243129 BaltACD 188's incident happened at a SPEED RESTRICTION - SPEED RESTRICTION'S had to be complied with. Areas where TRACK SPEED was operative was where time was to be gained. 188 would have been violating the Superintendents instructions 'back in the day'. Explain what you mean by " Areas where TRACK SPEED was operative was where time was to be gained."
BaltACD 188's incident happened at a SPEED RESTRICTION - SPEED RESTRICTION'S had to be complied with. Areas where TRACK SPEED was operative was where time was to be gained. 188 would have been violating the Superintendents instructions 'back in the day'.
Explain what you mean by " Areas where TRACK SPEED was operative was where time was to be gained."
Where there are NO SPEED RESTRICTIONS. If you don't know track speed, what else don't you know?
Through Northern Ohio and Indiana, there aren't very many hills or curves to create permanent speed restrictions.
Especially the final 6 minutes or so.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACDWhere there are NO SPEED RESTRICTIONS. If you don't know track speed, what else don't you know?
Ah your imperious attitude surfaces again. Typical of one who has spent his career desk bound.
So you are saying that there is/are/was no maximum authorized speed (MAS) areas?
243129 Deggesty Yes, from time to time, undesired events took place--possibly because the engineer did not reduce his speed at a point that he knew he should reduce his speed, an event beyond his control caused a mishap. Beyond his control??? If he "knew he should reduce his speed" then it is not "an event beyond his control".
Deggesty Yes, from time to time, undesired events took place--possibly because the engineer did not reduce his speed at a point that he knew he should reduce his speed, an event beyond his control caused a mishap.
Beyond his control??? If he "knew he should reduce his speed" then it is not "an event beyond his control".
Johnny
Backshop 243129 BaltACD 188's incident happened at a SPEED RESTRICTION - SPEED RESTRICTION'S had to be complied with. Areas where TRACK SPEED was operative was where time was to be gained. 188 would have been violating the Superintendents instructions 'back in the day'. Explain what you mean by " Areas where TRACK SPEED was operative was where time was to be gained." Once you get around the curve, it's a straight, level road and the speed limit is 60mph. You can go (if you desire) 70-80mph because the road itself is good for it, the limit is arbitrarily set.
Once you get around the curve, it's a straight, level road and the speed limit is 60mph. You can go (if you desire) 70-80mph because the road itself is good for it, the limit is arbitrarily set.
Tell that to the cop and let me know how you made out.
I never said it was legal, just if there was little traffic, it was safe because the road was made for it. I take it that you've never driven over the speed limit?
In the days times preceding Amtrak, when a passenger train had a 79 mph speed limit, I assume that was a rule of the railroad company. So, when a supervisor ordered an engineer to exceed the speed limit, did this amount to suspending the rule? If so, if a speed tape showed exceeding the 79 mph limit, was this not a rule violation because the rule had been suspended? Or was it a rule that had been violated with tacit approval from the supervisor that the rule would not be enforced for the occasion?
Aside from the company rule, in pre-Amtrak times, was the 79 mph speed limit also a government regulation? If so, to what extent did the government control speed limits of trains? How did the government enforce train speed limits?
I recall a cab ride on the GN where the engineer explained that he could only exceed the 79 mph limit by about 2 mph or an alarm would sound, and he had only some seconds to reduce speed and avoid a penalty brake application. How common was this? Could that system have been overridden on occasions where the company wanted to make up lost time?
Deggesty 243129 Deggesty Yes, from time to time, undesired events took place--possibly because the engineer did not reduce his speed at a point that he knew he should reduce his speed, an event beyond his control caused a mishap. Beyond his control??? If he "knew he should reduce his speed" then it is not "an event beyond his control". Is the engineer in control over someone who is on the track when the train approaches and will be hit by the engine if he does not get off the track?That such a person is on the track is beyond the engineer's control.
Is the engineer in control over someone who is on the track when the train approaches and will be hit by the engine if he does not get off the track?That such a person is on the track is beyond the engineer's control.
Once again. "Beyond his control??? If he "knew he should reduce his speed" then it is not "an event beyond his control".
Knowing that he should reduce his speed and not doing it is not an event beyond his control. What does someone on the track have to do with this conversation?
This is your original post is it not?
EuclidOr was it a rule that had been violated with tacit approval from the supervisor that the rule would not be enforced for the occasion?
That is akin to Trump promising you a pardon. If it's his skin or yours you're going down 'bigly'.
Backshop I never said it was legal, just if there was little traffic, it was safe because the road was made for it. I take it that you've never driven over the speed limit?
You equate this with running a train??? "Legal" is the key word here.
243129 Backshop I never said it was legal, just if there was little traffic, it was safe because the road was made for it. I take it that you've never driven over the speed limit? You equate this with running a train??? "Legal" is the key word here.
Also, the track is usually safer for marginally faster speeds than what is specified for speed restrictions. So if you want to make up time, why not fudge on the speed restrictions about the same percentage as on track speed?
243129You equate this with running a train??? "Legal" is the key word here.
You're equating today's standards/regulations with operating practices from 60-70 years ago....so....yeah.
