An interesting twist

[adkrr64]

Lithonia Operator

Maybe they could get the outfit that created the Iowa Democratic caucus software to come up with a new, improved version of PTC.

The DNC used the best programmers the Amish could spare

[daveklepper]

Agree

[Electroliner 1935]

[quote user="BaltACD"]

There is NO SUBSTITUTE for a Engineer that is QUALIFIED ON THE TERRITORY.  This incident proved it beyond any doubt.

Engineer Brown was NOT QUALIFIED on the territory he was operating, no matter what he or the company that 'qualified' him thought./quote]

Totality Agree

[BaltACD]

There is NO SUBSTITUTE for a Engineer that is QUALIFIED ON THE TERRITORY.  This incident proved it beyond any doubt.

Engineer Brown was NOT QUALIFIED on the territory he was operating, no matter what he or the company that 'qualified' him thought.

[tree68]

charlie hebdo

Multiple rulebooks weighing many pounds are another absurdity.

Alas, the rulebooks are written by lawyers, and in the blood of those who found a way to get around what was already written.

Sometimes the rulebooks are pretty simple (previous statement notwithstanding).  It's the special instructions that take the space.  That's the result of the railroads being built to literally hundreds of different standards over time.  

[Overmod]

Euclid

I oppose them for a completely different reason. 

And that is a perfectly good reason, BTW.  (As I believe I covered, with more or less opacity, as well).

I do think that there is a certain degree of 'making speed or location advisory signs' more noticeable by designing or lighting them "better".  That does not mean doing so to the extent of making them distractions, or causing temporary night blindness or scotomas, etc.  (Keep in mind again that I do NOT advocate any replacement of a positive speed control system by any kind of wayside signs, even if they also serve as 'placeholders' for situational position awareness...)

[Overmod]

charlie hebdo

Or are you suggesting he is being deliberately obtuse?

I am more than suggesting that he has deliberately misquoted my line of argument, in the process self-assigning views to me that I do not hold in ways that I have never stated (at least, intentionally...)  

He has done this repeatedly in the past, in my opinion.

That is my concern.  I am not sure I would characterize my explanation as 'opaque', but opacity is determined entirely in the eye of the reader, not the writer.  (No, wait, I think I need a better metaphor!  I mean that opacity is judged by the reader, not the writer...)

I don't think there is any question that Euclid is intelligent, or that he can use English grammatically and effectively.  The problem comes, as you note, when he argues incorrectly that people hold particular opinions in order to justify his own.

 

[MMLDelete]

Maybe they could get the outfit that created the Iowa Democratic caucus software to come up with a new, improved version of PTC.

[charlie hebdo]

Overmod

 

 

Euclid

Then Overmod suggested that the rather than adding conspicuity to the signs with lighting, the signs should be replaced by block signal control of the speed reduction zone.  I questioned why block signal control would be better than signs, and Overmod said it was because the signs are only advisory. 

 

 

If you're going to have screws loose, at least understand what the screws are before you loosen them.

What I discussed was explicitly not a "block signal" -- that came in with BaltACD, but I suspect because it served your purpose you latched onto it with typical avidity.  It is a typical 'distant' and 'home' signal arrangement, as I said of an antiquity predating ABS of any electrical kind, the only difference with typical home and distant signals being the offset allowing safe braking from the 'restricted speed' of the home signal before reaching the physical curve.

Of course, neither aspect would be 'advisory' -- that point refers ONLY to wayside signs, and I made that point at least four times, evidently without the message getting through.  The only reason I mentioned lights on wayside signs was that people like you didn't think reflectorizing them was enough to get them noticed, a point with which I agree; the "discussion" was only about what you do to a wayside sign THAT IS NOT A REQUIRED COMPLIANCE SIGNAL to get some distracted guy in the cab to notice it "in time".

Let me repeat, so there is no further confusion, that the answer here, until working PTC is installed and tested, is an approach signal (yellow or red) backed up by a home signal at permanent red, home far enough in advance of the curve that even a SPAD at restricted speed can be recovered in reasonable braking distance.  They are signals that must be observed in the normal fashion of approach (distant) and home signals.  This is in GCOR which is I believe what this WiDOT project was built to operate under.

PTC is mandated, so "of course" you will go to it when it is installed; you'll have to.  I don't know why you're saying 'go back' to a system that was not yet installed, but I suppose that makes semantic sense to you somehow (if not to me).  As I said, when PTC is running it makes the approach and distant signals less critical; they could be left dark with heads turned or even removed if desired, with PTC giving the same or better safety.  That does not mean the approach and distant signals, if they continue to be lit, become somehow 'advisory' compared to PTC; an engineman would still have to observe them if for any reason PTC failed to reach the necessary speed target at them.  

