If I've heard this once, I've heard it 100 times (and probably more): restricted speed is not a speed - it is a mode of operation.
Restricted speed is totally subjective, as one must figure in all of the variables. Examples have already been given.
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...
Bucky is starting to sound like an attorney who insists that all of the t's are crossed and the i's dotted with no wiggle room. Restricting speed is going to be subjective to some extent because it involves a variety of situations and a variety of trains.
BaltACD Euclid Regarding restricted speed: Keeping speed under 20 mph seems totally objective. Determining your sight distance poses the question of what sight distance means. I assume it has to mean maximum distance at which you can identify a train; or any other sufficient danger. Stopping distance would have to mean maximum stopping distance needed to stop. With every train having a different stopping distance, how does one know what it is for a given train? In estimating stopping distance, can the stop be made with an emergency application? Can the estimate include dynamic braking? If so, may the dynamic braking exceed the normal limit needed to avoid unacceptable risk of buckling the train? Engineers, in a very short period of time know how the train they are operating handles and is able to stop. In knowing how hard the train pulls versus what the paperwork says the train is. Looking at the paperwork (at least on CSX) there is a graphical representation of how the weight is distributed throughout the train and where that weight is becomes a factor in how to brake the train. Engineers are the key to train handling. Good engineers do it right, bad engineers will work their Conductors 'to death' walking the train account broken knuckles and pulled out drawbars. As trains get larger the good engineers stand out even more - knowing where the weight in the train is and how that weight will affect the train as it operates over undulating territory (which affect the lines in the South more than the lines in the North - the South being poor, laid lines on top of the ground; the North being more properous did a lot of cutting and filling to have lines built to a relatively sustained gradient). If the sight line permits a mile or two of vision - 20 MPH is an acceptable speed when operating a Restricted Speed. Where the vision is 100 yards or less - 20 MPH is WAY OVER Restricted Speed. Engineers are responsible for KNOWING their territory - like the back of there hand - where there is sight distance and where there is not - where there are sags that create undesired slack action within their trains. Being a Engineer on a territory is not the same as being a truck driver on the Interstate.
Euclid Regarding restricted speed: Keeping speed under 20 mph seems totally objective. Determining your sight distance poses the question of what sight distance means. I assume it has to mean maximum distance at which you can identify a train; or any other sufficient danger. Stopping distance would have to mean maximum stopping distance needed to stop. With every train having a different stopping distance, how does one know what it is for a given train? In estimating stopping distance, can the stop be made with an emergency application? Can the estimate include dynamic braking? If so, may the dynamic braking exceed the normal limit needed to avoid unacceptable risk of buckling the train?
Engineers, in a very short period of time know how the train they are operating handles and is able to stop. In knowing how hard the train pulls versus what the paperwork says the train is. Looking at the paperwork (at least on CSX) there is a graphical representation of how the weight is distributed throughout the train and where that weight is becomes a factor in how to brake the train.
Engineers are the key to train handling. Good engineers do it right, bad engineers will work their Conductors 'to death' walking the train account broken knuckles and pulled out drawbars. As trains get larger the good engineers stand out even more - knowing where the weight in the train is and how that weight will affect the train as it operates over undulating territory (which affect the lines in the South more than the lines in the North - the South being poor, laid lines on top of the ground; the North being more properous did a lot of cutting and filling to have lines built to a relatively sustained gradient).
If the sight line permits a mile or two of vision - 20 MPH is an acceptable speed when operating a Restricted Speed. Where the vision is 100 yards or less - 20 MPH is WAY OVER Restricted Speed. Engineers are responsible for KNOWING their territory - like the back of there hand - where there is sight distance and where there is not - where there are sags that create undesired slack action within their trains.
Being a Engineer on a territory is not the same as being a truck driver on the Interstate.
EuclidRegarding restricted speed: Keeping speed under 20 mph seems totally objective. Determining your sight distance poses the question of what sight distance means. I assume it has to mean maximum distance at which you can identify a train; or any other sufficient danger. Stopping distance would have to mean maximum stopping distance needed to stop. With every train having a different stopping distance, how does one know what it is for a given train? In estimating stopping distance, can the stop be made with an emergency application? Can the estimate include dynamic braking? If so, may the dynamic braking exceed the normal limit needed to avoid unacceptable risk of buckling the train?
