Lithonia OperatorMy point being, how does a passenger train deal with having only one person up front?
On CSX when mandatory directives are to be copied and the Engineer is the only person on the locomotive. The Engineer must stop the train, normally at a station stop - distance permitting, for the Engineer to copy and repeat it. The Engineer can request for his Conductor to proceed through the locomotive (note - Amtrak diesels do not have a nose door, so if there is more than one locomotive, the conductor cannot) come to the operating cab to copy the directive.
In the Cayce incident, both Amtrak's Engineer and Conductor were killed as they were both on the lead locomotive account the necessity of copying and releasing mandatory directives in negotiating the Signal Suspension territory.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
aegrotatio 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?
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?
It sure would to me.
Lithonia OperatorMaybe I don't understand what you mean by face-to-face? You mean standing forward of engineer, looking aft?
Just means a personal meeting, as opposed to working over the radio. Which way they're actually facing is of little import.
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 OperatorOh wait! You mean pass thru from the train! Forward. Duh.
Not as dumb as you think. Remember that NYC stopped being supplied with sleepers direct from Chicago recently, for the first time in well over a century, because of the lack of nose doors on suitable (third-rail-equipped) diesels. (The alternative discussed at the time being restoration to service of at least one set of FL9s, which have doors).
Were the train to have only one locomotive, pass-through would be possible, but you won't see that too often.
Lithonia Operator aegrotatio 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? It sure would to me.
A permanent Restricting Indication signal would, in signalled territory, have to have the immediatly prior signal indicating Approach (Trains exceeding Medium Speed immediately reduce to that speed and approach the next signal prepared to STOP). The Restricting signal itself would command Restricted Speed (20 MPH max looking for defects or trains ahead, prepared to STOP within 1/2 the range of vision).
Signal Displays for other than signal reasons have consequences - be careful what you ask for.
One thing non-railroaders overlook - rules as stated in the Rule Book are not stand alone statements. The statements made in the Rule Book are interlocked and dependent on all the other rules in the book.
What I think he was intending was precisely what I think should have been in place from the beginning: a permanent APPROACH signal (about 2 miles out) leading to a permanent RESTRICTING signal a reasonable distance ahead of the curve. There was, and is, no sense in allowing 79mph unrestricted on that couple of miles of effectively-required braking distance, without effective automatic train control.
This could always be 'removed' once PTC had been installed and tested, to minimize elapsed time from 79mph to the actual curve restriction.
I leave it up to practical railroaders knowledgeable in GCOR on what the aspects, their plating, and their distances should be.
What would be the advange of a permanent approach signal and permanent restricting signal over the existing fixed sign warning 2 miles out, and at the start of the curve?
EuclidWhat would be the advange of a permanent approach signal and permanent restricting signal over the existing fixed sign warning 2 miles out, and at the start of the curve?
For one thing, there's already a light at the start of the curve -- you may recall that it was knocked down during the accident.
I think it is obvious that a lighted signal aspect is preferable to a small reflectorized sign, in so many respects as to require little discussion.
The 'remaining' question is how far in advance of the actual hazard the actual 'restricting' signal should be. The existing aspect is more on the lines of a 'home' signal, which in many cases is located right at the hazard it governs, say a grade crossing with another railroad, or a working drawbridge. In this particular case, it may make sense to have the 'restriction' far enough in front of the curve to allow full-blended-plus-service braking from the point of visibility of restricting signal at the previous 'approach' speed, in a safe distance from actual curve entry -- it could be argued that this would be in 'half the distance'. That might involve two signals in addition to the existing one at physical curve entry.
Overmod Euclid What would be the advange of a permanent approach signal and permanent restricting signal over the existing fixed sign warning 2 miles out, and at the start of the curve? For one thing, there's already a light at the start of the curve -- you may recall that it was knocked down during the accident. I think it is obvious that a lighted signal aspect is preferable to a small reflectorized sign, in so many respects as to require little discussion. The 'remaining' question is how far in advance of the actual hazard the actual 'restricting' signal should be. The existing aspect is more on the lines of a 'home' signal, which in many cases is located right at the hazard it governs, say a grade crossing with another railroad, or a working drawbridge. In this particular case, it may make sense to have the 'restriction' far enough in front of the curve to allow full-blended-plus-service braking from the point of visibility of restricting signal at the previous 'approach' speed, in a safe distance from actual curve entry -- it could be argued that this would be in 'half the distance'. That might involve two signals in addition to the existing one at physical curve entry.
