Thanks, Balt.
Maybe rig them with daylight sensors, have them only light and/or flash in the daytime.
BaltACDIn today's railroad world - all signs such as permanent speed restriction signs as well as any advance boards are all made with highly reflectorized materials, that show up as bright as most things that are lit with incandescent light bulbs.
Indeed - unlike on the highway, where there are numerous other light distractions - the ROW is often isolated, so even a six to eight inch square of reflective material sticks out like a sore thumb at night, and from quite a distance. Been there.
And many of the colors of reflective material are also available with a flourescent component, which can really pop in daylight.
More signage for such a drastic change in speed probably wouldn't hurt.
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...
Lithonia Operator Thanks, Balt. Maybe rig them with daylight sensors, have them only light and/or flash in the daytime.
What more is needed? Do engineers need something like that outlandish Billups "skull and crossbones" overhead grade crossing warning that was tried out in Mississippi?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billups_Neon_Crossing_Signal
Also, what, if anything, will be added to the protection of this curve warning sign with the activation of PTC on this line?
Euc, I know the poor guy should have seen the sign. But he didn't. Or he did, and for some reason it did not register. I'm sure he didn't enter the curve too fast on purpose.
This is a particularly treacherous location because so much slowing is needed. Why not just put up extra warnings, to be extra careful, despite what the rule book says he should have done? Cheap insurance. In NTSB interviews, more than one person said crews were worried about that curve.
Something distracted him, maybe just thoughts inside his head at the moment he passed the 2-mile marker. He probably wouldn't have missed two more markers.
I don't subscribe to the idea that just because a man missed something in plain sight, it means he was careless. At times we all look right at things and fail to actually "see" them. All parties with knowledge of Steve Brown who were interviewed said he was a conscientious, skilled engineer.
I am not saying the following to be critical. Honest. But I do find it interesting that in the case of the CSX guys who walked in front of the Amtrak train (they were careless, doing something everyone is told, since they were kids, not to do), you faulted the company for inadequate training; but in this case (which to me is much less clear on why the accident came to happen) you seem to want to blame the employee. But really, I am not taking a shot at you. Ralph Waldo Emerson, after all, said that "Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds!
Lithonia Operator I am not saying the following to be critical. Honest. But I do find it interesting that in the case of the CSX guys who walked in front of the Amtrak train (they were careless, doing something everyone is told, since they were kids, not to do), you faulted the company for inadequate training;
I am not saying the following to be critical. Honest. But I do find it interesting that in the case of the CSX guys who walked in front of the Amtrak train (they were careless, doing something everyone is told, since they were kids, not to do), you faulted the company for inadequate training;
I did not fault CSX for inadequate training of those two conductors. I faulted the CSX for failing to provide formal protection which everyone agreed they should have had.
I also note that the NTSB said they were allowed to walk on the track if they watched for trains. No rule prohibited them from walking on the track. They made a mistake in failing to watch for trains during the last 15 seconds. I did specifically acknowledge that fact in those discussions.
Lithonia Operator Euc, I know the poor guy should have seen the sign. But he didn't. Or he did, and for some reason it did not register. I'm sure he didn't enter the curve too fast on purpose. This is a particularly treacherous location because so much slowing is needed. Why not just put up extra warnings, to be extra careful, despite what the rule book says he should have done? Cheap insurance. In NTSB interviews, more than one person said crews were worried about that curve. Something distracted him, maybe just thoughts inside his head at the moment he passed the 2-mile marker. He probably wouldn't have missed two more markers. I don't subscribe to the idea that just because a man missed something in plain sight, it means he was careless. At times we all look right at things and fail to actually "see" them. All parties with knowledge of Steve Brown who were interviewed said he was a conscientious, skilled engineer.
This was not a case of merely being momentarily distracted. If you read the transcript of the cab recording, it is obvious that the engineer did not know enough about territory. His means of navigation largely consisted of merely following the track.
He did have a plan for the curve in checking some mile markers and signal locations along with the 2-mile warning. But is plan was too weak and he became confused as it unfolded.
