Trains.com

What happened to past RR train stop safety systems ?

7577 views
46 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    January 2001
  • From: Atlanta
  • 11,971 posts
Posted by oltmannd on Monday, December 16, 2013 12:09 PM

Firelock76

Overmod

Deggesty
One thing that has puzzled me, since I never saw it mentioned in an ETT, is that a rule book from the early forties showed the displays for ACS; where did the Southern have this system in use?

Richmond, isn't it?

The late, lamented RF&P had ATS on the line between Richmond and Washington.  In fact, for the longest time after the merger CSX had to run ex-RF&P locomotives on the head end of the lash-ups on this section of 'road.

Don't know about the Southern.

The RF&P had four aspect cab signal - pretty much like the PRR's.  The big difference was the RF&P used commercially available 60Hz carrier for the track circuits. PRR used their own 100Hz supply.  

When Conrail installed cab w/o wayside on the Boston Line, they stuck with the 100Hz PRR standard -since nearly all the locomotives were already equipped for this.  

CSX inherited the Boston Line and would up with two standards.  It was cheaper and easier to change the RF&P to 100Hz than it was to retrofit the nearly the whole loco fleet for two carrier frequencies.  

Consequently, CSX and NS both use the PRR standard.  Amtrak's primary carrier remains 100Hz but they also use a higher secondary carrier to get their additional "faster" aspects.

-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/

  • Member since
    January 2001
  • From: Atlanta
  • 11,971 posts
Posted by oltmannd on Monday, December 16, 2013 12:01 PM

schlimm
The question remains why did the ICC make the shift that not only stopped expansion of ATC and fast track, but eventually led to removal of ATC and downgrading track from 100 or 90 to 79mph or lower?

Because the wheels were coming off the industry - you couldn't squeeze blood from a stone.

Now, the industry is showing some health, so we get PTC.  I don't think it's much more complicated than this.

-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 9,610 posts
Posted by schlimm on Monday, December 16, 2013 11:01 AM

I doubt if that was a major factor.  Overmod already gave the what.  

"Of course there was the usual p--sing and moaning by railroads about the expense, and the difficulty of implementing contemporary ATC on steam locomotives.  But in 1928, the ICC formally shifted its 'safety' efforts toward grade-crossing protection, and the Depression put the kibosh on much additional expansion of train-control systems that were unwarranted by private operations.

Switch to 1947, with the great postwar age of grandly accelerated passenger service (supposedly to grow impressively - what a shame it didn't!) and the crashes start to happen.  In response, Congress dusts off the Esch Act legislation (which required ATC for trains running 80mph or over (which is where the 79mph comes from) and put in a timeline for strict enforcement.  Unsurprisingly, perhaps, the dominant response was to restrict top speed, and be done with the whole silly idea."

The question remains why did the ICC make the shift that not only stopped expansion of ATC and fast track, but eventually led to removal of ATC and downgrading track from 100 or 90 to 79mph or lower?  

C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • 8,156 posts
Posted by henry6 on Monday, December 16, 2013 10:12 AM

schlimm

All very intertesing, but unfortunately diverts from the major points raised by Blue Streak and Overmod.  The question remains why mandated safety systems that allowed for passage at higher speeds were allowed to be discarded?  Was this a "fox guarding the henhouse" script?

The change from AAR Code to NORAC Rules, away from timetable and train order authority combined with the downsizing of human observation and control and increased use of radio and electronic remote control of the railroad and new automatic electronic controls have been a major reason. Also as freight became the major traffic, the need for passenger safety and overall control was lessened.  Today, we are facing the increased need for passenger rail so these discarded or out of date systems must be brought back or good new systems put in place.  It is too easy to say there are railroaders today who don't understand the old rules and the simple but concise and precise movement of traffic controlled by the printed page of timetable and train order thus shun the concept as just being old.   Railroading is't the only industry crippled by this...go to McDonalds and order something and if it ain't on the keyboard, if the counter clerk doesn't recognize it, it can't be done by simple adding or subtracting with real  math.

RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.

