If you're looking for a broken rail or open facing-point switch, your 'line of sight' is going to be a lot less than a 'mile', unless you are using binoculars or a spotting scope.
And the 'limit of vision' is imposed by the curvature of the earth, considerably less than infinity, particularly for track or other details low in the field of vision.
In any case, restricted speed is almost always going to involve some limited-sight-distance concern, whether that be curvature or poor weather or whatever.
Euclid rdamon Backshop Euclid The most distant point at which an object can be seen clearly is called far point (F) of the eye. For a normal eye, far point lies at infinity. Therefore, for a person with normal vision, the range of vision is infinite. So if you have to stop within half the range of vision, that is half of infinity. Half of infinity is still infinity. So your permitted stopping distance according to the Restricted Speed rule is infinity. It's obvious to anyone with common sense that the rule means how far you can see down the track, since this is a railroad matter. So your saying that the fact that we revolve around the sun at over 67,000mph while rotating around the axis at around 1000mph also has nothing to do with this? What I am saying that a rule must be written to convey its intent by the meaning of the writing alone. No rule should be written that requires interpretation by the use of “common sense” or any other subjective measure of judgement. Otherwise, the rule will be interpreted to mean different things to different people. A person can see a mile down the track if it is straight. But the one-mile view will be lacking most if not all detail. About the only thing visible will be a horizon. If you can see a mile but not identify anything in the view, is your range of vision a mile or maybe just a quarter mile? It makes a difference in how fast you can go. If you believe your range of vision is a mile, you will have to be moving at a speed that permits stopping in a half-mile. Is a half-mile close enough to see a misaligned switch or a broken rail?
rdamon Backshop Euclid The most distant point at which an object can be seen clearly is called far point (F) of the eye. For a normal eye, far point lies at infinity. Therefore, for a person with normal vision, the range of vision is infinite. So if you have to stop within half the range of vision, that is half of infinity. Half of infinity is still infinity. So your permitted stopping distance according to the Restricted Speed rule is infinity. It's obvious to anyone with common sense that the rule means how far you can see down the track, since this is a railroad matter. So your saying that the fact that we revolve around the sun at over 67,000mph while rotating around the axis at around 1000mph also has nothing to do with this?
Backshop Euclid The most distant point at which an object can be seen clearly is called far point (F) of the eye. For a normal eye, far point lies at infinity. Therefore, for a person with normal vision, the range of vision is infinite. So if you have to stop within half the range of vision, that is half of infinity. Half of infinity is still infinity. So your permitted stopping distance according to the Restricted Speed rule is infinity. It's obvious to anyone with common sense that the rule means how far you can see down the track, since this is a railroad matter.
Euclid The most distant point at which an object can be seen clearly is called far point (F) of the eye. For a normal eye, far point lies at infinity. Therefore, for a person with normal vision, the range of vision is infinite. So if you have to stop within half the range of vision, that is half of infinity. Half of infinity is still infinity. So your permitted stopping distance according to the Restricted Speed rule is infinity.
It's obvious to anyone with common sense that the rule means how far you can see down the track, since this is a railroad matter.
So your saying that the fact that we revolve around the sun at over 67,000mph while rotating around the axis at around 1000mph also has nothing to do with this?
The Rule as written and TAUGHT in Rules Classes that each operating employee is REQUIRED to attend and pass an examination on the rules is just fine. Euclid needs to attend and pass some carrier Rules Classes.
Rules are not just formulated and cast upon the waters for each fish to discern his own interpertation of what the words are meant to say. I have never heard the theory of infinity applied to any rule in any of the yearly rules classes I attended or the Rules Examinations I was required to pass to be qualified as a Train Dispatcher. Employees in the other opeating crafts are also required to be examined and pass those examinations for promotion to their positions of both Conductor and Engineer.
Rules are not printed and left to employees to devine the meaning of the rules. Whenever new rules are issued or existing rules are changed - the interpertation of how the CARRIER expects the rules to be complied with are TAUGHT either in formal Rules Classes or with first level supervision being educated on the Carrier's intent for the rules and then communicating the rules to their subordinate employees.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
EuclidI am not saying that infinity should be measured for the range of vision. I am saying that range of vision should be further defined so its meaning is not ambiguous. Infinity is part of the formal definition of “Range of Vision” and like infinity, range of vision is intellectually incomprehensible. Range of vision extends as far as vision can extend, which is actually to the end of space. Both are infinite. The curvature of the earth only means that something is obstructing the range of vision. What a person can actually see is entirely different than range of vision. And I believe that what a person can actually see is what matters to the restricted speed rule. In a practical sense for the Restricted Speed rule, range of vision could be defined this way: The range of distance over which a person with legally qualifying vision, in clear daylight, without glare; can discern all objects and features necessary to perceive another train, any railroad equipment, switch positions, derail positons, broken rails, total condition of track, hand or lantern signals from any person, conditions of bridges or culverts, grade crossings, and anything else that can foul or endanger a moving train. Under these terms, the maximum speed can never by 20 mph. And choosing a safe speed below that will always be subjective.