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
Obviously 243129 is the bestest throttle grabber that ever grabbed the throttle in the long history of railroading in the USA. He can dictate his history and have his dictums acted upon by those now dead creators of that history. Bow down to his royal hineass.
Backshop 243129 Backshop I never said it was legal, just if there was little traffic, it was safe because the road was made for it. I take it that you've never driven over the speed limit? You equate this with running a train??? "Legal" is the key word here. Answer the question. My point, and several other peoples', was that just because there was an imposed track speed didn't mean the track was unsafe for marginally faster speeds.
Answer the question. My point, and several other peoples', was that just because there was an imposed track speed didn't mean the track was unsafe for marginally faster speeds.
What part of rules were made to be followed don't you get?
Euclid Also, the track is usually safer for marginally faster speeds than what is specified for speed restrictions. So if you want to make up time, why not fudge on the speed restrictions about the same percentage as on track speed?
Because it's against the rules and you open yourself up to liability.
EuclidAside from the company rule, in pre-Amtrak times, was the 79 mph speed limit also a government regulation? If so, to what extent did the government control speed limits of trains? How did the government enforce train speed limits?
We've covered this before. The restriction is 79mph because the rule is '80mph or above'. The original language is in the Esch Act of 1920, which returned the railroads from Federal Control, and had to do with the implementation of automatic train control on passenger trains. Enforcement of the 80mph restriction, largely invoking the original wording, became applied to all passenger service in the wake of the Naperville accident (although it has been noted that that accident would most likely not have been avoided with a 79mph restriction) via ICC order 29543.
This has nothing whatsoever to do with safe or prudent speed, or anything to do with track class. Nor does it, except circumstantially, have anything to do with a timetable permitted speed.
Here is a potentially interesting report
Overmod Euclid Aside from the company rule, in pre-Amtrak times, was the 79 mph speed limit also a government regulation? If so, to what extent did the government control speed limits of trains? How did the government enforce train speed limits? We've covered this before. The restriction is 79mph because the rule is '80mph or above'. The original language is in the Esch Act of 1920, which returned the railroads from Federal Control, and had to do with the implementation of automatic train control on passenger trains. Enforcement of the 80mph restriction, largely invoking the original wording, became applied to all passenger service in the wake of the Naperville accident (although it has been noted that that accident would most likely not have been avoided with a 79mph restriction) via ICC order 29543. This has nothing whatsoever to do with safe or prudent speed, or anything to do with track class. Nor does it, except circumstantially, have anything to do with a timetable permitted speed. Here is a potentially interesting report which contains some of the relevant history regarding implementation of train control systems.
Euclid Aside from the company rule, in pre-Amtrak times, was the 79 mph speed limit also a government regulation? If so, to what extent did the government control speed limits of trains? How did the government enforce train speed limits?
which contains some of the relevant history regarding implementation of train control systems.
So then, is exceeding the 79 mph limit a Federal offense as well as a violation of the company rule? Would it be something like cheating on your income tax?
243129 cx500 And the Superintendents of the day were willing (unofficially) to give them that latitude as it kept the trains on time, ......until something happened.
cx500 And the Superintendents of the day were willing (unofficially) to give them that latitude as it kept the trains on time,
......until something happened.
Nope, the trains ran on time after wrecks. You were more likely to lose your job if you couln't keep to the schedule.
243129 BaltACD Where there are NO SPEED RESTRICTIONS. If you don't know track speed, what else don't you know? Ah your imperious attitude surfaces again. Typical of one who has spent his career desk bound. So you are saying that there is/are/was no maximum authorized speed (MAS) areas?
BaltACD Where there are NO SPEED RESTRICTIONS. If you don't know track speed, what else don't you know?
That is not what he is saying, and if you don't know that you are more of a blockhead than I gave you credit for.
An "expensive model collector"
Everyone is a tough guy on the internet.
EuclidSo then, is exceeding the 79 mph limit a Federal offense as well as a violation of the company rule?
I believe 49CFR20111 clearly establishes that it would be. Someone correct me (or amplify) if not.
Interestingly, 49CFR20109 ("Employee Protections") (a)(2) clearly states that "a railroad carrier engaged in interstate or foreign commerce ... may not discharge ... or in any other way discriminate against an employee ... [who] refuse(s] to violate or assist in the violation of any Federal law, rule, or regulation relating to railroad safety or security." Might be interesting for someone more interested in this stuff than I am to find the date this was first incorporated in the code, as that would offer an earliest date that firing for failure to 'keep time' by exceeding the 79mph regulation would become a Federal offense.
Overmod Euclid So then, is exceeding the 79 mph limit a Federal offense as well as a violation of the company rule? I believe 49CFR20111 clearly establishes that it would be. Someone correct me (or amplify) if not. Interestingly, 49CFR20109 ("Employee Protections") (a)(2) clearly states that "a railroad carrier engaged in interstate or foreign commerce ... may not discharge ... or in any other way discriminate against an employee ... [who] refuse(s] to violate or assist in the violation of any Federal law, rule, or regulation relating to railroad safety or security." Might be interesting for someone more interested in this stuff than I am to find the date this was first incorporated in the code, as that would offer an earliest date that firing for failure to 'keep time' by exceeding the 79mph regulation would become a Federal offense.
