Absolute rules with zero latitude are designed for certain targets. From what I have heard from several retired railroaders about behaviors, increasing automation is likely in the not too distant future for most operations.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
CSSHEGEWISCH but was unacceptable on a curve restriction of any speed.
I did not see that in his post, only about how trains are limited on curves. So I guess my mistake was the presumption the train operator has independent thinking ability to rationalize this out. Perhaps I should have planned for a robot at the controls and engineer PTC to over-ride the engineers independent decision making on some stretches of track to make the proposal safer.............oh snap!!!
I think with slow orders you would also want universal observance of speed.
I guess it is the railway culture that I have to be 100% precise here. I think in this day and age that is a little silly but I have been in strong rules based environments where people get institutionalized too much to rules that when it comes to relying on judgement they have issues making judgement calls. The military is one example that comes to mind.
So i guess that also partially explains some observable driving habits I see by some drivers on the freeways when the county or state cannot afford to erect restrictive signs along the right of way.....heh-heh.
Just to be clear on this your saying this applies to existing curves with a speed restriction on them......correct? Without a speed restriction on the curve lower than the 10 mph overage, it's not an issue......correct?
So it only changes the proposal in limiting the time recovery to specific portions of track........it doesn't eliminate the proposal altogether as not viable. Again, I am having problems why we need to apply the most restrictive speed to all track without exception.
Thanks CSSHEGEWISCH, it is obvious that you understand the basics of track and speed, but comments like "Yeah that argument falls apart pretty quickly....." clearly demonstrates a lack of understanding of the very basics of track engineering and speed by others. If a curve is set for a maximum speed, it is elevated to allow that speed, with a few miles per hour of safety built in due to the Vmax formula and often by adding a bit more elevation (often by using 2" in the Vmax equation instead of 3" for Eu). The idea of allowing crews to go 10 or 15 mph more than the posted speed (as suggested by some) is what causes trains to flip off of curves. You can always go slower, but you never want to go faster. I have cleaned up enough overspeed derailments across the country to know, and have investigated others - both passenger and freight. Over the years, we've taken several trains to Pueblo and filmed them at different speeds and have demonstrated that just a few miles per hour can be the difference between a safe trip around a curve and derailing. In fact, that is how much of the Track Safety Standards has been created, heavy testing. I don't agree with all of the details of every rule, but speed in curves is one where I am very paranoid.
It is mentioned that the track has different speeds for freight and passenger. Sure it does, at least on tanget tracks due to the track classes (engineering standards), but the Vmax applies to every type of train. You may find a curve listed for 60mph for passenger and 40mph for freight, but the curve is elevated for the 60mph. The freight trains will wear the low rail heavily while the passenger will put most of its force on the high rail. Some railroads slow freights a bit on curves due to high loads, but the max speed still exists. Some railroads also worry about too slow of speed due to the extra force on the low rail. Even worse is stopping a train on a curve and then starting back up. This can lead to stringlining a train - pulling off to the inside of the curve.
In some cases, passenger equipment is tested and rated at a higher Eu which allows more speed with less elevation, but that is for specially built and tested trains that provide some of the elevation or tilting. That is how a bit more speed is gained with the Talgos and similar passenger equipment.
If anyone wants to know more, I'm teaching a week-long workshop on railroad track engineering and how to inspect and repair for safe train operations. I've been teaching them for 25 years to the general public (more than 400 rail operations so far), and for more than a decade before that while working for and managing railroads.
The first post did not specify a 10-15 MPH speed restriction on every curve. He did say that a fudge factor of 10 MPH may be tolerable on tangent track but was unacceptable on a curve restriction of any speed.
bartman-tn The idea of a 10mph range might work on straight (tangent) track, but it would never fly on curved track (actually, it might fly as the train sails off of the tracks). The Vmax equation for proper curve elevation gets really tight on this. For example, on a 2 degree curve, going from 50mph to 60mph takes you from a minimum elevation of 0.5" to 2.0". On a 4 degree curve, going from 35 mph to 45 mph takes you from a minimum of 0.5" elevation to 3" of minimum elevation. There is a great deal of elevation change required for just a small change in speed on curves. It's physics calling the shots.