Also, I have said that I blame Amtrak for inadequate training for the route. I am not placing the blame entirely on the engineer. But you seem to be placing the blame entirely on Amtrak while 100% exonerating the engineer because all he did was make an honest mistake. I feel that he did not take the matter seriously enough. He was lazy. He carries a watch and timetable. He could have used those tools and knew exactly when he was approaching that curve.
He was taking on an enormous responsibility in running a new passenger train full of people through unfamiliar territory with all of the marketing pressure of being the first run on a brand new route. His response to that extreme responsibility was greatly inadequate. The passengers were trusting him with their lives, and yet, unbeknown to them, he was taking an extreme risk in the hope that everything would come out okay.
The engineer's carelessness was far greater in scope than just missing the sign. It was in his whole method of operation and a failure to take the job seriously enough.
EuclidAlso, what, if anything, will be added to the protection of this curve warning sign with the activation of PTC on this line?
As I understand it, the slow order will appear on the PTC display, and if the engineer does not take the appropriate actions to slow for said location, it will be done for him in the form of a penalty brake application.
Unlike signals, moving blocks, switches, interlockings, etc, which are dynamic, this one will be hard coded into the system.
tree68 Euclid Also, what, if anything, will be added to the protection of this curve warning sign with the activation of PTC on this line? As I understand it, the slow order will appear on the PTC display, and if the engineer does not take the appropriate actions to slow for said location, it will be done for him in the form of a penalty brake application. Unlike signals, moving blocks, switches, interlockings, etc, which are dynamic, this one will be hard coded into the system.
Euclid Also, what, if anything, will be added to the protection of this curve warning sign with the activation of PTC on this line?
Euclid Lithonia Operator I am not saying the following to be critical. Honest. But I do find it interesting that in the case of the CSX guys who walked in front of the Amtrak train (they were careless, doing something everyone is told, since they were kids, not to do), you faulted the company for inadequate training; I did not fault CSX for inadequate training of those two conductors. I faulted the CSX for failing to provide formal protection which everyone agreed they should have had. I also note that the NTSB said they were allowed to walk on the track if they watched for trains. No rule prohibited them from walking on the track. They made a mistake in failing to watch for trains during the last 15 seconds. I did specifically acknowledge that fact in those discussions.
I stand corrected.
A facetious proposal, put rumble strips on the rails in advance of the speed indicater markers like they use on highways to let one know they are crossing onto the shoulder. The negative is the passengers would be disturbed by them.
Electroliner 1935A facetious proposal, put rumble strips on the rails in advance of the speed indicater markers like they use on highways to let one know they are crossing onto the shoulder. The negative is the passengers would be disturbed by them.
They weren't put there on purpose, but on one of our grades, apparently a train stalled at one point and put some burns on the rails. MOW doesn't seem too concerned by them, so the rails in question haven't been replaced.
Since we're on jointed rail already, I'm not sure the passengers even notice.
Of course, we run at 25 MPH there - I'm not sure the FRA would appreciate such flaws on 100 MPH rail...
Yes, speed restrictions both temporary and permanent appear on the PTC display. Temporary speed restrictions show up as a "Next Target" and also as a yellow segment on the otherwise green track line. The only drawback is that an approach signal also changes the track line yellow. And if there is a temporary slow within a temporary slow ( For example, a 40mph within a 60mph) one can't tell where the 40 begins or ends. The track segment is yellow no matter what the speed of the restriction. The "Next Target" will count down to the slow within the slow, but only in sequence as each 'target' is reached.
Permanent speed restrictions only appear as a "Next Target". They don't change the color of the track line segment. If the system calculates a train will be overspeed, it will give a warning of an imminent brake application if the engineer does not slow down.
PTC also updates temporary speed restrictions. As soon as the dispatcher puts them in the computer, they are transmitted to the trains by PTC. If a temporary is lifted, PTC removes it from the system, too. However, if it appears in the paperwork, unless the dispatcher specifically voids the restriction, trains still have to observe it at this time.
On Track Warrant Control territories, PTC is now being used to deliver and clear warrants.