Under these terms, the maximum speed can never by 20 mph. And choosing a safe speed below that will always be subjective.
Bovine Dump
BaltACDBovine Dump
Agreed.
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...
Some people enjoy arguing.
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
jeffhergert There's a similar rule, Movement on Other than Main Track. It reads almost exactly like the Restricted Speed rule except: It doesn't have a 20 mph top speed limit and you don't have to look out for a broken rail. (To be fair, most other than main tracks would already have an imposed speed limit of 20 mph or less.)
There's a similar rule, Movement on Other than Main Track. It reads almost exactly like the Restricted Speed rule except: It doesn't have a 20 mph top speed limit and you don't have to look out for a broken rail. (To be fair, most other than main tracks would already have an imposed speed limit of 20 mph or less.)
On the BNSF line between Willmar, MN to Ashland, NE via Sioux City, the method of operation on the mainline is track warrant control and the sidings have a track speed of 35 MPH. (I think I've mentioned the rather unusual dual-control-switches-in-dark-territory used on this line as well.) But sidings in track warrant territory are other-than-majn track that fall under the rule Jeff describes above. So it would be rare for a train heading into the siding to be going 35 MPH and not be violating the rule.
So, we put a 20 MPH head-end speed restriction on the sidings. Doesn't affect train speeds much, and allows MOW to still use portable derails as a force of track protection. (We don't have portable derails rated for higher than 20 MPH.) Once the head-end is back on the mainline, they can start accelerating to 35.
Dan
Paul of Covington Some people enjoy arguing.
Some people have NEVER been in a position to operate a train - no matter the territory or the speed.
All the back and forth about: 1/2 the sight distance, extent of vision, etc.
This is written in RR rules. We as teachers signed contracts each year. Our specific jobs were mentioned but fine print included, "and outher jobs as assigned". What could that be? Never stated. In RR rules, regardless of wording, DON'T Hit Anything is the meaning.
While in the National Guard we approached a low water bridge, 3/4 ton p-u, pullying a fully loaded tool trailer (pintel hook attachment). Tool trailer (very heavy) had only parking brake. The incline to bridge caused the tool trailer to push us down the incline and off the low water concrete "bridge". Truck was shoved off into the creek and turned over in the slow moving progress. MP ticket writer said driving too fast. I volunteered he was very careful to go extremely slow. MP, I gotta say something.
Same site years before an APC did the same. All inside perished. endmrw0316241240
Euclid Well, whatever caused restricted speed to fail to prevent the Pennsylvania collision on the NS, both the NTSB and the FRA are investigating it. I expect quick results from the FRA.
EuclidWell, whatever caused restricted speed to fail to prevent the Pennsylvania collision on the NS, both the NTSB and the FRA are investigating it. I expect quick results from the FRA.
We had a rear end collision about 15 years ago, an engineer from the same engineer's class that I was in. As I recall, they were running on red intermediates, shortly after the signal rules had been changed to a "Restricted Proceed" which no longer required stopping at each intermediate. Listening to radio traffic, he thought the train ahead of him was farther down the line. There was a second train in between his train and the train he heard on the radio. (It may have not been a conversation, but hearing a talking hot box detector announcing a train clearing it.) Why he didn't heed the intermediates and run restricted speed I can't say.
He got fired, but reinstated because of a technicality. The railroad screwed something up on the paperwork. His brother, also an engineer with a few more years, also got into trouble around the same time and reinstated along the same lines. Eventually they both again got fired for something else. Last I knew, the brother from my class went into train service for Amtrak. The other brother went to the CN, got canned there and left railroading.