Euclid What would be the advange of a permanent approach signal and permanent restricting signal over the existing fixed sign warning 2 miles out, and at the start of the curve?
What does the light at the start of the curve have to do with the curve, or controlling the speed at which a train enters the curve?
As I understand it, the proposal being discussed is to replace a fixed approach sign followed by another fixed sign at the curve; and replace those signs with a fixed approach signal followed by another fixed signal at the curve, and that curve signal having a permanent aspect that limits the curve speed to 30 mph.
The two methods have the same meaning, so why are the signals better than the signs?
EuclidWhat does the light at the start of the curve have to do with the curve, or controlling the speed at which a train enters the curve?
As far as I know it acts as the 'home signal' at the curve, and it was left in position and operated as it was by the WiDOT people. It rather obviously has little effectively to do with either controlling approach to the curve or the speed of oncoming trains in a practical manner -- at least, it does not to me.
The only real 'proposal' being discussed is to implement and then maintain PTC, with the minimum standards that have been discussed. (I think there are somewhat redundant and overlapping protections in current PTC any of which would have either stopped the train or served to alert the engineer to control its speed in the absence of any external reference, competent or otherwise.) The discussion is more in the shoulda-woulda-coulda range: what should WiDOT have provided knowing they would not have PTC even at restricted capability in place to protect the wildly-irresponsible transition from 79mph to a hard curve. It is not in any way a substitute -- even if Washington taxpayers be made to pay for it -- for functional PTC, which you may recall the Federal Government mandates for this operation.
If you can't figure out why searchlight aspects are better than small reflectorized signs, I can't really help you understand very much further.
The purpose of Block Signalling since the time it was invented has been to signal the condition of the block(s) ahead as to whether they contain trains or not.
Using Block Signalling for any other purpose starts one down a very slippery slope.
Some form of lighted Speed Signs would not be out of line, however, they should not be a part of the Block Signalling system.
BaltACDThe purpose of Block Signalling since the time it was invented has been to signal the condition of the block(s) ahead as to whether they contain trains or not. Using Block Signalling for any other purpose starts one down a very slippery slope.
The problem of course being that since very early in the history of ABS per se, railroads have been delighted in using the pretty colored lights for other purposes ... for example, route signaling. And I believe the specific use of lights for distant and home signals considerably predates ABS as a practice.
To this we might add the use of color lights in CTC, which is 'Block Signaling' only in the sense that it indicates a route free of traffic. I'm waiting with some interest to see how track warrants and CTC authority are combined in practice, especially when only part of a route is physically CTC controlled.
In this particular case, reserving lights only for block occupancy would be cute, but relatively worthless: as I recall, there is only something like one block between the curve entry and functional end of track for the route.
I'm not saying there is no good way to distinguish home/distant lighting provision from "ABS" block signaling properly implemented -- only that if there HAS to be a distinction, it had better be done in hardware than in philosophical argument. There NEEDS to be approach-lit signaling and a home-lit restriction in advance of that curve, just as at any other fixed hazard, and little wayside speed markers will very, very likely not do it, dwarf- or floodlit or not.
BaltACDUsing Block Signalling for any other purpose starts one down a very slippery slope.
Except that approach restricting/clear, switch open signals, slide protection signals, cab speed indications, phase break signals, etc. already exists.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
Overmod Euclid What does the light at the start of the curve have to do with the curve, or controlling the speed at which a train enters the curve? As far as I know it acts as the 'home signal' at the curve, and it was left in position and operated as it was by the WiDOT people. It rather obviously has little effectively to do with either controlling approach to the curve or the speed of oncoming trains in a practical manner -- at least, it does not to me. As I understand it, the proposal being discussed is to replace a fixed approach sign followed by another fixed sign at the curve; and replace those signs with a fixed approach signal followed by another fixed signal at the curve, and that curve signal having a permanent aspect that limits the curve speed to 30 mph. The only real 'proposal' being discussed is to implement and then maintain PTC, with the minimum standards that have been discussed. The two methods have the same meaning, so why are the signals better than the signs? If you can't figure out why searchlight aspects are better than small reflectorized signs, I can't really help you understand very much further.