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
charlie hebdoLabor is represented on Boards of Directors there. Strikes and slowdowns do occur but there seems to be more mature commonality of interest in having a smooth-running operation rather than an adversarial contest.
Another interesting point that was reinforced not too long ago. The UAW - General Motors relationship. When I worked there with Jack Smith as CEO. UAW relations were excellent and cordial and we had UAW workers working right up in GM HQ building doing various tasks. They were Assembly plant workers and the like that due to the full employment type labor agreements would take on jobs in the HQ building like moving office furniture / equipment, elevator maint and repair, security and items like that. Little to no issues and everyone was friendly. Fast forward to today and the recent strike. No idea how that relationship headed South so fast other than the CEO of GM being a dingbat with her attitude and public comments. So my conclusion there is it depends a lot in part on who is running the ship. Fish rot from the head down as they say.
Railroad labor relations I think have a little more to do with the fraternal influence more of railroad employment with multiple generations of family members and such. Railroads seem closer to the military than to private industry. But heck the Danish Military is Unionized and while it has some friction between their Union and Chain of Command..........overall a smooth operation there. Incident from my past there as well. U.S. Army command inadvertently caused a union grievance with the Danish Army. Apparently you cannot sleep outside in tents when heated barracks are nearby and available........oh, too funny but yes we got warm and nice barracks beds because of that Union Grievance the entire time we were in Denmark (some NATO agreement we have to abide by Denmark's Union while in country I believe).
Always say to myself if Denmark can pull that off with it's own Military (they have a great Military that has beaten the U.S. in tank gunnery). It can work anywhere.
SD70DudeI disagree with your premise that the unions are ok with the current situation. From what I've seen there have been a number of suggestions around safety and fatigue improvements from the labour side over the years, and they tend to get ignored by both the companies and the regulators.
I was drawing from long ago experience when my Father was an Exec VP and I was on a plant floor as a worker bee and the plant floor union was the Teamsters. Was interesting being in that whole scenario. So what I would say here is push back a little and look at this more objectively. My experience back then was the Teamsters would publish crap to the Union membership that was patently false or just completly BS to rile them up or set them up against management. I think one instance in particular was my Father had a Rolls Royce hidden in a garage somewhere. In reality we as a large family were on a budget, he was paid well for a family of four but our family was more than double that in size. Some other rumors was we had gold plated fixtures in our home (untrue). The Teamsters were very ruthless with the innuendo and rumor and about 20-30% of the rumors had nothing to do with work conditions but was done for demonization to rile up the membership and reinforce that a Union was necessary. So that is point #1.
BTW, I was in high school back then and so the rumors the Teamsters were starting I was being confronted with in High School from employee's kids that attended the same high school. No account or care in the world by the Teamsters about this little bit of nastiness. Even mentioned it to a Union steward at one point..........no change and didn't really care.
Second point is due to my unique position I knew both sides of the story in a lot of cases. In some but not all cases the Union never made an attempt to fact find or ask about why things ran the way they did (sometimes due to labor laws in place) and so further innuendo and leaping to conclusions took place. Other cases was management was looking into improvements about to be made and the Union would jump the gun and criticize an item. Then after the item was implemented would imply it was their criticizm that brought it about when in fact it would have happened without the Union and was planned by mamagement.
So much of the above was on the Union side of the equation. Not to say management sat on their butts on topics. I remember a controversy about plant AC vs floor fans. I was on the side of AC and even brought it up reapeatedly about how it was ridiculously hot in Summer and my comments were brushed aside by my Father because AC would be too expensive. It was indeed the Union that achieved that and as it turned out my Father was wrong. The AC improved productivity and dropped the part rejection rate........pretty much paid for itself. Took about 12 months after the fact to get him to admit it but he finally did. A few more incidents like that. So I do understand that management can be penny wise and pound stupid and have seen that as well. So yes I can see your point of view in past experience and with railroads. Just wanted to explain the other side a little.