The idea of a 10mph range might work on straight (tangent) track, but it would never fly on curved track (actually, it might fly as the train sails off of the tracks). The Vmax equation for proper curve elevation gets really tight on this.
For example, on a 2 degree curve, going from 50mph to 60mph takes you from a minimum elevation of 0.5" to 2.0". On a 4 degree curve, going from 35 mph to 45 mph takes you from a minimum of 0.5" elevation to 3" of minimum elevation. There is a great deal of elevation change required for just a small change in speed on curves. It's physics calling the shots.
Yeah that argument falls apart pretty quickly.....
So given the logic of your post there should be a 10 mph restriction on every CPR curve between Milwaukee and the Twin Cities because the difference between passenger and freight train limits on most of that line is 10-15 mph. Or is the argument your making is all the curves are speed engineered for one Amtrak train a day and they are only speed engineered to the max Amtrak speed........which I also find difficult to believe because some of the curves on that line are not even elevated.
CMStPnP n012944 Exactly. Rules are written for a reason, regardless what used to be swept under the rug. Lets not forget the lawsuits that would come when a train hits a car doing 81 in a 79. Yet other modes of transportation in this country are more flexible when it comes to "rules" and "rules enforcement". There would not be any lawsuits if the regulatory body said it was OK or implemented a plus or minus 10 mph tolerance level.......such as most Police Departments due when monitoring your speed behind the wheel.
n012944 Exactly. Rules are written for a reason, regardless what used to be swept under the rug. Lets not forget the lawsuits that would come when a train hits a car doing 81 in a 79.
Yet other modes of transportation in this country are more flexible when it comes to "rules" and "rules enforcement". There would not be any lawsuits if the regulatory body said it was OK or implemented a plus or minus 10 mph tolerance level.......such as most Police Departments due when monitoring your speed behind the wheel.
The numbers speak for themsleves as to why railroads should not take the "look the other way" approach of many police officers.
http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_02_01.html_mfd
CMStPnP When most consumers buy a ticket for transportation in this country they expect the mode to be as cheap as possible and as ontime as possible.
When most consumers buy a ticket for transportation in this country they expect the mode to be as cheap as possible and as ontime as possible.
An "expensive model collector"
MidlandMike Won't PTC end speeding?
Won't PTC end speeding?
It can be made speed tolerant and it should be able to determine if passenger train or if freight train by weight and number of axles. Though I am not sure it will use axles in it's calculations on braking. It allegedly will use weight as private railway passenger car owners are being told by Amtrak they need to get their cars weighed so that PTC can determine proper braking distances of Amtrak trains.
n012944Exactly. Rules are written for a reason, regardless what used to be swept under the rug. Lets not forget the lawsuits that would come when a train hits a car doing 81 in a 79.
When most consumers buy a ticket for transportation in this country they expect the mode to be as cheap as possible and as ontime as possible. They really are not paying for large amounts of schedule padding because nobody in the trade really cares about efficient operations anymore.
n012944 CSSHEGEWISCH Safety is of the FIRST importance in the discharge of duty. Maintaining the schedule time is not. Looking the other way at relatively minor rules violations sets a poor precedent that can lead to real problems later on. Exactly. Rules are written for a reason, regardless what used to be swept under the rug. Lets not forget the lawsuits that would come when a train hits a car doing 81 in a 79.
CSSHEGEWISCH Safety is of the FIRST importance in the discharge of duty. Maintaining the schedule time is not. Looking the other way at relatively minor rules violations sets a poor precedent that can lead to real problems later on.
Safety is of the FIRST importance in the discharge of duty. Maintaining the schedule time is not. Looking the other way at relatively minor rules violations sets a poor precedent that can lead to real problems later on.