  • Member since
    August 2005
  • From: At the Crossroads of the West
  • 11,013 posts
Posted by Deggesty on Monday, December 16, 2013 10:00 AM

Two catch-ups:

I do not know the full history of the entry into Washington from the South, so I do not know if the Orange and Alexandria (predecessor to the R&D system which was a predecessor of the Southern) ever had its own track into Washington, but I doubt that it did.

One stretch of the Southern that had ATS which I forgot to mention was between Jasper and Haleyville, Alabama, on the Northern Alabama--used by the IC to get into Birmingham; the City of Miami, along with other IC passenger trains and freight trains used trackage rights on this stretch along with trackage rights over the Frisco and the M&O between Jackson, Tennessee and Birmingham. I do not know if the Frisco had ATS or not.

Johnny

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 9,610 posts
Posted by schlimm on Monday, December 16, 2013 9:58 AM

All very intertesing, but unfortunately diverts from the major points raised by Blue Streak and Overmod.  The question remains why mandated safety systems that allowed for passage at higher speeds were allowed to be discarded?  Was this a "fox guarding the henhouse" script?

C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan

  • Member since
    August 2005
  • From: At the Crossroads of the West
  • 11,013 posts
Posted by Deggesty on Monday, December 16, 2013 9:36 AM

According to the former RR ETT's, PRR owned the track used by passenger trains from Union Station  past Virginia Avenue interlocking to what the PRR called "South End." I am not sure just where this is, except that it is 2.4 miles south of Virginia Avenue. Then the Southern used the RF&P from RO Tower (RO=South End) down to AF Tower, 1.0 miles south of Alexandria. So, it may be that the Southern needed cab signals from Union Station to South end, 2.8 miles.

Did the RF&P have cab signals? If so, the Southern used them another 5.7 miles. (But the 2.8 + 5.7 does not add up to the 9.1 miles that Southern showed as the m.p. for AF Tower.)

Incidentally, the catenary supports between Virginia Avenue (junction of the freight and passenger lines) and South End are still there--in a sad, neglected shape Apparently the scrap value is less than the cost of removing them.

Johnny

  • Member since
    December 2007
  • From: Georgia USA SW of Atlanta
  • 11,919 posts
Posted by blue streak 1 on Monday, December 16, 2013 3:45 AM

blue streak 1

Deggesty
One thing that has puzzled me, since I never saw it mentioned in an ETT, is that a rule book from the early forties showed the displays for ACS; where did the Southern have this system in use?


 Wonder if it was on another RR?

Was it the PRR from Potomac yard to Virginia ave for SOU RR trains ?  If so was the route cab signaled ?  Also at one time did DOU own the track from Va AVE to WASH union station  or was it PRR ?

  • Member since
    September 2011
  • 6,449 posts
Posted by MidlandMike on Sunday, December 15, 2013 9:18 PM

schlimm

Thanks for the post.  Sounds like the ICC let things slide by dropping the pressure on the rails to do what they agreed to do.  Where is the Frailey thread?

Fred's latest blog on PTC is at:

http://cs.trains.com/trn/b/fred-frailey/archive/2013/11/19/more-on-the-great-ptc-train-wreck.aspx

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 9,610 posts
Posted by schlimm on Sunday, December 15, 2013 8:20 PM

Overmod
There is a very good and well-detailed discussion of train control going on over in one of the discussion blogs, I think regarding Fred Frailey.  Go there for more and better detail.  Sad to me that that level of acumen isn't seen much in general posts.

Thanks for the post.  Sounds like the ICC let things slide by dropping the pressure on the rails to do what they agreed to do.  Where is the Frailey thread?