While I like PTC, there are some shortcomings and it can become a crutch and a distraction. The past couple of weeks I've been trying to help an engineer regain his license. Just about each trip with me I've had to tell him to stop looking at the PTC screen. He seemed to fixate on the screen. So much that one time I put my hand in front of the screen and told him: "Stop looking at that (censored) PTC screen and look at the (censored again) locomotive control screens and what's outside your front window. They tell you more on how you should be handling your train at this moment." It worked somewhat. I got him down to looking at the screen for 5 or 6 seconds instead of 30 or more seconds.
Jeff
jeffhergert On Track Warrant Control territories, PTC is now being used to deliver and clear warrants.
Jeff, to clarify this point - track warrants are automatically transmitted from the dispatching center to the on-board PTC computer, but I believe that at this time it is still required that the dispatcher transmit the warrant verbally to the train crew and that the train crew copy and repeat. The verbally copied version is still the official one that the crews are supposed to go by. Does that match your experience?
There are, or soon will be, one or more pilot programs on a Class 1 railroad where the electronically transmitted version of each mandatory directive (i.e. track warrants and track bulletins) will be the official version and no verbal transmission will be required. This will have an enormous effect on how some territories operate. But I don't think it's standard practice on any railroads yet.
Dan
Is a track warrant pretty much just a modern term for "train order?" Now, I realize it can be transmitted by radio, whereas a train order could not. (And the idea of track warrants being incorporated into PTC is, of course, very different.)
But is a track warrant basically a train order?
Is there still, for freight trains, a timetable which gives specific (non-extra) trains rights over a territory for a specified time period; and that authority governs unless it is superceded by a track warrant?
And when Amtrak runs on a line, are its train running on timetable authority? (I would think that would the case.)
Or is everything now done by track warrants?
I realize ETTs still exist; but do they show train authorites? Or are they more just a fact-sheet for the line, with mileages, features, standing special instructions, etc?
And I have never understood this about CTC: in CTC territory, is all of the above done away with? In other words, is the dispatcher controlling authorities with the use of signals alone? Or is CTC just about signals and switches? Does a train in CTC territory still need either timetable authority (if that still exists) or a track warrant?
I realize that (to use a TV news cliche') there's "a lot to unpack here." But any contributions to my knowledge bank will be much appreciated.
I've read that CTC is a traffic control system in which authority is granted by signal indication. There is no timetable authority or track warrant.
Lithonia OperatorIs a track warrant pretty much just a modern term for "train order?" Now, I realize it can be transmitted by radio, whereas a train order could not. (And the idea of track warrants being incorporated into PTC is, of course, very different.) But is a track warrant basically a train order? Is there still, for freight trains, a timetable which gives specific (non-extra) trains rights over a territory for a specified time period; and that authority governs unless it is superceded by a track warrant? And when Amtrak runs on a line, are its train running on timetable authority? (I would think that would the case.) Or is everything now done by track warrants? I realize ETTs still exist; but do they show train authorites? Or are they more just a fact-sheet for the line, with mileages, features, standing special instructions, etc? And I have never understood this about CTC: in CTC territory, is all of the above done away with? In other words, is the dispatcher controlling authorities with the use of signals alone? Or is CTC just about signals and switches? Does a train in CTC territory still need either timetable authority (if that still exists) or a track warrant? I realize that (to use a TV news cliche') there's "a lot to unpack here." But any contributions to my knowledge bank will be much appreciated.
Track Warrant Control or TWC conveys track occupancy authority between the points specified in the authority. On CSX Direct Train Control or DTC was a presursor system to TWC, DTC had timetable defined block limits that were given to and released by trains as they operated on orders from the Train Dispatcher. in the CSX implementation of TWC vs. DTC the TWC authorities can be between any two points on the territory. In DTC each 'block' had to be given to the train in turn, and also released in turn and these communications created much more radio traffic than does TWC. Trains can release specific TWC territory behind their 'rear end' for use by following trains.
The CADS when properly used, prvents the issuance of overlapping authorities in either DTD or TWC operations.
In CTC Territory - Signal Indication conveys all movement authority.