Euclid What does the light at the start of the curve have to do with the curve, or controlling the speed at which a train enters the curve?
The only real 'proposal' being discussed is to implement and then maintain PTC, with the minimum standards that have been discussed.
I understand what PTC would do. It would simply not allow a train to enter the curve exceeding 30 mph. It would take control from the engineer to accomplish that goal if the engineer fails to comply with manual operation of the train. I understand that PTC will soon be completed for the line, and I assume it will protect the curve as Jeff explained on the previous page.
But when I refer to the "proposal being discussed," I am referring to the proposal for fixed signals introduced in the last post of the previous page, and the first post of this page.
The intention seems to be to increase compliance by enhancing the visual recognizability of the warning device in order to better get the attention of the train crew. This seems in line with the similar proposal here to add illumination to the fixed warning signs.
But once you start down the road of adding more and more conspicuity to a visual warning device, where to you draw the line making the warning device noticeable enough to match the danger of reason for the warning?
EuclidBut once you start down the road of adding more and more conspicuity to a visual warning device, where to you draw the line making the warning device noticeable enough to match the danger of reason for the warning?
In this particular case, and I suspect in many if not most 'comparable' cases, there is very little way that making a warning device more 'conspicuous' will have a damaging effect on safety.
You would either need lighting so bright as to cause serious loss of night accommodation or 'spots' many seconds later, or 'action' with lights or motion that might tend to induce one of the various kinds of seizure in the literature. Neither of these is likely for a practical wayside reminder.
The very simplest form of warning would be to have two alternating flashing lights (NOT red so as not to be confused with crossing warnings! and a well-lighted speedboard. The problem here is that it's a wayside marker, and will come into view and be passed relatively quickly with the necessary offset from the track. If you install it close enough, and high enough, to be visible as an approach warning, you might as well go ahead and implement it as an approach warning. No one who is even indifferently trained will miss a signal set at approach, whereas they might well fail to see (or note, which here is really the same thing) an 'advisory' sign outside their working range or line of vision. Particularly, perhaps, if they mistake it for some kind of wayside feature or light.
We made the joke, at one point, that we should adapt the end-of-the-world crossing warning for this purpose. Certainly a neon skull-and-bones flashing on, with accompanying alternating lights and accompanying siren or warning horn, could get the job done no matter how 'distracted' the engineer were, or how insistent some other task might be -- and it would be past with enough 'recovery time' that the shock and awe would dissipate before the time the engineer 'had' to do something based on the warning.
What any neighbors in that region, including as I recall a country club, would think of the noise and reflected light, is an entirely different concern...
I continue to see little that works better than a couple of well-positioned plated signals, in the absence of full and reliable PTC. Personally I can see little that any ad-hoc warning signs could do that this does not accomplish more directly and comprehensibly, requiring little if any additional rules or training to watch for or observe.
I continue to see little that works better than a couple of well-positioned plated signals, in the absence of full and reliable PTC. Personally I can see little that any ad-hoc warning signs could do that this does not accomplish more directly and comprehensibly, requiring little if any additional rules or training to watch for or observe. It also invokes the safety layer of 'call and response' which advisory signs do not.
