Caltrain progress to EMU full operation

[timz]

JL Chicago

Only the UP has a lot of class 5.

Once upon a time, Class 4 track limited freights to 60 mph, so Class 5 track must have been halfway common? Less so, now?

(Just looked at the current standards -- turns out freights are still limited to 60 on Class 4 track, same as always. Someone said the limit had gone up, but apparently it didn't.)

[Overmod]

timz

A puzzle for you: look at the CB&Q Chicago-Aurora 4/56 timetable, in page 2 of the timetable section. Still allows 90 mph Rochelle to Savanna, with no cab signals.

Find the version of the ICC "rules, standards, and instructions for the installation, inspection, maintenance and repair of systems, devices and appliances intended to promote the safety of railroad operation in accordance with section 26 (now section 25) of the Interstate Commerce Act' as 'prescribed by the order of the Commission' on the date that timetable was issued, and see if it contains any waiver or change of requirements.  If it does not (and I suspect it would not) you will have to find an individual waiver allowing the Burlington to run passengers at that speed, and the discussion in that waiver's text would make interesting reading.

[timz]

Anyone heard of the ICC giving any RR a waiver, after 1947?

I'm guessing they didn't give the Q one, and 90 wasn't legal Rochelle to Savanna in 1956. Don't have a 1956 timetable for west of Savanna; in 1953 that was 90 mph with no cab signals.

[Overmod]

Something I have not done is timelined the many waivers given to various railroads that needed 'more time' to implement solutions.  That might give the Q enough 'loophole' to keep 90mph in the timetable until the final delays timed out.

I wonder if you could keep 90mph in the timetable, but foist it entirely on the crews to keep at 79mph or below in actual practice.  That doesn't seem sensible to me, but I don't know.

[Falcon48]

Several comments in response to prior posts:

 

1.  There were no Federal track standards in 1956. The Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) had jurisdiction over signalization, but not track standards (i.e., there was no such thing as "Class 5 track" in 1956) .  The Federal Railroad Administration, with jurisdiction over rail safety (including track), wasn't established until 1966.  The first FRA track standards (including the "class of track" standards and related speed limits) were established in 1971. 

 

2.  FRA Class 5 track in the current FRA track rules has a maximum speed of 90 MPH for passenger trains (49 CFR 213.9).  The current rules also have track classes higher than Class 5 which permit higher speeds. 

 

2.  ICC signalization rules adopted in the 1950's had speed restrictions based on the type of signal system (if any) on a rail line.  I don't have a copy of the 1950's rules at hand.  But the rules caused some railroads to reduce their passenger train speeds rather than comply with the new signalization requirements (CNW for one).  FRA, once it was established, adopted the ICC rules as their own.  The current version of these rules appear in 49 CFR Parts 235 and 236. 

 

3,  The pre-PTC train speed rules based on signalization probably have little practical effect today on lines subject to PTC requirements.  I'm certainly not a signal expert, but the PTC seems to replicate all of the functionality of a cab signal system (and then some).  Also,  a railroad's PTC implementation plan filed with FRA, would likely call for elimination of old cab signal systems once the PTC system was in place.  So, once FRA approved a railroad's PTC plan and the system was placed in operation, the railroad would be free to discontinue the old cab signal system in accordance with its approved PTC implementation plan. Also, current FRA signal rules permit the removal of an "intermittent automatic train stop system" (which, presumably, would include old cab signal technology) in conjunction with implementation of a PTC system without the filing of a signal discontinuance application, 49 CFR 235(a)(5).

 

 

More than you probably wanted to know, but it's my little weakness.

[Overmod]

Is there a listing of the annual 'reports' filed with Congress under PL 91-458, title II, sec 211(a)(2)? The first of these would have been May 1971, and the second May 1972; one of these would contain the discussion of how 49 CFR 213.9 came to include nominal track classes, and we could determine from that how the classes were determined.  (I had always ASSumed that track classes were derived from AREA/AREMA standards or data...)

Likewise, do you have dates (or Federal Register listings) for the signalization rules adopted in the 1950s?  In a pinch it would be possible to 'walk' the newly-digitized archives of the FR during these years and, day by day, look at the ICC business based on the headings -- but man, that's tedious work!