Exactly. Rules are written for a reason, regardless what used to be swept under the rug. Lets not forget the lawsuits that would come when a train hits a car doing 81 in a 79.
I'm not suggesting engineers should break the rules. I am saying the rules should be modified by the FRA to have more flexibility and latitude, depending on operating conditions such as weather.
schlimmExactly! Nit-picking and an extreme focus on the almost trivial while missing the bigger, more dangerous picture.
BTW, Airliners speed all the time, they have specific speed limits to follow at specific altitudes in specific locations from 10,000 and below but some exceed them, turn on the local ATC and listen to the ATC telling them to slow down. Commercial busses speed as well. Both speed a lot faster than 2-3 mph over the limit......and thats the competition making up time.
CMStPnP n012944 Speeding is a a good way to get decertified as an engineer from the FRA, and god help you if you hit someone while doing it. No engineer that I know is going to risk his/her's livelihood so you can feel better about Amtrak's on time percentage. Thats why I said the FRA needs to take a second look. As long as it is with a 10 mph range instead of 2-3 mph, I think it's something everyone can live with. They lived with it decades ago before the FRA tightened up on everything. Used to be that napping in the cab could get you fired.....not too long ago.
n012944 Speeding is a a good way to get decertified as an engineer from the FRA, and god help you if you hit someone while doing it. No engineer that I know is going to risk his/her's livelihood so you can feel better about Amtrak's on time percentage.
Thats why I said the FRA needs to take a second look.
As long as it is with a 10 mph range instead of 2-3 mph, I think it's something everyone can live with. They lived with it decades ago before the FRA tightened up on everything.
Used to be that napping in the cab could get you fired.....not too long ago.
Exactly! Nit-picking and an extreme focus on the almost trivial while missing the bigger, more dangerous picture.
n012944Speeding is a a good way to get decertified as an engineer from the FRA, and god help you if you hit someone while doing it. No engineer that I know is going to risk his/her's livelihood so you can feel better about Amtrak's on time percentage.
n012944 CMStPnP Additionally, as pointed out earlier Amtrak Engineers have little or no leeway to make up time if the speed limit is 79 mph with the governor they have on the locomotive....... Speeding is a a good way to get decertified as an engineer from the FRA, and god help you if you hit someone while doing it. No engineer that I know is going to risk his/her's livelihood so you can feel better about Amtrak's on time percentage.
CMStPnP Additionally, as pointed out earlier Amtrak Engineers have little or no leeway to make up time if the speed limit is 79 mph with the governor they have on the locomotive.......
Additionally, as pointed out earlier Amtrak Engineers have little or no leeway to make up time if the speed limit is 79 mph with the governor they have on the locomotive.......
Speeding is a a good way to get decertified as an engineer from the FRA, and god help you if you hit someone while doing it. No engineer that I know is going to risk his/her's livelihood so you can feel better about Amtrak's on time percentage.
An Amtrak employee familiar with the situation reports the following list of speed limiting equipment on an Amtrak locomotive.
"In order ACSES/PTC; Cab Signal ATC, the propulsion system limits the top speed for the engine, the traction motors have governors that limit the RPM of the motor itself (which would relate to track speed by gear ratio and would have to be high for Michigan and Illinois service). Oh yeah and the engineer can limit the speed."
No speed set by Amtrak as reported! There are other errors in this post that relate to track class, but for another time.
^^^ I am tired of arguing it. We'll have to agree to disagree. Your comparing different stats. Amtrak is measuring two stats. On time performance and reason for delays. It never really stated they were related outright. The fact you can have a delay and still arrive ontime I think is another discussion altogether. Airlines operate the same way. Once push backed from gate thats their departure measurement.........not wheels up.
Additionally, as pointed out earlier Amtrak Engineers have little or no leeway to make up time if the speed limit is 79 mph with the governor they have on the locomotive........will be even more difficult with PTC I would expect. It's another flaw with both Amtrak and the FRA. As I would like to see what additional stresses a passenger train going 90 mph vs one going 79 mph places on the track. My guess is very little but for some reason 80 mph is the dividing point between different classes of track for passenger trains (shouldn't their be seperate standards for type of train vs one all trains standard?).