Overmod Euclid But once you start down the road of adding more and more conspicuity to a visual warning device, where to you draw the line making the warning device noticeable enough to match the danger of reason for the warning? In this particular case, and I suspect in many if not most 'comparable' cases, there is very little way that making a warning device more 'conspicuous' will have a damaging effect on safety. You would either need lighting so bright as to cause serious loss of night accommodation or 'spots' many seconds later, or 'action' with lights or motion that might tend to induce one of the various kinds of seizure in the literature. Neither of these is likely for a practical wayside reminder. The very simplest form of warning would be to have two alternating flashing lights (NOT red so as not to be confused with crossing warnings! and a well-lighted speedboard. The problem here is that it's a wayside marker, and will come into view and be passed relatively quickly with the necessary offset from the track. If you install it close enough, and high enough, to be visible as an approach warning, you might as well go ahead and implement it as an approach warning. No one who is even indifferently trained will miss a signal set at approach, whereas they might well fail to see (or note, which here is really the same thing) an 'advisory' sign outside their working range or line of vision. Particularly, perhaps, if they mistake it for some kind of wayside feature or light. We made the joke, at one point, that we should adapt the end-of-the-world crossing warning for this purpose. Certainly a neon skull-and-bones flashing on, with accompanying alternating lights and accompanying siren or warning horn, could get the job done no matter how 'distracted' the engineer were, or how insistent some other task might be -- and it would be past with enough 'recovery time' that the shock and awe would dissipate before the time the engineer 'had' to do something based on the warning. What any neighbors in that region, including as I recall a country club, would think of the noise and reflected light, is an entirely different concern... I continue to see little that works better than a couple of well-positioned plated signals, in the absence of full and reliable PTC. Personally I can see little that any ad-hoc warning signs could do that this does not accomplish more directly and comprehensibly, requiring little if any additional rules or training to watch for or observe. It also invokes the safety layer of 'call and response' which advisory signs do not.
Euclid But once you start down the road of adding more and more conspicuity to a visual warning device, where to you draw the line making the warning device noticeable enough to match the danger of reason for the warning?
You can say that again.
You either have qualified personnel or you don't. Brown was NOT QUALIFIED to be operating on that particular segment of the overall run. No matter what he felt, or what the company said - he was NOT QUALIFIED.
jeffhergert 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.
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.
Very interesting, thanks. This sounds like kind of a halfway step to full electronic transmission - they've eliminated the most error-prone part (the transmission and copying) while still keeping some verbal confirmation.
Does clearing a warrant still require the full song and dance? How about rolling up?
jeffhergert 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.
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.
Also very interesting, thank you.
Just heard a presentation by the signal guys on what they have planned for the near future, and electronic transmissions of temporary speed restrictions and crossing warnings are near the top of the list. My understanding is that the intention is for fully vital transmission with no verbal communication required. Form B's are close behind, which offers up some new possibilities on the MOW side.
Track warrants are a little further down the list, but not too far away either.
It's also worth noting that the engineering department has had fully electronic granting and releasing of track and time for a decade already. I guess you don't need to prove the same level of safety for a hyrail truck that you do for a train, but in reality OF COURSE the computer transmits more accurately than a couple of humans talking over a radio...
Dan
Overmod I'm waiting with some interest to see how track warrants and CTC authority are combined in practice, especially when only part of a route is physically CTC controlled.
I'm waiting with some interest to see how track warrants and CTC authority are combined in practice, especially when only part of a route is physically CTC controlled.
What are you referring to here? I don't think anything new is coming in terms of "combining track warrants and CTC authority". Movement over every piece of controlled track is authorized either by a mandatory directive (e.g. track warrant) or signal indication (e.g. CTC), but never both at the same time.
dpeltier jeffhergert 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. Very interesting, thanks. This sounds like kind of a halfway step to full electronic transmission - they've eliminated the most error-prone part (the transmission and copying) while still keeping some verbal confirmation. Does clearing a warrant still require the full song and dance? How about rolling up? jeffhergert 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. Also very interesting, thank you. Just heard a presentation by the signal guys on what they have planned for the near future, and electronic transmissions of temporary speed restrictions and crossing warnings are near the top of the list. My understanding is that the intention is for fully vital transmission with no verbal communication required. Form B's are close behind, which offers up some new possibilities on the MOW side. Track warrants are a little further down the list, but not too far away either. It's also worth noting that the engineering department has had fully electronic granting and releasing of track and time for a decade already. I guess you don't need to prove the same level of safety for a hyrail truck that you do for a train, but in reality OF COURSE the computer transmits more accurately than a couple of humans talking over a radio... Dan
I'm not sure about releasing track warrants via PTC. It seems like one conductor mentioned doing that, but I'll have to ask. I don't know about partially releasing (rolling up) a warrant.
They also can handle crossing restrictions via PTC the same way as a temporary slow. Find the specific track restriction and read it back to the dispatcher.