Jeff
jeffhergertWe had a rear end collision about 15 years ago, an engineer from the same engineer's class that I was in. As I recall, they were running on red intermediates, shortly after the signal rules had been changed to a "Restricted Proceed" which no longer required stopping at each intermediate. Listening to radio traffic, he thought the train ahead of him was farther down the line. There was a second train in between his train and the train he heard on the radio. (It may have not been a conversation, but hearing a talking hot box detector announcing a train clearing it.) Why he didn't heed the intermediates and run restricted speed I can't say. He got fired, but reinstated because of a technicality. The railroad screwed something up on the paperwork. His brother, also an engineer with a few more years, also got into trouble around the same time and reinstated along the same lines. Eventually they both again got fired for something else. Last I knew, the brother from my class went into train service for Amtrak. The other brother went to the CN, got canned there and left railroading. Jeff
Screw ups tend to repeatedly screw up.
Railroading is not the only industry with Speed issues
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDOMhCCpTnQ
Someone wasn't having a good day...
The falling cranes looked a bit like horses with their legs buckling.
We all know a failed bearing was the cause of the East Palestine derailment, however, how much do we know about current roller bearings on cars?
https://www.railwayage.com/mechanical/freight-cars/bearing-down-on-bearings/
Euclid BaltACD We all know a failed bearing was the cause of the East Palestine derailment, ... Although the bearing failure seems to coincide with the East Palestine wreck, the last I understood from the NTSB was that they had not yet concluded that the bearing failure caused the derailment.
BaltACD We all know a failed bearing was the cause of the East Palestine derailment, ...
We all know a failed bearing was the cause of the East Palestine derailment, ...
Get educated and read the article I linked.
In no world does a failed bearing in a train operating at track speed end up in a 'happily ever after' scenario.
NTSB's final report isn't out yet, so everything is "preliminary."
Their saying that the bearing was the "likely" cause kinda says it was the cause. They didn't seem to offer any alternatives.
Speed isn't a killer - the sudden stop from being at speed is.
Euclid BaltACD Speed isn't a killer - the sudden stop from being at speed is. That’s interesting. A sudden stop is exactly what the final hotbox detector demanded, hmm…
BaltACD Speed isn't a killer - the sudden stop from being at speed is.
My comment applies to the human body, not failing bearings. Bearings fail because their safe friction level has been exceeded - once exceeded it will continue to get worse and worse until it ultimately fails. Once the failure sequence starts it will continue until failure - speed will increase the rate of failure as more revolutions of the bearing surfaces will happen in a shorter span of time, the failure 'spot' is brought to the 'friction spot' more frequently.
One of the points here is that a 'sudden stop' is NOT something the 'final hotbox detector demanded' (at East Palestine). Nor was it something the associated people who would be following data from the proposed set of detectors would demand.
Nor -- pointedly -- was the response of the crew to produce a 'sudden stop'. For that, they would have put the train in emergency, with the almost certain result of a derailment at least similar to the one which occurred.
I'm again surprised that Euclid, of all people, is taking up this line of 'argument', since he well understands the importance of maintaining tension in keeping cars in line when they have become derailed or damaged.
And this isn't about progressively damaged bearings (which hotbox detectors are never going to reliably detect anyway, for reasons I and others have covered ad nauseam. The bearing failed, likely produced the burned axle and truck lozenging, and resulting fiery signature long before the 'final detector' noted bearing temperature above normal and called for an inspection stop. By being conservative with the brakes, likely to prevent stressing the hot bearing by applying brakeshoe pressure on it, their choice of 'heavy dynamic' appears to have actually provoked the initial chain of derailment that resulted in the accident. But it could be argued, and hopefully will be recognized somewhere in the accident analysis, that any attempt to brake that train which relaxed tension across the car with the defective truck would have produced the beginning of derailment just as substantially.
I think if this discussion is going to be continued, it ought to be moved to an East Palestine thread. There is a discussion to be had about whether, when operating dense traffic under restricted speed for visibility reasons, a defect-detector alarm should induce a rapid stop without giving some warning to following, or facing, trains. But that's entirely different technologically from issues with bearings.
Overmod But it could be argued, and hopefully will be recognized somewhere in the accident analysis, that any attempt to brake that train which relaxed tension across the car with the defective truck would have produced the beginning of derailment just as substantially.
But it could be argued, and hopefully will be recognized somewhere in the accident analysis, that any attempt to brake that train which relaxed tension across the car with the defective truck would have produced the beginning of derailment just as substantially.
Hmmm, setting up the DPU so that only the rearmost units go into dynamic braking?
Erik_MagHmmm, setting up the DPU so that only the rearmost units go into dynamic braking?
One obvious problem with rear-end dynamic is the prospect of getting knuckles or snatching drawbars, which is going to produce more problems than it solves. Another is the reliability of radio integrity 'just when it is most needed'.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.