There were times as well when management went out of it's way to irritate and inflame the Union out of spite or in retaliation for the rumors an innuendo. I remember the whole employee notification board postings. Each time the Media had an article on past mob influence with the Teamsters Union.......poof! The article mysteriously appeared on the employee notification board. Nobody knew who put it there (it was management).
I don't hold a grudge against any of this and it wasn't a big issue while in High School at times I thought the Union vs Management tension was entertaining at times to observe what lengths each side would go to.
jeffhergertZug, many want to go back to the old, old way. Being able to lay off when they want to, within reason. (There are always a few who stretch the "within reason" part.) I fear that those days are gone, never to be seen again.
Well, yeah. I also want utilities and brakemen to come back. But I don't miss the 6 for 8 and 7 day workweek crap. It's a trade off, but I still think I prefer it this way a little.
The old heads that wanted to work non-stop usually are the ones that drink themselves to death a year after they finally are convinced/forced to retire. Or they get hauled off in the coroner's van from the AFHT.
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
BaltACD zugmann BaltACD The HOS rulings placed into effect before I retired in December 2016 - through my calculations reduced the earnings POTENTIAL by about 24% with the reduced work hours and the expanded rest hours. I don't think I ever met anyone that wants to go back to the old way. When I broke into Management the 16 Hour HOS rules were in effect. There were 'old heads' that 'loved' those rules. Local started 8 AM on Monday went HOS at Midnight on line of road, hauled in by a taxi or passing train and marked off at 2 AM - showed back up at 10 AM on Tuesday and went HOS 2 AM - rinse and repeat the rest of the week - and they were 6 day jobs. THEY may of loved it, it liked to have killed me. SOME work only for the money, and any way they can get more money they will do - Rest and Family be damned. Some value rest and family.
zugmann BaltACD The HOS rulings placed into effect before I retired in December 2016 - through my calculations reduced the earnings POTENTIAL by about 24% with the reduced work hours and the expanded rest hours. I don't think I ever met anyone that wants to go back to the old way.
BaltACD The HOS rulings placed into effect before I retired in December 2016 - through my calculations reduced the earnings POTENTIAL by about 24% with the reduced work hours and the expanded rest hours.
I don't think I ever met anyone that wants to go back to the old way.
When I broke into Management the 16 Hour HOS rules were in effect. There were 'old heads' that 'loved' those rules.
Local started 8 AM on Monday went HOS at Midnight on line of road, hauled in by a taxi or passing train and marked off at 2 AM - showed back up at 10 AM on Tuesday and went HOS 2 AM - rinse and repeat the rest of the week - and they were 6 day jobs. THEY may of loved it, it liked to have killed me.
SOME work only for the money, and any way they can get more money they will do - Rest and Family be damned. Some value rest and family.
Many of the old heads when I hired out talked about showing relieved at 15' 59" or 11' 59" (and I suppose during the transition period, 13' 59") to avoid having to take the extra rest. That was back when things were done with pen and paper instead of electronics. These days most would rather have to take the extra rest.
Zug, many want to go back to the old, old way. Being able to lay off when they want to, within reason. (There are always a few who stretch the "within reason" part.) I fear that those days are gone, never to be seen again.
Jeff
BaltACDThe HOS rulings placed into effect before I retired in December 2016 - through my calculations reduced the earnings POTENTIAL by about 24% with the reduced work hours and the expanded rest hours.
jeffhergert... Anything that happens, such as Federally mandated time off after the threshold for consecutive tours of duty is reached, is viewed by one side as the other side using it to gain an advantage on them. Doesn't matter if it's labor or management, each side thinks the other is using/abusing it. Jeff
Anything that happens, such as Federally mandated time off after the threshold for consecutive tours of duty is reached, is viewed by one side as the other side using it to gain an advantage on them. Doesn't matter if it's labor or management, each side thinks the other is using/abusing it.
The HOS rulings placed into effect before I retired in December 2016 - through my calculations reduced the earnings POTENTIAL by about 24% with the reduced work hours and the expanded rest hours.