Jeff
Lithonia Operator Overmod Euclid But once you start down the road of adding more and more conspicuity to a visual warning device, where to you draw the line making the warning device noticeable enough to match the danger of reason for the warning? In this particular case, and I suspect in many if not most 'comparable' cases, there is very little way that making a warning device more 'conspicuous' will have a damaging effect on safety. You would either need lighting so bright as to cause serious loss of night accommodation or 'spots' many seconds later, or 'action' with lights or motion that might tend to induce one of the various kinds of seizure in the literature. Neither of these is likely for a practical wayside reminder. The very simplest form of warning would be to have two alternating flashing lights (NOT red so as not to be confused with crossing warnings! and a well-lighted speedboard. The problem here is that it's a wayside marker, and will come into view and be passed relatively quickly with the necessary offset from the track. If you install it close enough, and high enough, to be visible as an approach warning, you might as well go ahead and implement it as an approach warning. No one who is even indifferently trained will miss a signal set at approach, whereas they might well fail to see (or note, which here is really the same thing) an 'advisory' sign outside their working range or line of vision. Particularly, perhaps, if they mistake it for some kind of wayside feature or light. We made the joke, at one point, that we should adapt the end-of-the-world crossing warning for this purpose. Certainly a neon skull-and-bones flashing on, with accompanying alternating lights and accompanying siren or warning horn, could get the job done no matter how 'distracted' the engineer were, or how insistent some other task might be -- and it would be past with enough 'recovery time' that the shock and awe would dissipate before the time the engineer 'had' to do something based on the warning. What any neighbors in that region, including as I recall a country club, would think of the noise and reflected light, is an entirely different concern... I continue to see little that works better than a couple of well-positioned plated signals, in the absence of full and reliable PTC. Personally I can see little that any ad-hoc warning signs could do that this does not accomplish more directly and comprehensibly, requiring little if any additional rules or training to watch for or observe. It also invokes the safety layer of 'call and response' which advisory signs do not. You can say that again.
Why do you call the signs, Advisory Signs? Do railroads use trackside signs that they classify as "advisory"? If so, what does the term mean? It is definitely a term applied to a class of highway signs, and it means to convey information for driver reference, as opposed to a direct legal requirement such as a speed limit sign. Signs imposing a legal requirement are called Regulatory Signs. You can get a ticket for violating a regulatory sign, but not for any kind of response to an advisory sign. Advisory signs only give advice for driver reference.
The signs posted at, and in advance of the fatal curve are hardly what I would call advisory in nature. They convey a life or death command to the engineer.
What exactly would you use for fixed signals? Where would you place them and what color of lights would they display? What would be the meaning of their displayed aspect? How would the meaning be defined in the rules? How would these special signals for the curve be distinguished from block signals?
EuclidWhy do you call the signs, Advisory Signs?
I would opine that the sign conveying an upcoming speed restriction (one mile out - possibly two, depending on the rulebook and any qualifying variables) is advisory. The sign marking the beginning of the speed restriction is regulatory.
Some temporary slow orders have no signs whatsoever.
Railroads are a little different from the highways in that a crew will receive advance notification of a known temporary slow order in the form of a bulletin order, usually when going on duty. Unless it's newsworthy, or there is a method of advising motorists of trouble spots, the motorists are on their own.
Permanent slow orders are in the employee timetable and may not have any signs posted (again, depending on the rulebook).
EuclidWhat exactly would you use for fixed signals? Where would you place them and what color of lights would they display? What would be the meaning of their displayed aspect? How would the meaning be defined in the rules? How would these special signals for the curve be distinguished from block signals?
Am not familar with BNSF actual rules. However basic GCOR.
The idea of signal systems is that any failure will not permit dangerous operation. Since PTC is an ovelay system it cannot be relied on exclusive. Any failure of PTC can allow it to be bypassed by dispatch.
So then the engineer will have to depend on the signal system. An approach signal just before the curve is rule 245D meaning be prepared to stop at next signal and slow to 30 MPH. That is too late for a 79 MPH train to slow soon enough to transit the bridge.
Here is what the signals should show at the maximum pemissible signal.
1. Train is running on a clear signal rule 245A Max speed ( 79 or maybe higher )
2. 2 or more miles before curve Approach limited ( blinking yellow prepare to pass next signal not exceeding 40 MPH ) rule 245B or approach medium rule 245C.