The Timetable and Train Order means of operation is no longer used by any Class 1 railroad. As such there is no superiority by either direction or schedule.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACDTrack Warrant Control or TWC conveys track occupancy authority between the points specified in the authority.
NORAC operates similarly. Controlled track is under "DCS" or the "D Control System," the D being the "Form D." CSX calls their equivalent form the "EC1."
Orders can be given between any two specific railroad locations - either mileposts or block stations (sometimes just a sign), or a combination of the two (ie, between PODUNK and MP68).
We have a couple of areas that fall under NORAC Rule 98 - essentially yards. Form D's will be issued only between the borders of those areas. A train travelling beyond them, and back into DCS territory, will get an "additional line 2," the equivalent of another form.
While block stations are a thing, they are not limiting in and of themselves. A train may be given a Form D that passes several block stations.
As noted, a train can give up the track behind them using either block stations or mileposts. A following train will then get an additional line 2 (up to four) on their existing Form D.
Getting back to enforcing the 30 mph speed limit for the fatal curve: Is there a way with PTC or just some other form of control, to prevent trains from entering the curve at a speed exceeding 30 mph?
Such a system would have to allow for the emergency braking stopping distance for the fastest trains. I would call that the “deceleration zone.” That zone would extend for one mile preceding the start of the curve. Any train entering the deceleration zone exceeding 30 mph would suffer a penalty brake application that would stop the train. The deceleration zone would then provide the stopping distance for a train traveling 79 mph track speed.
So a train approaching the curve would slow to 30 mph by the engineer’s control before reaching the deceleration zone, and then traverse the deceleration zone not exceeding 30 mph. At the end of that deceleration zone, the train would enter the curve.
EuclidGetting back to enforcing the 30 mph speed limit for the fatal curve: Is there a way with PTC or just some other form of control, to prevent trains from entering the curve at a speed exceeding 30 mph?
Read back over the other posts. That's exactly what PTC would do when it detected that the engineer was not slowing his train appropriately.
In fact, that's pretty much the whole idea of PTC.
tree68 Euclid Getting back to enforcing the 30 mph speed limit for the fatal curve: Is there a way with PTC or just some other form of control, to prevent trains from entering the curve at a speed exceeding 30 mph? Read back over the other posts. That's exactly what PTC would do when it detected that the engineer was not slowing his train appropriately. In fact, that's pretty much the whole idea of PTC.
Euclid Getting back to enforcing the 30 mph speed limit for the fatal curve: Is there a way with PTC or just some other form of control, to prevent trains from entering the curve at a speed exceeding 30 mph?
Okay, so then I conclude that this accident at the curve would not have occurred had PTC been completed as planned and in operation (as I described) at the time of the first train.
dpeltier jeffhergert On Track Warrant Control territories, PTC is now being used to deliver and clear warrants. Jeff, to clarify this point - track warrants are automatically transmitted from the dispatching center to the on-board PTC computer, but I believe that at this time it is still required that the dispatcher transmit the warrant verbally to the train crew and that the train crew copy and repeat. The verbally copied version is still the official one that the crews are supposed to go by. Does that match your experience? There are, or soon will be, one or more pilot programs on a Class 1 railroad where the electronically transmitted version of each mandatory directive (i.e. track warrants and track bulletins) will be the official version and no verbal transmission will be required. This will have an enormous effect on how some territories operate. But I don't think it's standard practice on any railroads yet. Dan
No, as of a couple of weeks ago, the track warrant can be delivered by PTC and copied by the conductor off the PTC screen and is not verbally transmitted or read back to the dispatcher. Some parts (authority number, limits of authority, etc) of the warrant have to be verified with the dispatcher before it's considered in effect. I don't work TWC territory so haven't experienced this myself, but have worked with extra board conductors who have.
We have been receiving (at times) temporary speed restrictions via PTC. The dispatcher asks if we have a restriction number on our screen and then to read the restriction off the screen back to them.