BaltACD SD70Dude That would be nice but it's never going to happen. The Class I's are stuck in the robber baron era mindset and are incapable of viewing labour as anything but the enemy. They've come to rely on the government stepping in to prevent strikes and have no interest in good faith negotiations, instead they hope to use government intervention and the arbitration process to force through cuts they know they will never achieve through negotiations. Railroading has always been a 'Us vs Them' mentality between Management and Labor. I spent 20 years in Management and 31 yeasr in Labor during my 51 year career. When you are in Management, Labor is viewed as nothing more than replaceable numbers. Numbers that were to be reduced by any and all means possible. Contracts only existed to be violated. On the Labor side, the contract is the only 'protection' you have as an employee knowing that Management considers you replaceable at will, only limited by contract provisions they wish didn't exist. Now, in the 21st Century, Management is to some extent coming to the understanding that in view of Wall Street Activist Investors, they are nothing more than easily bought out numbers or the organizational chart. If the investor wants Management gone, start packing.
SD70Dude That would be nice but it's never going to happen. The Class I's are stuck in the robber baron era mindset and are incapable of viewing labour as anything but the enemy. They've come to rely on the government stepping in to prevent strikes and have no interest in good faith negotiations, instead they hope to use government intervention and the arbitration process to force through cuts they know they will never achieve through negotiations.
Railroading has always been a 'Us vs Them' mentality between Management and Labor. I spent 20 years in Management and 31 yeasr in Labor during my 51 year career.
When you are in Management, Labor is viewed as nothing more than replaceable numbers. Numbers that were to be reduced by any and all means possible. Contracts only existed to be violated.
On the Labor side, the contract is the only 'protection' you have as an employee knowing that Management considers you replaceable at will, only limited by contract provisions they wish didn't exist.
Now, in the 21st Century, Management is to some extent coming to the understanding that in view of Wall Street Activist Investors, they are nothing more than easily bought out numbers or the organizational chart. If the investor wants Management gone, start packing.
SD70DudeThe Class I's are stuck in the robber baron era mindset and are incapable of viewing labour as anything but the enemy. They've come to rely on the government stepping in to prevent strikes and have no interest in good faith negotiations, instead they hope to use government intervention and the arbitration process to force through cuts they know they will never achieve through negotiations.
Sadly true. Part of an antiquated mindset with the rails, primarily in management.
CMStPnPWould love to see a cooperative system more akin to what Germany has in place. Far less money would be wasted and a lot of time and effort would be spared. I also think safety would improve significantly.
Labor is represented on Boards of Directors there. Strikes and slowdowns do occur but there seems to be more mature commonality of interest in having a smooth-running operation rather than an adversarial contest.
SD70DudeThat would be nice but it's never going to happen. The Class I's are stuck in the robber baron era mindset and are incapable of viewing labour as anything but the enemy. They've come to rely on the government stepping in to prevent strikes and have no interest in good faith negotiations, instead they hope to use government intervention and the arbitration process to force through cuts they know they will never achieve through negotiations.
CMStPnP Overmod I should premise this by saying that I think all safety training ought to be provided and supervised by the unions (with expenses paid by the railroads) and that actual enforcement actions should be reviewed and discipline imposed where important by the unions in conjunction with 'management'. I don't see this happening anytime soon. The Hatfields and McCoys environment suits each side fine in the United States even though it hurts both equally.
Overmod I should premise this by saying that I think all safety training ought to be provided and supervised by the unions (with expenses paid by the railroads) and that actual enforcement actions should be reviewed and discipline imposed where important by the unions in conjunction with 'management'.
I don't see this happening anytime soon. The Hatfields and McCoys environment suits each side fine in the United States even though it hurts both equally.
I disagree with your premise that the unions are ok with the current situation. From what I've seen there have been a number of suggestions around safety and fatigue improvements from the labour side over the years, and they tend to get ignored by both the companies and the regulators.
CMStPnP Would love to see a cooperative system more akin to what Germany has in place. Far less money would be wasted and a lot of time and effort would be spared. I also think safety would improve significantly.
Would love to see a cooperative system more akin to what Germany has in place. Far less money would be wasted and a lot of time and effort would be spared. I also think safety would improve significantly.