I think there are issues with PTC as mandated being suitable as a replacement for true continuous cab signal indication or CBTC, in no small part because the PTC system was developed as an overlay to existing signals rather than being a functional replacement that would provide both continuous and predictive train-control information.  

[JL Chicago]

I didn't know that.  Thanks for the lesson.  I did know the same was true for Savanna to LaCrosse.  Note however that the 90 was only permitted with electro pneumatic brakes.  Just plain air brakes were limited to 79.  I'm guessing the ICC gave the Q a sweetener as even back in those days the regulators were pushing for electric actuated brakes.  But I have nothing to back up my argument.  

[JL Chicago]

I think class 4 track was always just 60 for freights.  When I mentioned 79/80 I meant just for pax.  

[JL Chicago]

The C&NW had continuous cab signals with automatic train control speed enforcement Chicago to Omaha.  See Railway Signaling magazine December 1928.  Very detailed.  Even presented a graphic of the braking operating  curves established by train control. So not science fiction in 1928 but reality.  

[JL Chicago]

Timetable west of Rochelle all the way to LaCrosse was 90 until 1957.  

[JL Chicago]

Overmod

Something I have not done is timelined the many waivers given to various railroads that needed 'more time' to implement solutions.  That might give the Q enough 'loophole' to keep 90mph in the timetable until the final delays timed out.

I wonder if you could keep 90mph in the timetable, but foist it entirely on the crews to keep at 79mph or below in actual practice.  That doesn't seem sensible to me, but I don't know.

 

 

That could be.  I don't know what precipitated the slowing to 79 in 1957.  

[Falcon48]

Overmod

Is there a listing of the annual 'reports' filed with Congress under PL 91-458, title II, sec 211(a)(2)? The first of these would have been May 1971, and the second May 1972; one of these would contain the discussion of how 49 CFR 213.9 came to include nominal track classes, and we could determine from that how the classes were determined.  (I had always ASSumed that track classes were derived from AREA/AREMA standards or data...)

Likewise, do you have dates (or Federal Register listings) for the signalization rules adopted in the 1950s?  In a pinch it would be possible to 'walk' the newly-digitized archives of the FR during these years and, day by day, look at the ICC business based on the headings -- but man, that's tedious work!

I think there are issues with PTC as mandated being suitable as a replacement for true continuous cab signal indication or CBTC, in no small part because the PTC system was developed as an overlay to existing signals rather than being a functional replacement that would provide both continuous and predictive train-control information.  

 

  Thanks to the wonders of the internet, it's actually quite easy to locate FRA rulemaking materials.  You don't have to manually go through old Federal Registers looking for a needle in a haystack.

Here's how to do it (using the FRA Part 236 signal rules as an example):

1.  Go to the following address on the Code of Federal Regulations website.  

https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-49/subtitle-B/chapter-II/part-236?toc=1

2.  This will take you to the current version of FRA's Part 236 signal rules.

3.  You'll also see notations like this following the rule text:

"Source: 33 FR Dec 25, 1968 unless otherwise noted" or "49 FR 3382 Jan 26, 1984".  

Clicking on the FR citation will take you to the portion of the Fedral Register which discusses the section of the rule in question and explains why FRA adopted it.

 

[Falcon48]

JL Chicago

The C&NW had continuous cab signals with automatic train control speed enforcement Chicago to Omaha.  See Railway Signaling magazine December 1928.  Very detailed.  Even presented a graphic of the braking operating  curves established by train control. So not science fiction in 1928 but reality.  

 

To my knowledge, the portion of CNW that was slowed down because of the ICC signal rule revisions in the early 1950's was the Chicago-Twin Cities line west of Wyeville. WI (not the Chicago-Omaha line).  The affiliated Omaha Road didn't install enhanced signalization on its portion of the Twin Cities line in response to then new ICC rules requiring cab signals, ATS or ATC for train speeds over 79 MPH.  So, train speeds on this portion of the route were limited to 79 MPH after 1952.

[Overmod]

Yes, but the eCFR doesn't go back further than 1984, which is worthless for finding what the 1950s rules actually might have been when made.

For example I think it's highly likely that changes were made at about the time the track-class information was adopted, but we have no idea what the discussion concerning them was because they are only carried over as rules in the 1984 version of the CFR.