C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • 8,156 posts
Posted by henry6 on Sunday, December 15, 2013 7:36 PM

OK...here is my OFR (old fart rant):  What happened?  Timetable and train orders were abandoned in favor of radios, schedules with no authority, track warrants and form D's.   I'm sorry, the old AAR Rules were concise, precise, and had to be known by everybody on the railroad...no, not had to be, were known by everybody.  Many over the years tell me I'm wrong, but I don't accept it.  The rules spelled out every hic cup, burp, and breath that it took to move a train and trains.  And they were taken seriously by everybody as being rules to run by and not as rules to be hung by; they were followed, they were understood, they were respected.  I just don't often get that feeling from too many people today.  And too often I get the feeling as written, they are too simple because no one wants to deal with rules not that they feel rules are needed.  I rant about the differences between a meet and a pass and an overtake that today are adhered to according to Funk and Wagnall's or Webster rather than The Book of Rules.  Yes, today's NORAC rules are rules and are used and followed.  But nowhere do I see words that confers authority as did the AAR CODE, nothing showing me words of comfort and understanding that a concise and precise science act will be artfully preformed.  Blue lights, dwarf signals, low signals, red, yellow, green, home signals, approach signals, all have precise special, separate meanings which too often is passed off non-chalantly.  Oh, I'm not saying all railroaders are like that...especially the guys in the cabs who know their lives and lively hood depends on following the rules.  But too many others seem to look at the rules not as the way to safely and efficiently operate a railroad but as restrictions on how things are done.  Today's NORAC just doesn't seem to me to carry the same power and authority as did the AAR Code. 

RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.

  • Member since
    August 2010
  • From: Henrico, VA
  • 8,955 posts
Posted by Firelock76 on Sunday, December 15, 2013 7:08 PM

Overmod

Deggesty
One thing that has puzzled me, since I never saw it mentioned in an ETT, is that a rule book from the early forties showed the displays for ACS; where did the Southern have this system in use?

Richmond, isn't it?

The late, lamented RF&P had ATS on the line between Richmond and Washington.  In fact, for the longest time after the merger CSX had to run ex-RF&P locomotives on the head end of the lash-ups on this section of 'road.

Don't know about the Southern.

  • Member since
    December 2007
  • From: Georgia USA SW of Atlanta
  • 11,919 posts
Posted by blue streak 1 on Sunday, December 15, 2013 7:00 PM

Deggesty
One thing that has puzzled me, since I never saw it mentioned in an ETT, is that a rule book from the early forties showed the displays for ACS; where did the Southern have this system in use?


 Wonder if it was on another RR?

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 21,669 posts
Posted by Overmod on Sunday, December 15, 2013 6:34 PM

Deggesty
One thing that has puzzled me, since I never saw it mentioned in an ETT, is that a rule book from the early forties showed the displays for ACS; where did the Southern have this system in use?

Richmond, isn't it?

  • Member since
    August 2005
  • From: At the Crossroads of the West
  • 11,013 posts
Posted by Deggesty on Sunday, December 15, 2013 4:39 PM

The Southern's ATS system was a little more extensive than Bristol-Chattanooga.

Monroe, Va., to Birmingham ( I do not have an ETT that shows it north of Monroe), Bristol to Memphis, Cincinnati to Macon, Chattanooga to New Orleans, Salisbury to Morristown, and Charlotte to Columbia are the stretches that I remember noticing in ETT's. About 1970 or so, the Southern petitioned to cease all ATS operation, since the fastest speed limits on any of the system were 59 mph for freight service and 79 mph for passenger service.

One thing that has puzzled me, since I never saw it mentioned in an ETT, is that a rule book from the early forties showed the displays for ACS; where did the Southern have this system in use?

Johnny

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 21,669 posts
Posted by Overmod on Sunday, December 15, 2013 10:47 AM

You are missing some fairly important steps in that timeline.

ATC was mandated in the Esch Act of 1920, as a sort of 'quid pro quo' for return of the principal railroads from Federal control.   Reading the legislation, you will see that the principal concern was with passenger train speed and safety.

It was originally intended to be rolled out in stages, and the timelines are clearly stated in the legislation.  Initially one division on each road would be fully equipped, then a few years later another, and so forth until (presumably) everything was set up.

No requirements about the manufacturer or technology involved were made.  This was to stimulate private enterprise via competition and have 'the strongest' approaches and companies reach an appropriate critical mass for production and 'work the bugs out' for operating integrity.  There is a collection in the New York Public Library with all the surviving corporate records of Frank Sprague's ATC company (and in my opinion, if anyone was prepared to build a workable system, it was he!)