That would be nice but it's never going to happen. The Class I's are stuck in the robber baron era mindset and are incapable of viewing labour as anything but the enemy. They've come to rely on the government stepping in to prevent strikes and have no interest in good faith negotiations, instead they hope to use government intervention and the arbitration process to force through cuts they know they will never achieve through negotiations.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
OvermodI should premise this by saying that I think all safety training ought to be provided and supervised by the unions (with expenses paid by the railroads) and that actual enforcement actions should be reviewed and discipline imposed where important by the unions in conjunction with 'management'.
I have no railroader cred in this, so take this as armchair thinking.
I should premise this by saying that I think all safety training ought to be provided and supervised by the unions (with expenses paid by the railroads) and that actual enforcement actions should be reviewed and discipline imposed where important by the unions in conjunction with 'management'.
The question here isn't "safely getting it stopped" -- this is a RULES test. And the rule clearly states (at least it does to me) that you have to have the train STOPPED no more than half the distance to the 'obstacle' (be it a banner or a flag) to be a 'pass'.
And you would determine this in advance with a marker, like a football 'down' marker, at 'half the distance to the goal line'. Extend a line across the track at that point. That -- not the banner -- is the target the crew has to reach. (In Jeff's example that would be 199.50, probably enforced as 199.49 in keeping with the idea that as with a British 'signal passed at danger' even millimeters past the line counts as a violation...)
Now, back in the days that SP was running film simulations of potential collisions, the thing that the Krauss-Maffei unit was converted to a camera car to produce, I thought that a particularly memorable (and frankly wicked unless specifically done and supervised by union personnel) would be this:
The purpose of that 'half the distance to the obstacle' in the rule is so that anyone who happened to be at restricted speed going the other way would also stop, just shy of 'kissing'. So, instead of a banner, use a framework with a full-size illustration of a locomotive cab, with full lights, mounted on wheels. Arrange it with air motors and proportional control so that as soon as the consist being tested 'comes into view of the obstacle' it accelerates to correct restricted speed for a typical consist, and then follows the "braking" profile for a train of that momentum and braking characteristics so that it just stops as a real train would do, at the halfway mark. I predict that (a) there would be no argument about precisely why restricted speed is defined, and to be enforced as a rule written in blood, the way it is, and (b) after very little practice in 'simulation' you'd see crews getting very good at determining how to stop in the 'half the distance' -- which is probably a very rigorous skill to learn, unlike stopping short of an obstacle with dynamic and air over the full sight distance.
mudchicken [The next dumb question that is sure to appear is : "Is it the front face of the coupler or the wheel that has to not break the face of the stop-plane limit?"]
[The next dumb question that is sure to appear is : "Is it the front face of the coupler or the wheel that has to not break the face of the stop-plane limit?"]
My outsider opinion would go for the front face of the coupler, or whatever is farthest forward on the train such as a forward trolley pole.
I'd wonder if the rulebook would have more meaning if there were examples of what the rule was trying to prevent from happening. A memorable quote from the Sept 1965 Nat Geo article on the USAF was (paraphrased): "A German officer was asking why briefings for American airmen spent so much time on the "why" of the orders. The American officer's response was when the men knew the why, they would know what to do without being told."
I would opine that for testing purposes, actually stopping at half the distance to the flag/fusee/banner would tend to indicate that one was capable of doing so.
CSX officials conducting tests never complained when I stopped just short of the flag. The "one half the range of vision" rule insures that two trains moving towards each other can both stop before colliding, or at worst, make a very gentle coupling.
I suppose the flag could be on the rear of a train backing toward your movement.
You could stop immediately and still be in compliance.
Mark Vinski
Well, the dumb question that came up in our rules class was:
"There is a track next to the track you are working on. You have established working limits on the track you're on. You need to determine whether you are required to also get protection on the other track [under the the stinking, steaming pile of confusion that is the FRA's 2014 Adjacent Controlled Track rule]. To answer that question you need to know if the other track is less than 19' away from the track you're on. So, you take your metallic tape measure with the magnetic tip, reach it out, and fasten it to the outside of the closest rail of the adjacent track. Your body is more than 4' from that rail.