Going to the screens that show mandatory directives, I've been told the TWC screen may automatically pop up, require leaving the operation screen and going to the mandatory directive menu and respective screen. Some of us believe leaving the operation screen to go to a mandatory directive screen is the same as copying a mandatory directive while moving and requires the train to be stopped since the engineer can no longer view or act upon PTC changes. When told the train will be stopped before accessing a mandatory directive, the dispatcher will often verbally issue the directive. An easy fix would be to have the conductor be able to access the mandatory directive screens separate from the engineer's screen. Currently the buttons on the conductor's side screen do nothing.
Euclid Getting back to enforcing the 30 mph speed limit for the fatal curve: Is there a way with PTC or just some other form of control, to prevent trains from entering the curve at a speed exceeding 30 mph? Such a system would have to allow for the emergency braking stopping distance for the fastest trains. I would call that the “deceleration zone.” That zone would extend for one mile preceding the start of the curve. Any train entering the deceleration zone exceeding 30 mph would suffer a penalty brake application that would stop the train. The deceleration zone would then provide the stopping distance for a train traveling 79 mph track speed. So a train approaching the curve would slow to 30 mph by the engineer’s control before reaching the deceleration zone, and then traverse the deceleration zone not exceeding 30 mph. At the end of that deceleration zone, the train would enter the curve.
PTC braking is calculated on board the engine's PTC equipment. The 'zone' before a restriction is not set in stone. It fluctuates with the speed of the train. The slower the train goes the smaller the 'zone' becomes. If speed increases, then the 'zone' also increases.
The PTC display includes a Warning Distance, which is a yellow line on the display. There is also a Stopping Distance, which is a red line on the display. Both have a distance to those lines ahead of the train. When the Warning distance line intersects with a restriction, the screen starts showing a warning banner and count down to an imminent penalty brake application. It also starts counting down. If the train starts slowing, the warning distance can change and the count down also can change, increasing instead of decreasing, or just holding at x seconds. The count down is to when the red line reaches the point where the brake application will happen.
Speed restrictions are a bit different. The warning distance line may or may not have reached the point of restriction before the warning appears. I've had the warning pop up for a speed restriction way before the warning distance line reached it on a 70 mph (for a 40 mph restriction) because the PTC calculated the train needed to start slowing under the current throttle/brake conditions at the time. PTC is on the conservative side, and I slowed down like I normally do. The train wasn't out of control. When the system noted the train was slowing, the warning count slowed or halted and ultimately went away.
jeffhergertSpeed restrictions are a bit different. The warning distance line may or may not have reached the point of restriction before the warning appears. I've had the warning pop up for a speed restriction way before the warning distance line reached it on a 70 mph (for a 40 mph restriction) because the PTC calculated the train needed to start slowing under the current throttle/brake conditions at the time. PTC is on the conservative side, and I slowed down like I normally do. The train wasn't out of control. When the system noted the train was slowing, the warning count slowed or halted and ultimately went away. Jeff
Complaint I heard from some the the Engineers that were operating CSX's PTC installation was that PTC was suggesting and in some cases enforcing braking much earlier than the Engineers would under normal circumstance. This was very early in the testing and I don't know if the braking algorithms have been adjusted since the complaints were registered.
