle.
Because of potential problems with electric locks, most of our hand throw switches where a train or engine might have to clear the main track in CTC territory don't have them. They've started using what we call a "leaving signal", one that governs movement over the switch and entrance to the main track.
Either one, electric lock or the leaving signal (when displaying a proceed indication) waive the need for waiting a prescribed time period from when the switch is first lined until the main track is occupied.
I believe in years past, there were electric locks that had to be released by the dispatcher on the CTC machine. They could be released in the field in an emergency, but only a signal maintainer could reset them. We had, and may still have, one like that at one location. The switches are rarely used, there is usually another route available around them. It's said operating them without dispatcher consent can lock up the control point they are part of. Then a signal maintainer has to come out to reset everything.
So what are we looking at in the picture?
YES!!!!!
ATLANTIC CENTRAL CandOforprogress2 Does anyone here have a stock photo of a unpowred railroad relay switch in question? cant find one online I don't know how they do that today, but "back in the day", no seperate electrical device was needed. The simple act of lining the switch to the siding would bridge the detection circuit on the main and generate a "red" aspect in both directions. That's how dectection works, low voltage current flows from one rail to the other through the wheel sets. So connecting them with the diverging route of a turnout does the same thing. When they don't want that result, they insulate sections of the turnout or rail as needed. Sheldon
CandOforprogress2 Does anyone here have a stock photo of a unpowred railroad relay switch in question? cant find one online
Does anyone here have a stock photo of a unpowred railroad relay switch in question? cant find one online
I don't know how they do that today, but "back in the day", no seperate electrical device was needed. The simple act of lining the switch to the siding would bridge the detection circuit on the main and generate a "red" aspect in both directions.
That's how dectection works, low voltage current flows from one rail to the other through the wheel sets. So connecting them with the diverging route of a turnout does the same thing.
When they don't want that result, they insulate sections of the turnout or rail as needed.
Sheldon
What you are describing is the normal non-electric locked main track switch in signalled territory.
Electric locked switches have additional locking hardware. Hardware that detects the immediate presence of a train on the Main Track in order to allow the switch to be unlocked and thrown for a route away from the main track. Many of these electric locked switches have timers. The normal switch lock must be unlocked and removed from its hasp to start the timer - after the timer run to completion the switch may be operated to route to the other than Main Track. Some timers are of a short duration, some are of a very long duration. Crews often attempt to throw the switch before the timer has run to completion - when this happens the timer normally restarts at the beginning again. Many train crews give up in disgust and the customer doesn't get service. Restoring the switch to Main Track alignment does not have any delay. All delays are built into opening the switch for other than Main Track movement - be that from the Main or from the other track.
Opening non-electric lock switches to the Main Track, by rule crews are to wait 5 minutes before occupying the Main - supposedly this is sufficient time for a train on the Main to either make itslef KNOWN to the crew trying to enter the Main or to have the Main Track track train see a Red Signal in advance of the switch.
ATLANTIC CENTRALI don't know how they do that today, but "back in the day", no separate electrical device was needed. The simple act of lining the switch to the siding would bridge the detection circuit on the main and generate a "red" aspect in both directions.
For as long as I can remember, that's been recognized as inadequate and dangerous. Unlocked points may be in electrical contact sufficient to actuate relays or their more modern equivalents, but still be easy to move under the weight or lateral thrust of a train, and of course by that time the controlling signals will be invisible behind the head end. What is needed is a separate linkage interlocked with the switch handle so that only when the switch is locked down does any route go away from red (and in proper practice this should also recognize that the shackle of the lock has been inserted to hold the handle in its locked position).
It was my understanding that electric timer locks worked directly on the mechanism to prevent its being unlocked, not just on the points to keep them from moving. (in my not-so-humble opinion any design that does not assure that is badly flawed.) Note that this has nothing to do with 'signal suspension' necessarily as the timers can be independently powered (e.g. via batteries recharged with a small solar array) and only run relative to when the switch is first supposed to be moved -- I used to think this idea was a kludge, and in a signal suspension where crews give verbal movement authorization without relining the switch, a fixed unavoidable delay when the crew finds they want to fix such a problem might be extremely counterproductive, but for a range of other problems involving throwing switches close to or under trains it's a good, and signal-problem-proof, kind of solution.
ATLANTIC CENTRALWhen cab signals came along no body said "lets take down all the signal masts"?
Two railroads around here did just that. The one just kept the signals at the interlockings, the other kept those plus the one automatic before. All the rest of the automatic signals were sent to the scrap heap.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL When cab signals came along no body said "lets take down all the signal masts"? Sheldon
When cab signals came along no body said "lets take down all the signal masts"?
Well, actually the CNW did. Back in the 1920s when they installed automatic train control with a two aspect cab signal (clear or restricting) on the Chicago-Council Bluffs main line they removed all their intermediate waysides. Only wayside signals left were at interlockings and the approach signal to them. (A couple of exceptions were in areas where waysides allowed trains from branch lines to use the main line for short segments without having to have ATC equipment.)
It wasn't until after the UP merged the CNW into it and started installing CTC that waysides started appearing enmasse.
BaltACD I suspect trying to interface relay dependent circuitry with electronic circuitry can be a real adventure. My guess is that the railroads felt it was more economic and more reliable to do a 'clean installation' of 21st Century signal technology when installing equipment to support PTC requirements.
I suspect trying to interface relay dependent circuitry with electronic circuitry can be a real adventure. My guess is that the railroads felt it was more economic and more reliable to do a 'clean installation' of 21st Century signal technology when installing equipment to support PTC requirements.
As noted elsewhere in this thread, interfacing relay's and electronics is pretty straightforward (your concern was reasonable). One problem is that the electronics often don't have the ruggedness associated with vital circuit relays used in RR signaling.
A good example of interfacing "relays" with electronics is the audio frequency overlay used in grade crossing signals.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.