In doing that, have you accidentally fouled the adjacent track without protection, violating one of the cardinal MOW rules?"
This one is hard because of course the answer had better be "No", and there is absolutely no reason why the thing you're doing is unsafe. But if you read the definition of "Fouling" in the glossary, it's not so clear. The definition uses the words "equipment" and "material" without defining those terms.
The question in this case was posed by our instructor, who was curious what we thought because he heard from another class that someone (don't remember whether the someone was supposedly a supervisor or an FRA inspector) was taking exception to this practice. Gotta love the railroad rumor mill.
Getting on my soapbox: The problem is that the rulebooks (and the FRA rules that they have to comply with) get edited one piece at a time by collections of people who - while often possessing a good deal of wisdom - were not selected for their comfort with the written word. People sometimes complain that rulebooks seem to be written by lawyers, but those people are wrong - lawyers, or at least corporate-type lawyers, are pretty good at covering every nuance of every possible interpretation of a sentence. Railroaders, not so much. Instead, when you point out a situation where the language of the rule is ambiguous or the opposite of what is intended, they don't see it. They give you an "explanation" of the rule (often without reference to the text itself), and brush you off - "Good question, though!"
What they really need to do is hire a team of technical writers* to go through GCOR and reorganize it, build it up from a base of clear definitions, and state concisely what does and doesn't need to happen to keep people safe. The problem is that will never happen, because it would require too many different people to agree on how to resolve all the contradictions and ambiguities - and there's always one jackass who will refuse to change the stupidest of all rules because "these rules are written in BLOOD!!!".
Clearly this is a personal pet peeve of mine, and I don't want to blow it out of proportion - most of the problems only arise hypothetically in rules class. And even the most beautifully-written rule is still subject to misinterpretation by people who aren't the best of readers - and people who are just looking to stir up trouble. But still, really, it could be a lot better.
Dan
* By "a team of technical writers" I basically mean "me".
caldreamerThe way I read the rule. Your have to be prepared to stop within 1/2 distance to the red light, flag or obstruction. That does not mean you have to stop there, but you can proceed at resticted speed to the red light, flag or obstruction. Is that a correct interpertation of the rule?
Railroad rules, like most all kinds of rules, have to be seen in actual operation before one can really understand their real meaning and application.
When I hired out, my first task was to 'write the book of rules' in my own hand writing in a 'work book' that was created for the purpose. The job was to read the Book of Rules and write what was printed into the work book in one's own hand writing. If, at a later date, some one stated in a investigation 'I didn't know that was a rule' - the employee's work book was brought into evidence where he wrote the rule in his own hand writing.
With all that being the case - reading and writing the Book of Rules - is a far cry from understanding how the rules apply in the day to day situations that happen on the railroad and to which the rules apply.
The way I read the rule. Your have to be prepared to stop within 1/2 distance to the red light, flag or obstruction. That does not mean you have to stop there, but you can proceed at resticted speed to the red light, flag or obstruction. Is that a correct interpertation of the rule?
BaltACD jeffhergert ...Some years back, a manager was out testing. A train pulled up and stopped short of the flag. The manager wanted to fail them on the test. The failure was quickly overturned and a system wide interpretation issued so everyone was on the same page. A few rules got specific interpretations because they weren't being applied uniformly. Jeff Makes one wonder where that Manager had set his observation post for the test. Was the Manager physically at the 'obstruction' he set for the test or was he a calculated 1/2 the sight line from the 'obstruction' and had to walk to communicate with the crew after they stopped short of the 'obstruction'.
jeffhergert ...Some years back, a manager was out testing. A train pulled up and stopped short of the flag. The manager wanted to fail them on the test. The failure was quickly overturned and a system wide interpretation issued so everyone was on the same page. A few rules got specific interpretations because they weren't being applied uniformly. Jeff
Makes one wonder where that Manager had set his observation post for the test. Was the Manager physically at the 'obstruction' he set for the test or was he a calculated 1/2 the sight line from the 'obstruction' and had to walk to communicate with the crew after they stopped short of the 'obstruction'.