Does anybody else have problems comprehending this? 

 

As I said,  overlapping systems,  often archaic,  are often as opaque as your explanation,  especially when not read at a desk or armchair in a quiet room with no time pressures. And Euclid is an intelligent reader and writer,  even if he argues many sides of the same point to death.  Or are you suggesting he is being deliberately obtuse?   

Multiple rulebooks weighing many pounds are another absurdity. The KISS principle applies here. 

[Euclid]

Overmod

 

 

 

The only reason I mentioned lights on wayside signs was that people like you didn't think reflectorizing them was enough to get them noticed, a point with which I agree;

 

PTC is mandated, so "of course" you will go to it when it is installed; you'll have to.  I don't know why you're saying 'go back' to a system that was not yet installed,...

 

To your first point:  That is NOT the reason why I oppose adding lights to the signs for added conspicuity.  I never stated such a reason.  I oppose them for a completely different reason. 

To your second point:  When I say "go back" to PTC, I mean go back to the concept as detailed by Jeff on the previous page.

[Overmod]

Euclid

Then Overmod suggested that the rather than adding conspicuity to the signs with lighting, the signs should be replaced by block signal control of the speed reduction zone.  I questioned why block signal control would be better than signs, and Overmod said it was because the signs are only advisory. 

If you're going to have screws loose, at least understand what the screws are before you loosen them.

What I discussed was explicitly not a "block signal" -- that came in with BaltACD, but I suspect because it served your purpose you latched onto it with typical avidity.  It is a typical 'distant' and 'home' signal arrangement, as I said of an antiquity predating ABS of any electrical kind, the only difference with typical home and distant signals being the offset allowing safe braking from the 'restricted speed' of the home signal before reaching the physical curve.

Of course, neither aspect would be 'advisory' -- that point refers ONLY to wayside signs, and I made that point at least four times, evidently without the message getting through.  The only reason I mentioned lights on wayside signs was that people like you didn't think reflectorizing them was enough to get them noticed, a point with which I agree; the "discussion" was only about what you do to a wayside sign THAT IS NOT A REQUIRED COMPLIANCE SIGNAL to get some distracted guy in the cab to notice it "in time".

Let me repeat, so there is no further confusion, that the answer here, until working PTC is installed and tested, is an approach signal (yellow or red) backed up by a home signal at permanent red, home far enough in advance of the curve that even a SPAD at restricted speed can be recovered in reasonable braking distance.  They are signals that must be observed in the normal fashion of approach (distant) and home signals.  This is in GCOR which is I believe what this WiDOT project was built to operate under.

PTC is mandated, so "of course" you will go to it when it is installed; you'll have to.  I don't know why you're saying 'go back' to a system that was not yet installed, but I suppose that makes semantic sense to you somehow (if not to me).  As I said, when PTC is running it makes the approach and distant signals less critical; they could be left dark with heads turned or even removed if desired, with PTC giving the same or better safety.  That does not mean the approach and distant signals, if they continue to be lit, become somehow 'advisory' compared to PTC; an engineman would still have to observe them if for any reason PTC failed to reach the necessary speed target at them.  

Does anybody else have problems comprehending this? 

[charlie hebdo]

It's a mess.  Various overlapping, including some archaic systems spell uncertainties, which can and did lead to disasters. Add to that the apparent fact that mileposts are sometimes inaccurate (MC?) to compound the confusion. 

Jeff's idea makes the most sense. Of course PTC has problems,  but largely because the railroads chose a dubious supplier and determined that it should overlap block signals. 

[Euclid]

charlie hebdo

Sorry,  but on this issue at least,  your real world of railroading sounds like a muddled mess. 

 

 

I agree.  This line of discussion began by Overmod and Lithonia Operator suggesting that the signs should be made more conspicuous by adding fixed or even flashing lights to the existing signs. I oppose that idea of adding conspicuity. Like Balt, I think that is a slippery slope leading to unintended consequences.

Then Overmod suggested that the rather than adding conspicuity to the signs with lighting, the signs should be replaced by block signal control of the speed reduction zone.  I questioned why block signal control would be better than signs, and Overmod said it was because the signs are only advisory. 

That then led into this incredibly abstruse discussion about how the authority represented by the signs does not actually reside in the signs.  The authority resides in documentation and the signs merely state what the documentation means.  So the signs are inferior to block signals because the signs have no meaning—except as a supplementary reference. 