jeffhergert Euclid Getting back to enforcing the 30 mph speed limit for the fatal curve: Is there a way with PTC or just some other form of control, to prevent trains from entering the curve at a speed exceeding 30 mph? Such a system would have to allow for the emergency braking stopping distance for the fastest trains. I would call that the “deceleration zone.” That zone would extend for one mile preceding the start of the curve. Any train entering the deceleration zone exceeding 30 mph would suffer a penalty brake application that would stop the train. The deceleration zone would then provide the stopping distance for a train traveling 79 mph track speed. So a train approaching the curve would slow to 30 mph by the engineer’s control before reaching the deceleration zone, and then traverse the deceleration zone not exceeding 30 mph. At the end of that deceleration zone, the train would enter the curve. PTC braking is calculated on board the engine's PTC equipment. The 'zone' before a restriction is not set in stone. It fluctuates with the speed of the train. The slower the train goes the smaller the 'zone' becomes. If speed increases, then the 'zone' also increases. The PTC display includes a Warning Distance, which is a yellow line on the display. There is also a Stopping Distance, which is a red line on the display. Both have a distance to those lines ahead of the train. When the Warning distance line intersects with a restriction, the screen starts showing a warning banner and count down to an imminent penalty brake application. It also starts counting down. If the train starts slowing, the warning distance can change and the count down also can change, increasing instead of decreasing, or just holding at x seconds. The count down is to when the red line reaches the point where the brake application will happen. Speed restrictions are a bit different. The warning distance line may or may not have reached the point of restriction before the warning appears. I've had the warning pop up for a speed restriction way before the warning distance line reached it on a 70 mph (for a 40 mph restriction) because the PTC calculated the train needed to start slowing under the current throttle/brake conditions at the time. PTC is on the conservative side, and I slowed down like I normally do. The train wasn't out of control. When the system noted the train was slowing, the warning count slowed or halted and ultimately went away. Jeff
Jeff,
Thanks for that explanation. That sounds like the system would respond as precisely as the situation calls for to prevent a speed restriction violation with the least automatic interference necessary by reducing that interference threshold as the train is slowed manually. In my example of a basic response, it would initiate full penalty stop braking if the train entered the deceleration zone while traveling over 30 mph. That would not be very efficient because it would be all or nothing and could have the train completely stopped say 3/4-mile short of the curve. But from your description, I can see that it only initiates penalty braking as necessary and no more.
The news coverage of the accident mentions PTC being planned for the new route, but not finished in time for the opening. That does not seem like a critical issue because PTC is not essential to safe operation. But it does seem kind of ironic, that in this case, the first very run featured a fatal derailment that PTC would have prevented.
Thanks, Jeff, Balt, tree and Dan. I've learned a lot from these recent posts.
Jeff, you indirectly touched on something I've been wondering about.
A lot of things involve writing, reading something off a screen, and read-backs to the DS. On a freight, my assumption has been that if the train is underway, then those things are all done by the conductor, so as not to distract the engineer. Am I correct on this?
Which begs the question of what happens on passenger trains. On a passenger train, won't the conductor (the chief conductor) frequently be at work elsewhere in the train, not in the engine? Or maybe never in the engine? Some of this stuff can be done from elsewhere, obviously; but is the conductor's handheld radio as powerful as the cab unit? I'm thinking not.
My point being, how does a passenger train deal with having only one person up front?
In the example you gave where it would be good (or possibly even the only really rule-abiding way) for the conductor to have a workable PTC screen, that won't help if the conductor ain't there!
It's kind of ironic that we seem to be at the point where freights have two sets of eyes up front, but passenger trains have only one. Isn't something wrong with this picture?
Does anyone remember how long after the Cascade's bypass start date it was projected to be before PTC was ready?
Lithonia OperatorMy point being, how does a passenger train deal with having only one person up front?
Most of the time such directives will be copied by the engineer during a station stop.
If the directive needs to be copied before the next station stop, the conductor can copy it and then provide a copy to the engineer face-to-face. If the loco will allow it, the conductor can pass through there. If not, they'll have to stop briefly.
The rules prohibit the engineer from copying such directives whilst the loco is in motion.
tree68 Lithonia Operator My point being, how does a passenger train deal with having only one person up front? Most of the time such directives will be copied by the engineer during a station stop. If the directive needs to be copied before the next station stop, the conductor can copy it and then provide a copy to the engineer face-to-face. If the loco will allow it, the conductor can pass through there. If not, they'll have to stop briefly. The rules prohibit the engineer from copying such directives whilst the loco is in motion.
Lithonia Operator My point being, how does a passenger train deal with having only one person up front?
Thanks, Larry.
But I don't get what you mean by "passing through if the loco allows." Don't all cabs allow the conductor to walk over to the other side? (Well, since the camelback days!)
Maybe I don't understand what you mean by face-to-face? You mean standing forward of engineer, looking aft?
I can't picture a scenario in which the engineer is not at least somewhat distracted.
Oh wait! You mean pass thru from the train! Forward. Duh.
Would it not make sense to have a permanent restricting signal aspect at a stopping distance from the curve along with extra speed warning signs?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.