The train pulled up to, stopping short of the red flag. The flag was probably in view for 3/4 of a mile, maybe a bit more. It was on a broad curve with, at the time, minimal ROW brush/tree view blockage. They stopped short, but not within half the sight distance when it first came into view.
Interesting side issue (slightly). No doubt this accident will accelerate the hedge fund's interest in making changes at NS.
Today's WSJ reported the membership of NS unions are in support of the current management group (Shaw), which is unusual. Shaw seems to be talking the right things...increased crews instead of cut to the bone.
Ed
dpeltier jeffhergert Question for anyone who cares to answer. The last signal you passed requires restricted speed and you're running in compliance. At MP 199 you see ahead of you a red flag between the rails at about MP 200. Where do you have to stop ? MP 199.99, just short of the flag at MP 200? MP 199.5, half the distance you can see to the flag? Somewhere else? I vote for MP 199.99. You wouldn't be violating any rules if you stop 1" away from the flag. You would, however, be creating an enormous pain in the ass for yourself, since the person who would eventually remove that flag would probably require you to back up 25' before doing so. I'm not GCOR qualified and this is not a question that has come up in MOW rules class, but this one doesn't seem like a close call to me. The rule requires you to be able to stop within half the range of your vision, not to actually stop. The rule for display of red flags just says you can't pass the flag. At one time I was qualified to do operations testing, and you would pass the MOW stop test if you stopped short of the stop signal. My understanding was that the TYE banner test works the same way. Dan
jeffhergert Question for anyone who cares to answer. The last signal you passed requires restricted speed and you're running in compliance. At MP 199 you see ahead of you a red flag between the rails at about MP 200. Where do you have to stop ? MP 199.99, just short of the flag at MP 200? MP 199.5, half the distance you can see to the flag? Somewhere else?
Question for anyone who cares to answer. The last signal you passed requires restricted speed and you're running in compliance. At MP 199 you see ahead of you a red flag between the rails at about MP 200. Where do you have to stop ? MP 199.99, just short of the flag at MP 200? MP 199.5, half the distance you can see to the flag? Somewhere else?
I vote for MP 199.99. You wouldn't be violating any rules if you stop 1" away from the flag. You would, however, be creating an enormous pain in the ass for yourself, since the person who would eventually remove that flag would probably require you to back up 25' before doing so.
I'm not GCOR qualified and this is not a question that has come up in MOW rules class, but this one doesn't seem like a close call to me. The rule requires you to be able to stop within half the range of your vision, not to actually stop. The rule for display of red flags just says you can't pass the flag.
At one time I was qualified to do operations testing, and you would pass the MOW stop test if you stopped short of the stop signal. My understanding was that the TYE banner test works the same way.
Agree with Dan. On the other half of Dan's railroad, pre-merger, we used to keep a folded orange flag tucked-up above the suspension in our hardhats. If we had a crisis, we at least had something to stop people with while we set up protection. After the protection and boards were up or we were working in yard limits, the flag got draped accross the rail. NO TOUCHEE!
(Welders seem to be the most likely at risk (or were more prone to incidents) in Form-B or restricted speed incidents of all kinds ... flags with wheel marks saved them a few times in investigations with heavy duty finger-pointing.)
To this day, I still carry an orange/red flag over my noggin in the field. (and a whistle w/lanyard)....Don't have to, but I keep that old habit tought by experience.
jeffhergert...Some years back, a manager was out testing. A train pulled up and stopped short of the flag. The manager wanted to fail them on the test. The failure was quickly overturned and a system wide interpretation issued so everyone was on the same page. A few rules got specific interpretations because they weren't being applied uniformly. Jeff
Dan has it right. The rule says you have to operate at a speed that allows stopping within half the sight distance, but doesn't say you have to stop half the distance to the obstruction. It's how everyone, well almost everyone understood how the rule was applied.
Some years back, a manager was out testing. A train pulled up and stopped short of the flag. The manager wanted to fail them on the test. The failure was quickly overturned and a system wide interpretation issued so everyone was on the same page. A few rules got specific interpretations because they weren't being applied uniformly.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.