Apparently the only source for 'pre-digitized' CFR detail is at Federal depository libraries, of which one is conveniently about ¾ of a mile from me.  So I should get somewhere in a coupla days...

I was just delighted that the back issues of the Federal Register have been put up as PDFs.  The last time I tried searching for the original form of the ICC order on the Internet it was like pulling teeth to find the actual number -- everyone "knew" there was an ICC order in 1947 that re-imposed the "less than 80mph speed limit" but no one could actually quote you the text.  With the PDFs online, it took less than 30 minutes to debug the traditional confusion over the actual order date (I had to do it by page number, but the PDFs aren't yet indexed that way) and read exactly what was issued.  Now, the follow-up with all the waivers that were said to be asked for is another story entirely... but a few hours of perusing the relevant issues of the FR ought to let someone set up a timeline with details.

[Overmod]

timz

As long as they're making 5 stops or more, 90 mph saves less than a minute.

It may not be quite that bad, because presumably the rate of acceleration can be faster for a good electric consist than for a diesel-hauled one, particularly maintaining high nominal acceleration as you reach the constant-horsepower range of the diesel engine.  This is a notable phenomenon on the MARC Penn Line vs. the other 'diesel' services.

When I go to Bethesda I usually fly into Baltimore and shuttle over to get on a Penn Line train -- these routinely get up to 114mph between stops and you start to get a little bit of a roller-coaster effect as the curves come at you a bit too fast at times.  That was my introduction to the joys of a HHP8 a few years ago...

I do think that a great deal of the reason for 'electrification' is in the zero-carbon promise rather than deep cuts in overall trip time.  But then again there are plenty of people who pay a ridiculous surcharge to ride Acela when it's only a few minutes different over a much longer run with fewer stops.

[Overmod]

JL Chicago

The C&NW had continuous cab signals with automatic train control speed enforcement Chicago to Omaha.  See Railway Signaling magazine December 1928.

Can't believe I forgot this.

https://www.jonroma.net/media/signaling/railway-signaling/1928/Automatic%20Train%20Control%20on%20the%20Chicago%20%26%20North%20Western.pdf

Wish there was a clear picture of the 'relay' described so I could verify whether it was a vane type or not.

Note that when the two-speed control was actuated in reduction, there was an 'electronic dashpot' on the calculated trip speed, which was decreased at a rate not visible to the engineer.   Note is made that it is less than the rate the engineer should be taking way off the train for the indicated speed reduction.

(Incidentally, the amplifying tubes were still called by their proprietary name, 'pliotrons', rather than triodes...

... here's how to make one:

https://hackaday.com/2018/12/13/how-to-make-a-pilotron-the-forgotten-tube/ ).

[JL Chicago]

Falcon48

 You are correct.  Only the CNW portion east of Wyeville got ATS in 1952.  Ironically, the Omaha Road portion had a 100 mph limit and when dropped to 79 the schedule was not changed.  Makes me wonder how much actual 100 mph running they had.

 

JL Chicago

The C&NW had continuous cab signals with automatic train control speed enforcement Chicago to Omaha.  See Railway Signaling magazine December 1928.  Very detailed.  Even presented a graphic of the braking operating  curves established by train control. So not science fiction in 1928 but reality.  

 

 

 

 

To my knowledge, the portion of CNW that was slowed down because of the ICC signal rule revisions in the early 1950's was the Chicago-Twin Cities line west of Wyeville. WI (not the Chicago-Omaha line).  The affiliated Omaha Road didn't install enhanced signalization on its portion of the Twin Cities line in response to then new ICC rules requiring cab signals, ATS or ATC for train speeds over 79 MPH.  So, train speeds on this portion of the route were limited to 79 MPH after 1952.

 

 

[JL Chicago]

Overmod

 No worries!   I forget lots of things these days, LOL.

Check out page 448.   Article might have what you're looking for.

 

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Railway_Signaling/wPv1eecBai8C?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=automatic+train+control+on+chicago+north+western+railway+signaling&printsec=frontcover

 

 

 

 

JL Chicago

The C&NW had continuous cab signals with automatic train control speed enforcement Chicago to Omaha.  See Railway Signaling magazine December 1928.