3. 1 or more mile from curve approach medium ( solid yellow over yellow ) rule 245C expect to pass next signal at 30 MPH.
4. just before curve Aproach solid yellow rule 234D trains must reduce to 30 MPH which train should already be at. Now the problem of night time/fog or dark signal will need thought. Normally dark signal means most restrictive possible signal at that location.
Once pass the curve a signal would provide a clear signal or when going southbound signals for the CP ahead would govern.
tree68 Euclid Why do you (Overmod) call the signs, Advisory Signs? I would opine that the sign conveying an upcoming speed restriction (one mile out - possibly two, depending on the rulebook and any qualifying variables) is advisory. The sign marking the beginning of the speed restriction is regulatory.
Euclid Why do you (Overmod) call the signs, Advisory Signs?
My point in bringing up highway signs is that they include the technical differentiation of advisory and regulatory. I would guess that railroad signage controlling train operation contains no differentiation between advisory and regulatory, and that all such signs are the equivalent of regulatory as defined in highway application.
I can understand why you might consider the two-mile warning sign to be advisory because it only requires that a train must be traveling no faster than 30 mph at the end of the two miles. But consider that a train must use a portion of those two miles to slow down to 30 mph. That is not an option, but rather it is an absolute requirement as important as not exceeding 30 mph after passing second sign right at the start of the curve. It might not require the entire two mile warning distance to slow down. However, the sign poses an absolute requirement to slow to 30 mph entirely within those two miles.
Also, the use of the term, advisory in this discussion was directed at the signs; meaning both the two-mile warning sign and the sign at the curve. So I must take issue with calling those critical warning signs advisory since both impose a purely mandatory requirement and are not at all advisory in nature.
i was not using 'advisory' in the MUTCD sense; in fact I was using the word because I thought that was the sense in which you were considering the signs. Anything that is not formally part of the signal system is essentially an 'advisory' sign in that it advises a condition, rather than requiring an explicit action. The slantboard sign advised speed restriction; a signal aspect would compel it.
There are certainly warning signs that require action -- the one coming immediately to mind is the PRR "AC MOTOR STOP" panels (with or without jewel reflectors) in the catenary. I believe the Milwaukee 'reduce speed to 90mph' signs are also in that category. As noted in the discussion, it would be technically possible to install signs calling for specific speed reduction, with distinctive lighting, and add rules provisions for clling them, observing their requirements, etc.
On the other hand, this matter has been handled for 150 years or more by the standard 'approach' and 'home' conventions, the rules for which are already in GCOR, and which can easily be accomplished at the location in question with a couple of unidirectional signal heads, really of fixed aspect as the practical speed reached in response to them will always be appropriate even in the presence of workable PTC or even CBTC on that stretch...
The "sign at the curve" is 'advisory' only in a technical sense: it provides nothing of any great worth to operating personnel as actual 'advice' on how to run their trains. It merely states the speed of the curve; by the time anyone approaches the curve, there is no practical way to implement much speed reduction unless already almost at the indicated speed. Certainly it is of no value if an engineer is at speed having missed the earlier slantboard. (Equally certainly the fixed signal aspect at that location, which I believe was yellow, does not seem to have made much impression.)
Almost all fixed railroad signs are merely advisory. They, by themselves, don't require anything. It's whats posted, either in the time table, general order, superintendent's bulletin or track bulletin that provide the regulation.
We had a permanent 40 mph over a bridge for a few years. They did some work on the bridge and pulled the 40 restriction off. Maximum speed was again 60 mph. It took them about 3 months to pull the permanent reduce speed sign down. How fast do you think I went over the bridge if I had a train that was allowed 50 or 60 mph?