I think our FRA needs reform more than I think the taxpayers should get hit with extra tens of billions of dollars to upgrade tracks. I see some light at the end of the tunnel with some of the waivers for HSR trainsets but it's not even a smidgen of what the FRA should consider in the area of examining it's regulations for areas of overkill.
Amtrak also pads it's LD schedules because it's equipment is not designed for fast loading and unloading, which I think is poor design they gave up on high speed LD trains.....but they have. I wish they would figure out if they want high level or low level platforms (Superliner or Bombardier cars), then figure out a way to stop the idiocy of two stops at each LD station, then find a way via improved car design to limit LD station stops to no more than 3 min each. Then improve the slow tracks they have all over their system. Watch the youtube video of the City of New Orleans leaving New Orleans Station. Obviously running on a dedicated passenger main for like the first 12-15 miles with very limited sidings or switches but only at a speed of 35-40 mph? Really? Why not speed that up to 79 mph. It is silliness but how many other Big City Stations are like that?
CMStPnP Also, not buying it that Amtrak is "lying". Far more likely METRA is manipulating if anyone, far larger and more bereaucratic than Amtrak for starters. Additionally, you have the FRA and both DOT's involved in this corridor that would call Amtrak out if it was being dishonest.
Also, not buying it that Amtrak is "lying". Far more likely METRA is manipulating if anyone, far larger and more bereaucratic than Amtrak for starters. Additionally, you have the FRA and both DOT's involved in this corridor that would call Amtrak out if it was being dishonest.
Seems very unlikely that Amtrak numbers reflect reality. This from the MHSRA:
The Surface Transportation Board (STB) is currently accepting public comments on how to define “On-Time Performance “ (OTP) for intercity passenger trains. This is an important definition to get right as intercity passenger train operators can file a complaint against the host railroad if their OTP falls below 80% for consecutive quarters.
Click here to send a message to the Surface Transportation Board.
The Midwest High Speed Rail Association believes the current proposal by the STB falls short as it only takes into account the final destination. Amtrak often adds a half-hour cushion for longer routes and 15 minutes for shorter routes. That means a train can be significantly late at intermediate stations but be counted as on time for the entire trip.
It is important that the STB include tracking on-time performance at intermediate stations in their new definition. This would provide a clearer picture of train delays and what needs to be done to provide more reliable service.
Click here to help raise the standards for on-time performance of intercity passenger rail.
CMStPnPHeck if it was me and I owned the route, first thing to go would be the position light signals. I would not have hung onto them this long.
CUS also had or has dwarf signals with aspects based on PRR position light signals. Position light signals actually meet the requirements of signals for PTC (no moving parts). Crews always had to qualify on CUS rules to operate there anyway, so there isn't a large incentive to change the signals. I suspect Amtrak (the current owner) also has a large supply of PL spares, since they're also used at interlockings (with colored bulbs) on the Northeast Corridor and Harriburg lines. My understanding is that Metra acquired the MILW/Conrail ownership west of Canal St with Conrail (later NS) retaining rights. East of Canal was traditionally CUS owned, now owned by Amtrak.
PRR/PC/Conrail owned 50% after selling half to MILW. I recall seeing PRR swichers as well, moving freight transfers to CNW.
rcdrye PRR ran some Logansport locals around to the North Joint Approach to Union Station until April 23, 1927, some months after the station opened. Through PCC&StL (Panhandle) trains had run via the South Chicago and Southern (Bernice Cutoff) since the 1893 Columbian Exhibition. PRR and PC served several warehouses and a freight house on the North Joint Approach. NS still delivers cars to ADM on Carroll Ave between Ogden and Racine.