 

 

Can't believe I forgot this.

 

https://www.jonroma.net/media/signaling/railway-signaling/1928/Automatic%20Train%20Control%20on%20the%20Chicago%20%26%20North%20Western.pdf

Wish there was a clear picture of the 'relay' described so I could verify whether it was a vane type or not.

Note that when the two-speed control was actuated in reduction, there was an 'electronic dashpot' on the calculated trip speed, which was decreased at a rate not visible to the engineer.   Note is made that it is less than the rate the engineer should be taking way off the train for the indicated speed reduction.

(Incidentally, the amplifying tubes were still called by their proprietary name, 'pliotrons', rather than triodes...

... here's how to make one:

https://hackaday.com/2018/12/13/how-to-make-a-pilotron-the-forgotten-tube/ ).

 

[Overmod]

JL Chicago

Check out page 448

But isn't that the same Peabody article that I provided a link (to a different Web source) for?

What is extremely fun is to look at the article a few pages earlier, on page 421, discussing something acknowledged to be tantamount to science fiction in 1925, but effectively reduced to practice by the same time as continuous signaling in late 1928.  We'd go on to see it revolutionize operations in the early Thirties -- CTC.

[Falcon48]

Overmod

Yes, but the eCFR doesn't go back further than 1984, which is worthless for finding what the 1950s rules actually might have been when made.

For example I think it's highly likely that changes were made at about the time the track-class information was adopted, but we have no idea what the discussion concerning them was because they are only carried over as rules in the 1984 version of the CFR.

Apparently the only source for 'pre-digitized' CFR detail is at Federal depository libraries, of which one is conveniently about ¾ of a mile from me.  So I should get somewhere in a coupla days...

I was just delighted that the back issues of the Federal Register have been put up as PDFs.  The last time I tried searching for the original form of the ICC order on the Internet it was like pulling teeth to find the actual number -- everyone "knew" there was an ICC order in 1947 that re-imposed the "less than 80mph speed limit" but no one could actually quote you the text.  With the PDFs online, it took less than 30 minutes to debug the traditional confusion over the actual order date (I had to do it by page number, but the PDFs aren't yet indexed that way) and read exactly what was issued.  Now, the follow-up with all the waivers that were said to be asked for is another story entirely... but a few hours of perusing the relevant issues of the FR ought to let someone set up a timeline with details.

 

If you have access to a good law library, try looking for a series of ICC summaries called "Hawkins Index / Digest".  This is a pretty comprehensive index of old ICC decisions from pre-computer / internet days.  I haven't used this service since I retired over 15 years ago but, as I recall, Hawkins would give you the "ICC Reports" citation for hard copy ICC decisions.  Important decisions like the key ICC signalization decisions should be included in the ICC Reports and referenced in Hawkins.  I don't think old ICC Reports are available on line, but larger law libraries often have hard copies (last year, quite by accident, I ran across a pretty complete collection of ICC Reports in the San Diego public library, of all places). 

At least on my day, the computerized versions of ICC decisions didn't go back to the days of yore.  That's probably changed since I retired, but I haven't had any reason to check it out.  

[blue streak 1]

Were the cars that CalTrain removed off the property bought with any federal funds.  If so, will the disposal of them be restricted?  Maybe have to be offered to other rail asgencies and which ones?

[Falcon48]

One final point about researching old ICC rulemaking decisions (like the ICC signal rules).  The decisions adopting and explaining ICC safety rules may not be in the Federal Register.  The Federal Register publication (if there is one) may be just the text of the rule, without any discussion.  The actual discussion and explanation of ICC safety rules will be in ICC Reports, like other ICC regulatory decisions of the era.  Also, there was a period (I think it was in the 70's, but don't hold me to that) when the ICC didn't use the Federal Register for their rulemakings.  Rather , they used their own publication - I believe it was called "ICC Register".   However, I'm pretty sure this was after FRA took over safety regulation. 

[Overmod]

Falcon48

Also, there was a period (I think it was in the 70's, but don't hold me to that) when the ICC didn't use the Federal Register for their rulemakings.