If you're going to use a block signal to control speed, is it going to be tied in the ABS/CTC system? If it isn't and it permanently displays a specific indication no matter the condition of the block, it very well could be mistaken for a regular block signal. That could lead to problems for another engineer lost in a fog.
jeffhergert Almost all fixed railroad signs are merely advisory. They, by themselves, don't require anything. It's whats posted, either in the time table, general order, superintendent's bulletin or track bulletin that provide the regulation. We had a permanent 40 mph over a bridge for a few years. They did some work on the bridge and pulled the 40 restriction off. Maximum speed was again 60 mph. It took them about 3 months to pull the permanent reduce speed sign down. How fast do you think I went over the bridge if I had a train that was allowed 50 or 60 mph? If you're going to use a block signal to control speed, is it going to be tied in the ABS/CTC system? If it isn't and it permanently displays a specific indication no matter the condition of the block, it very well could be mistaken for a regular block signal. That could lead to problems for another engineer lost in a fog. Jeff
Well, then I conclude that the signs I am referring to as not being advisory would be signs that are linked to an active underlying rule or authority that requires exactly what the signs say. In other words, the underlying rule or authority is not advisory.
If the underlying rule were taken away, then yes I can see that the signs would become non-regulatory, possibly advisory, and maybe moot. But I would not consider those signs to be adequate protection for the curve.
With the case of this curve, I assume that the signs do have the underlying authority, and if that authority were withdrawn for some reason, Amtrak would not continue to rely on just the advisory signs alone, thus allowing engineers to choose the speed at which they felt they could safely go around the curve.
EuclidWith the case of this curve, I assume that the signs do have the underlying authority, and if that authority were withdrawn for some reason, Amtrak would not continue to rely on just the advisory signs alone, thus allowing engineers to choose the speed at which they felt they could safely go around the curve.
The signs are generally a nice-to-have item. The authority is within the employee timetable or bulletin orders.
We had a slow order to deal with this past fall. At first, the boundries were simply a road crossing and a milepost. Then signs went up at the point that the slow order was actually protecting, making the track covered that much shorter.
Among the signs that went up were entering (yellow, with a black S) and leaving (green with a white R) the slow order, and a yellow sign a mile out in each direction with "10" on it, indicated the upcoming slow order.
Last year I did unannounced tests (radar) at another slow order. The signs merely indicated the location of the slow order - the bulletin order was the authority against which I would have written someone up if they were speeding.
Euclid jeffhergert Almost all fixed railroad signs are merely advisory. They, by themselves, don't require anything. It's whats posted, either in the time table, general order, superintendent's bulletin or track bulletin that provide the regulation. We had a permanent 40 mph over a bridge for a few years. They did some work on the bridge and pulled the 40 restriction off. Maximum speed was again 60 mph. It took them about 3 months to pull the permanent reduce speed sign down. How fast do you think I went over the bridge if I had a train that was allowed 50 or 60 mph? If you're going to use a block signal to control speed, is it going to be tied in the ABS/CTC system? If it isn't and it permanently displays a specific indication no matter the condition of the block, it very well could be mistaken for a regular block signal. That could lead to problems for another engineer lost in a fog. Jeff Well, then I conclude that the signs I am referring to as not being advisory would be signs that are linked to an active underlying rule or authority that requires exactly what the signs say. In other words, the underlying rule or authority is not advisory. If the underlying rule were taken away, then yes I can see that the signs would become non-regulatory, possibly advisory, and maybe moot. But I would not consider those signs to be adequate protection for the curve. With the case of this curve, I assume that the signs do have the underlying authority, and if that authority were withdrawn for some reason, Amtrak would not continue to rely on just the advisory signs alone, thus allowing engineers to choose the speed at which they felt they could safely go around the curve.
Here is the point I am making: If you have a hazard that requires a speed reduction, you have that requirement stated with authority in some other source, and you have a sign that duplicates the message of the authority stated in the source, but the sign itself has no authority.
So, if you take the sign down and leave the authority in place, the hazard and the required action to deal with the hazard remain exactly the same as when the sign was up.
On the contrary, if you voided the authority, but left the sign up, the sign would be meaningless and should be ignored.
However, if the hazard and the required action to deal with it remains, nobody would ever void the authority and leave the sign up, expecting it to protect because the sign alone means nothing.
So, there would never be a case where one would treat the sign message as being only avisory (optional) because the sign will always be dependent on the underlying authority, which is never advisory.
Also, in the case of this DuPont wreck, it has repeatedly been stated that the engineer failed to see the signs. Yet that point is completely irrelevant because the engineer should not have relied on the signs without knowing the underlying authority; and that authority required him to know where the speed restriction was and where he was in relation to where the speed restriction was.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.