Why didn’t the engineer in this DuPont wreck just set his counter to the timetable authority for the curve speed restriction rather than struggle to see signs passing by?

My preference would be to go back to PTC the way Jeff explained it earlier.  The engineer can do whatever he wants, but if he does not slow down, PTC will intercede and slow him down automatically.  

[n012944]

Euclid

 

 

 I faulted the CSX for failing to provide formal protection which everyone agreed they should have had. 

 

 

Not everyone.

[charlie hebdo]

Sorry,  but on this issue at least,  your real world of railroading sounds like a muddled mess. 

[tree68]

Euclid

But now you say that the signs are necessary to establish the location of the underlying authority just like the crossing and milepost are necessary to establish the location of the underlying authority in your example above. 

No - I'm saying that the signs are used to establish the location.

Euclid

But if the signs are the markers for the underlying authority, the signs cannot be said to be advisory.  Without the signs, the underlying authority is not completely defined. 

The underlying authority is completely defined in the timetable or bulletin order.

Mile 123.4 is a specific location on the railroad.  It's been established here that a slow order or other action can be required with or without a sign.  The sign just says "you are here."

I'm sorry that this doesn't square with how you choose to see things, but this is how it is in the real world of railroading.

[jeffhergert]

The restriction in the time table would read something like

Maximum Speed: Passenger trains 79 mph, Freight trains XX mph , except as noted below:

MP 123.4 to MP 123.7......Psgr 30, Frt 30

Or something on that order.  The limits would be defined by mile post location.  Sign placement on BNSF, from a chart I saw, has advance signs 2 miles out.  In the example given at MP 121.4 and MP 125.7.  BNSF also has signs at the actual beginning of the restriction, MP 123.4 and 123.7 in the example.  (UP only has the advance signs displayed.  There is no sign at the actual restriction itself.  The only way to determine it's exact location is to see the back side of the green resume speed sign, if one is displayed.)

Really they are a reminder that one is approaching a time table slow and an aid to determine when your train is clear of it.  (Engine goes by the resume speed green sign and you start your counter.)  If MOW is out working with a Jordan Spreader and knocks all the signs over, the permanent restriction still remains as it appears in the time table.  That's why you need to know your territory.

Jeff

[Euclid]

tree68

 

Euclid

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.

 

 

The sign merely signifies the specific limits of the authority.  As I noted earlier in the thread, we had a slow order that was defined by a crossing and a milepost.

While neither has any authority in and of itself, they served the same purpose as the signs.  They were simply advisory of the limits of the slow order.

 

 

Well then the underlying authority needs the reference points of the crossing and the milepost to locate the extent of the underlying authority, so it seems to me that nothing about the crossing and milepost is advisory.  They have to be in their location and referred to in the underlying authority as being an essential part of the underlying authority.

From the previous descriptions, it was said that the underlying authority for the DuPont speed restriction was completely established independently from the actual signs, and that the signs were therefore advisory because they had no meaning or role in establishing the underlying authority. 

But now you say that the signs are necessary to establish the location of the underlying authority just like the crossing and milepost are necessary to establish the location of the underlying authority in your example above. 

I would like to know exactly what the underlying authority for the DuPont speed restriction says.  It has to cite a location on the ground, so there needs to be a marker on the ground that is cited by the underlying authority.  I would assume that the markers would be the signs themselves, although it could be mile measurements from some other benchmark. 

But if the signs are the markers for the underlying authority, the signs cannot be said to be advisory.  Without the signs, the underlying authority is not completely defined. 

[tree68]

Euclid

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.

The sign merely signifies the specific limits of the authority.  As I noted earlier in the thread, we had a slow order that was defined by a crossing and a milepost.

While neither has any authority in and of itself, they served the same purpose as the signs.  They were simply advisory of the limits of the slow order.

Another example is a stop board at the beginning of a work area.  Said board simply denotes the specific border of the work area.  The crew cannot take their train into the work area without permission of the foreman.  If they contact the foreman before arriving at said location and he gives them permission to pass through his work area at maximum allowable speed for their train, they don't even have to slow down when they pass the red/stop board.

[Euclid]

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.

[tree68]

Euclid

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.  

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.  

[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 

 

[Overmod]

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.)

[Euclid]

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.  

 

 

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.   

 

[blue streak 1]

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 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).

Euclid

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?

Were a lighted signal to be used in advance of the curve, I would opine that it would display as it's least restrictive aspect "approach" or perhaps "slow approach."  A regular block signal could be easily used - the ETT would have guidance for any possible aspect. 

[Euclid]

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?

[jeffhergert]

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 

[dpeltier]

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.

 

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.

Dan