PRR ran some Logansport locals around to the North Joint Approach to Union Station until April 23, 1927, some months after the station opened. Through PCC&StL (Panhandle) trains had run via the South Chicago and Southern (Bernice Cutoff) since the 1893 Columbian Exhibition. PRR and PC served several warehouses and a freight house on the North Joint Approach. NS still delivers cars to ADM on Carroll Ave between Ogden and Racine.
I seem to remember seeing one or two CONRAIL era switchers on it but no idea what they were doing on the track or if they were leased to Amtrak for maintenence....too young back then but I do remember Amtrak leased MoW equipment from Conrail or just bought it outright. Maybe some of the older folks remember. I don't think PRR gave up it's ownership interest or abandoned the route and suspect it transferred over to Conrail as you imply.
Heck if it was me and I owned the route, first thing to go would be the position light signals. I would not have hung onto them this long.
Great research!!
The track was once owned by PRR, but not in our lifetimes and only a half share into the current CUS (1925). I doubt if the PRR ever ran passenger trains into the north concourse except on the two through tracks by the river.
"The trackage was initially owned by PRR, but then a half-interest was sold to the Milwaukee on 18 May 1908."
Chicago Union Station ownership was PRR-50%, CB&Q-25%, MILW-25%. Alton was a tenant.
schlimm CMStPnP Pennsylvania Railroad circles around Chicago and enters Union Station from the North. Milwaukee Road never had tracks all the way to Union Station. I believe at tower A-20 in the diagram of the report above the Milwaukee Road merges with the former Pennsylvania Railroad ROW and enters Union Station via trackage rights on the ex-PRR. Thats why the ROW still has the ex-PRR position light signals beyond tower A-20. I've never heard of anything like that, but I am no expert on the CMStP. PRR always entered CUS into the South Concourse.
CMStPnP Pennsylvania Railroad circles around Chicago and enters Union Station from the North. Milwaukee Road never had tracks all the way to Union Station. I believe at tower A-20 in the diagram of the report above the Milwaukee Road merges with the former Pennsylvania Railroad ROW and enters Union Station via trackage rights on the ex-PRR. Thats why the ROW still has the ex-PRR position light signals beyond tower A-20.
I've never heard of anything like that, but I am no expert on the CMStP. PRR always entered CUS into the South Concourse.
http://broadway.pennsyrr.com/Rail/Prr/Maps/Itlk/itlk_log_chi_main.html
How the PRR's Panhandle got to the north end of Union Station.
Union Station had all PRR Position Light signals as built and Amtrak has replaced some but not all. Most of the South Signals were modified when the Harrison St interlocking tower was closed and the station interlockings updated and consolidated. The PRR (Pennsylvania Rail Road) had two routes into the station, the primary one through Englewood from the South and the one from the North was originally for the PCC&StL route from Logansport until the Colhour connection was made along the Indiana border. PRR passenger trains from Columbus, Cincinnati, and Louisville (PCC&StL) were moved to the Englewood route in the 1920's I believe.
I have some memories from back in the early 1940's (mostly from what my dad told me) of riding in the back vestibule of a train to Indianapolis that had two K-4 pacifics on the front, being delayed by an open bridge over the Calumet River turning at Colehour onto the SC&S branch, and then after reaching the double track main at Bernice Jct, racing at 100 mph (my dad timed it with his watch and mileposts) It made a lasting impression.
Ref. http://www.chicagorailfan.com/routecus.html
Station was owned by Chicago Union Station Co., which was jointly owned by the four railroads using the station. Union Station trackage extended south to the beginning of trackage of three separate railroads. While trackage north and west extended to Tower A-2 (Western Avenue). Tower A-2 was the beginning of the Milwaukee Road, operating most trains using the north end of Union Station. Extending south of Tower A-2 was the Pennsylvania Railroad's Pittsburgh Cincinnati Chicago & St. Louis line. But eventually, all trains using that line used the Pennsylvania Railroad's Pittsburgh Fort Wayne & Chicago line south of Union Station.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.