Euclid So then, is exceeding the 79 mph limit a Federal offense as well as a violation of the company rule?
When was 49CFR20109 enacted? Remember - in the 1950's there was no OSHA, no EPA none of the regulatory organizations that exist today. In the 50's the railroads had to deal with the ICC as their main regulatory organization - a regulatory organization that nearly wiped railroads off the face of the USA until Staggers was enacted in 1980.
BaltACDWhen was 49CFR20109 enacted?
If I read/understood it correctly on October 16, 1970
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/20111
and then under NOTESRegards, Volker
To put this to rest.
A company official, in this case a superintendent, in the days of yore (1950's-60's) issues an order to get the train in on time and to exceed the posted speed limit. Would you consider this legal?
Yes or no.
THIRD POST FROM TOP OF PAGE #6
243129 said this:
Putting passengers lives at risk due to being ordered to exceed the speed limit is nothing short of criminal. Had there been a wreck with loss of life would the one who issued that order own up to it?
BaltACD said this:
It was a different world - you must be one of them 'pantywaist' Lib's trying to apply 21st Century sensibilities to an age gone by the did not have those same sensibilities. You can bleet all you want - the 1950's and today are two diffrent worlds.
The time was only 50 years past 'The Wreck of Old 97'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wreck_of_the_Old_97and the country was populated by members of 'The Greatest Generation' a generation who all possessed the CAN DO attitude when face with issues.
On Time was not just Management's instructions, it was ingrained into passenger service employees and had been from the time passenger service was created. Different Worlds, different times.
Your 'romance of the rails' has clouded your view. You cannot tell me that if a fatal wreck as was #188 occurred way back then and excessive speed, which was ordered, was the culprit that there would be no repercussions to the person that ordered that?
188's incident happened at a SPEED RESTRICTION - SPEED RESTRICTION'S had to be complied with. Areas where TRACK SPEED was operative was where time was to be gained.
*******************************************************
It sounds to me like the CAN DO attitude of the 1900 era has been rewritten in blue to extend another 60 years with superintendents ordering engineers to exceed the 79 mph speed limit in order to make up time.
http://cs.trains.com/trn/f/741/t/259651.aspx
Here is an example of what Balt was talking about, on the PRR.
"The farther west we went, the better the T1 performed. Our speed easily passed 90 several times. Now, before anyone reading this gets excited about the speed mentioned, and cites the fact that the legal speed limit for passenger trains on the Fort Wayne division was 79 mph, let me quote the road foreman at the time, on James A. (Pappy) Warren: "If you can't make up time without worrying about the speed limit, I'll get someone who can."
243129What control does the engineer have over people who want to cross railroad tracks just as a train is approaching? What control does the engineer have over a cow that is on the track? My question has nothing to do with the speed of the train, but with matters that are beyond the control of the engineer and may have serious effects upon the operation of the train. Yet, you give the impression that the engineer is in control of everything that may affect the operation of a train. Deggesty 243129 Deggesty Yes, from time to time, undesired events took place--possibly because the engineer did not reduce his speed at a point that he knew he should reduce his speed, an event beyond his control caused a mishap. Beyond his control??? If he "knew he should reduce his speed" then it is not "an event beyond his control". Is the engineer in control over someone who is on the track when the train approaches and will be hit by the engine if he does not get off the track?That such a person is on the track is beyond the engineer's control. Once again. "Beyond his control??? If he "knew he should reduce his speed" then it is not "an event beyond his control". Knowing that he should reduce his speed and not doing it is not an event beyond his control. What does someone on the track have to do with this conversation? This is your original post is it not? Deggesty Yes, from time to time, undesired events took place--possibly because the engineer did not reduce his speed at a point that he knew he should reduce his speed, an event beyond his control caused a mishap.
Yet, you give the impression that the engineer is in control of everything that may affect the operation of a train.
EuclidIt sounds to me like the CAN DO attitude of the 1900 era has been rewritten in blue to extend another 60 years with superintendents ordering engineers to exceed the 79 mph speed limit in order to make up time.
I thought the issue you were concerned with was whether violating the 'Federal speed law' was actionable. This is a different issue: the extent to which individual enginemen were actively prosecuted by 'the Secretary' or his minions for "choosing" to keep their jobs by running late trains fast to make time.
Note that this mirrors an earlier difference in operating priority that came up in the Cayce wreck discussion: On the New Haven, any operation with the signal system 'down' treated any facing-point switch as needing to be encountered at restricted speed ... no matter how long that delayed a given train ... whereas many other roads relied on other procedures short of spiking the switches involved to "provide" safety with less delay. It wouldn't surprise me to find the New Haven, or the operating crafts on it, also coming down more firmly on strict enforcement against 'expedient overspeed' in many cases.
I'd certainly have thought that any particular effort to put operating men in an evil quandary involving losing their job or seniority for "insubordination" vs. violating Federal law personally would result in clear union demands at the very next collective bargaining session.
Whatever you say Johnny
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.