You'd be correct that the ICC wouldn't be using anything of record for rulemakings 'in the '70s'... but wouldn't the FRA have renamed an 'ICC Register' to something with their initials in it after taking over?

[Falcon48]

I wasn't going to write anything more on this, but I stumbled onto something that may be useful to anyone seeking further information on FRA's track standards and track classifications.  It's a short quote from a preamble to a 2008 FRA rule dealing with continuous welded rail:

"FRA issued the first Federal Track Safety Standards in 1971.  See 36 FR 20336 (October 20, 1971)."

I haven't tried to look this up (I'm a "baby boomer" and not very computer savy, a condition which hasn't improved since I retired).  But I'll bet the "36 FR" document is the Federal Register rulemaking document which adopted the original FRA track classification / speed scheme.  If so, it should have a pretty good discussion of this feature.  It should be pretty easy to find with the citation and the date. 

[Falcon48]

Overmod

No.  Assuming the original rulemaking was noticed in the "ICC Register", the final rule (but not the explanatory preamble) would have appeared in the Code of Federal Regulations as part of FRA's regulations once FRA adopted it as its own. 

Although I mentioned the ICC Register, I doubt that any significant ICC safety rulemakings were ever published there.  This is strictly from memory but, as I recall, the "ICC Register" appeared subsequent to FRA assumption of safety jurisdiction, and it only lasted a few years.  FRA would have published any of its own rulemakings in Federal Register.

 

 

Falcon48

Also, there was a period (I think it was in the 70's, but don't hold me to that) when the ICC didn't use the Federal Register for their rulemakings.

 

 

You'd be correct that the ICC wouldn't be using anything of record for rulemakings 'in the '70s'... but wouldn't the FRA have renamed an 'ICC Register' to something with their initials in it after taking over?

 

 

Overmod

 

 

Falcon48

Also, there was a period (I think it was in the 70's, but don't hold me to that) when the ICC didn't use the Federal Register for their rulemakings.

 

 

You'd be correct that the ICC wouldn't be using anything of record for rulemakings 'in the '70s'... but wouldn't the FRA have renamed an 'ICC Register' to something with their initials in it after taking over?

 

 

[Falcon48]

Sorry for all the duplicate posts.  It wasn't intentional. But, as I mentioned in one of them, I"m not very computer savy.  I'll go back to playing Super Mario Brothers on my Nintendo system, where I can't cause any more damage. 

[Overmod]

Falcon48

I wasn't going to write anything more on this, but I stumbled onto something that may be useful to anyone seeking further information on FRA's track standards and track classifications.  It's a short quote from a preamble to a 2008 FRA rule dealing with continuous welded rail:

"FRA issued the first Federal Track Safety Standards in 1971.  See 36 FR 20336 (October 20, 1971)."

I haven't tried to look this up (I'm a "baby boomer" and not very computer savy, a condition which hasn't improved since I retired).  But I'll bet the "36 FR" document is the Federal Register rulemaking document which adopted the original FRA track classification / speed scheme.  If so, it should have a pretty good discussion of this feature.  It should be pretty easy to find with the citation and the date.

That is indeed damn useful, and I'll see if I can find something direct I can post.

[blue streak 1]

Caltrain just "retired" some gallery cars to an off line location.  Why can't Amtrak borrow these cars to fill in for the Superliner cars being used for  signal enhancement routes?

Caltrain Retires 32 Diesel Passenger Cars as Electrification Nears | Caltrain

[daveklepper]

Have you suggested this to Amtrak?

[Overmod]

blue streak 1

Caltrain just "retired" some gallery cars to an off line location.  Why can't Amtrak borrow these cars to fill in for the Superliner cars being used for  signal enhancement routes?

These are some of the Nippon Sharyo cars from the mid-Eighties; they are nearly 40 years old and were 'not in regular service'.  Reading between the lines they may be in clapped-out shape even to be used as 'buffer cars' for signal actuation -- but at least in theory their interiors might be 'tubed' and something done with the interior space.

Article says the cars will be stored in Petaluma on some of the SMART property until 'a buyer can be found'; I suspect Amtrak California will be well aware of the "opportunity" and would make other parts of the Amtrak organization aware too... but it couldn't hurt to let someone in the management of those Midwest trains know earlier...