The real 'critical mass' didn't come about for a particular reason.  Of course there was the usual p--sing and moaning by railroads about the expense, and the difficulty of implementing contemporary ATC on steam locomotives.  But in 1928, the ICC formally shifted its 'safety' efforts toward grade-crossing protection, and the Depression put the kibosh on much additional expansion of train-control systems that were unwarranted by private operations.

Switch to 1947, with the great postwar age of grandly accelerated passenger service (supposedly to grow impressively - what a shame it didn't!) and the crashes start to happen.  In response, Congress dusts off the Esch Act legislation (which required ATC for trains running 80mph or over (which is where the 79mph comes from) and put in a timeline for strict enforcement.  Unsurprisingly, perhaps, the dominant response was to restrict top speed, and be done with the whole silly idea.

I well remember the report in 1970 that the ICC was letting the PC take out the train-control on the Water Level Route.  With no money, and increasingly lower speeds due to deferred maintenance, there really wasn't much point is ATC for high-speed collision protection.  You can see the rumblings about ATS (automatic train stop upon passing a wrong signal) in many accident reports of collisions, but that was really never enforced in practice (at least up to 2008)

There have been continuing efforts one way or another to build ATC systems in the period from 1947 up to the 21st Century, but they are usually perceived either as something of positive benefit to particular railroads' operation or competitiveness, or ways to get development money out of government entities.  I had a system under development for Conrail, in the late '80s, that would allow freight traffic to remain in the Corridor; Amtrak put the kibosh on that idea.  I suspect the history of NAJPTC (North American joint positive train control) is fairly well-known, as is its pretty abject failure to work reliably.  One big continuing difficulty is how fapid 'automatic' stops are implemented on long freight consists; NJT had a great dog-and-pony show regarding its approach... which only worked reliably on passenger trains, and fairly short and light consists at that.

There is a very good and well-detailed discussion of train control going on over in one of the discussion blogs, I think regarding Fred Frailey.  Go there for more and better detail.  Sad to me that that level of acumen isn't seen much in general posts.

  • Member since
    August 2010
  • From: Henrico, VA
  • 8,955 posts
Posted by Firelock76 on Sunday, December 15, 2013 10:17 AM

Good question.  I was wondering the same thing, especially since a Pennsy promo film from the '50s was touting just how wonderful Automatic Train Stop was. 

  • Member since
    December 2007
  • From: Georgia USA SW of Atlanta
  • 11,919 posts
What happened to past RR train stop safety systems ?
Posted by blue streak 1 on Sunday, December 15, 2013 9:51 AM

This thread is devoted to what happened to past cab systems to reduce the risk of RR incidents.  Other posters who have definite dates of various items chime in and I'll post it on this start of thread.

1.  The ICC mandated that RRs by __________ (?)  that they install a system to verify wayside signals by an acknowledger or cab signal system.  Only a certain amount of track were required  ____________  ATC ,  ATS and maybe other systems were installed.  Ex.  L&N had both ATC (?) and ATS on parts of its Cincinnati -  Atlanta main line.  SOU RR  Bristol - Knoxville or Chattanooga (ATS),  AT&SF on much of what now is the Transcon. (ATS).  

2.  Sometime in the 1950s the ICC started to allow some  RR routes to remove these systems except on routes that had trains that exceeded 79 MPH. 

3.  The last big removal was the IC  (CN) route from Chicago - Fulton (?) allowed by the FRA (?)   __________________   (reduced passenger from 90 to 79 ).  Amtrak sis sign off on this reduction which allowed track to go from class 5 to class 4.

4.  Since then there have been no removals to my knowledge although some routes due to mergers have had signal systems removed due to very low traffic. 

5.  NS has been the only RR known to add cab signals on routes.

6.  However some routes have changed systems such as CSX on the RF&P route and UP on the C&NW routes..

So what happened in the 1950s ?

7.  Were the RRs able to get the ICC to allow these removals with Congress not intervening ?

8.  The only RR that I am aware of was BNSF to develop some kind of PTC ?

 

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy