.
Paul’s suggestion of restricted speed through a "work"er’s limits is reasonable but I think many will balk at this as schedules will be impossible to keep. However, it is a solution that is already covered by the rules and is easy to implement.
The definition of restricted speed in Canada is this:
A speed not exceeding slow speed (15mph) and being able to stop within one-half the range of vision of switches improperly lined, equipment and broken rails.
However, we must not jump to conclusions here. We don’t know what happened.
In signaled territory a device is used to detect an improperly lined switch. I think it is called a switch point controller. Perhaps the switch point controller could be tied to a “talker” device as is used in hot box detectors. The talker could give a message such as (1) “south siding switch at Podunk is lined for main track.” or (2) “Stop at south siding switch at Podunk for switch not properly lined.” Rules could be written to tell train crews to approach switches prepared to stop unless message (1) was received. This might be cheaper then fixed signals. It would also cover both trailing and facing point movements.
OK - same general idea, now just apply it to cover the industrial lead switches as well, without needing the cost and complexity of the radio-controlled switch machines = just ‘‘a signal in the immediate area of the switch displays the route that is lined.’’
- PDN.
Thanks for your support. However, note that I’m proposing this for not only for where ‘‘work limits’’ are in effect for a switching operation, but for all other main track switches/ turnouts in the ‘dark territory’. On any given trip, how many switches can there be that don’t already have highly-reflective targets that can be seen quite a distance in advance [Q] Maybe many now in some, but a quick program to install targets on all of them would solve most of that. The rest that are ‘around a corner’ could be handled either with a local signal as above, or just those few would be approached at the ‘restricted speed’.
On any particular run I doubt that there would be so many of those switches with restricted visibility - or local crews with warrants for ‘working limits’ - to seriously throw off a train’s schedule. It’s ‘dark territory’ for a reason, after all - the traffic is not too heavy, and the speeds are comparatively low. If that really becomes a problem, then maybe more signals or other improvements are needed anyway.
- Paul North.
Anything to do with signaling on the railroad is complex and expensive, even when you are not dealing with a radio controlled switch machine. Once installed then it becomes a continuing maintenance item $$$$$$.
At this point we still don’t know if this was a man failure incident or deliberate vandalism, vandals do everything they can just to cause the situation.
Or would it be an ‘electric lock’ [Q]
Either way, another good idea [tup] - just need a means for the approaching train to ‘query’ the talker.
- PDN.
Perhaps someone from the UP can tell us what they have done on the DARK former KP line in western KS and eastern CO. I have driven US 40 which parallels the UP at this location and have seen signals controlling sidings. These are long sidings where coal trains, both empty and loaded must meet. There are also grain and manifest trains on this line but no signals observed except where sidings are encountered.
This line has been rehabilitated in the past 10+/- years to handle long coal trains and these signals came into being in that process.
Well, choose your ‘devil’ then - slower ‘Restricted Speed’, or the costs of the signal. As the old saying goes, ‘‘You pays your money, and you takes your choice.’’ Probably best not a ‘one-size-fits-all’ decision, though - some of each is what would probably work best for most lines. A nest of obscured turnouts in otherwise ‘Slow Order’ areas could stay ‘as-is’; a lone one at the bottom of a grade with good track would probably warrant a signal installation to keep from having to stop a train there. Volume/ frequency would also be a major factor.
You’re right - we still don’t know the actual ‘root cause’ of this switch being misaligned, and vandalism/ sabotage is a ‘wild card’ that can defeat the best of safety systems. But of the 3 I mentioned, 2 - NS and BNSF - were definitely determined to be crew error. Plus, I think it’s harder for a vandal to throw the switch and re-jigger the signal - even if it’s just a switch target [notice that I specified ‘tamper-resistant’ fasteners for them above] than to just throw the swit
I do believe rules are pretty straight forward. Specific switches are agreed to be aligned a certain way by any crew after use unless directed otherwise by the train dispatcher, plus the padlock must be in place and locked for the given movement, thus the phrase “switches properly lined and locked”. In additon there is usually some kind of signal, be it light or reflectors, which indicates the alignment of the switch. Therfore if the rules are known and practiced by qualified (tested on the rules, timetables, and schedules), there should be no problems. If rules and procedures are ignored or if switch is tampered with or otherwise misaligned, then there are accidents. New rules, regulations, or hardware are not needed; what exists must be heeded!
I agree with henry6. There are too many rules already, we don’t need more.
As an example, we had a situtation in dark territory where a surfacing crew was giving up their track occupancy. A train was waiting at the red flag ready to go as soon as the equipment was in the clear and the foreman released them.
The foreman got the equipment into the side track, released the train and went into the depot.
You can see this coming can’t you?
The next thing the foreman knows, the train is in emergency heading into the side track on top of his equipment. A fair amout of equipment damage but no injuries or derailment.
During the review, investigation and analysis of the incident there was a lot of discussion about writing a new rule. (The proposed rule eventually put in place was the one noted above by cptrainman) Aside from the expected discsipline being issued, this new rule was pretty much the only other action taken and everyone felt they had “solved the problem”.
I argued against this new rule on the basis that there were already at least 6 other rules in place which dealt with the proper position of main line swithces which were ignored and adding this rule would not have changed this situation.
Preaching to the choir. Lawyers can’t sing and they are the determinant in implementing rules anymore…can the carrier get a legal ‘gotcha’. If you throw a thousand similar, overlapping but different rules on a situation…somewhere in there is a ‘gotcha’ whenever anything goes wrong…even if every thing was done right.
He wasn’t a “local” hoodlum. He was the son of a California doctor who came to Brookings with some of his friends who were attending South Dakota State University. The scuttlebutt is the goober wasn’t even working a job OR going to school, just living on daddy’s money. He and his roomates lived 2 blocks from the tracks and apparently he got bored one night. He was seen at the scene the next day. Witnesses said he raised his arms and said to his buddies “Hey I can honestly say I wrecked a train”.
Needless to say, they didn’t have to bring in Sherlock Holmes to find him.
The word is that Daddy paid very large cash settlements to the engineer and the family of the conductor in order to shorten his little darling’s prison term in some kind of deal. Since in South Dakota 15 years means 3 3/4 if you jump all the hoops and follow the rules, the little puke is probably out. I pray he is out of South Dakota and I pray for anyone who works on or lives near the tracks where he is now.
If I had a son that did that I would not be doing ANYTHING to get the IDIOT out of prison sooner. I would be helping the victims/families if I had the money.
Terrible.
I am a little confused on why everyone is focusing on a signal here? The signal you see is for a remote switch activated by radio. The switch that was lined wrong is a hand thrown one just beyond that point.
I havent worked the ground in that area since 2006,but ICE and BNSF got into a whizzing contest a few years back before 2005 over a switch in Muscatine being thrown.Dont ask me why they blamed BNSF but the rumor was they assumed it was a disgruntled BNSF guy who lined a switch in Muscatine. So they got rid of all their locks that we could use a key on and bought new ones and only gave keys to ICE guys.Now in locations where other railroads have or need access they have a bar that runs through the switch with latches on the end. One lock is ICe the other is pick the local railroad needing it.Now the locks are super tough,but the bars are not.
Again no other news updates that I have seen. Spokyone have you seen anything I might have missed?Plus NTSB site wasnt helping me either.
Might this incident have anything in common with this one? What role might the switch position form have played in this?
Jim
An update in the local paper from NTSB
Hi all had to bump this story back into the spotlight cause guess what? SOmeone left that same switch open again! No one was hurt nor was there any accident this time. It was however the same situation as last year.Clear the warrant and leave a switch open.
Luckily the NB train saw it was open adn got them stopped in time. Here is a link to the story in teh Quad City Times.
http://www.qctimes.com/news/local/article_1e5725ca-1b80-11df-89e5-001cc4c002e0.html
Unbelieveable! This is the only time that I have ever thought that somebody should be fired. If a crew is so stupid to repeat a situation where 2 people died, the whole crew should be fired. In my 13 years of railroading in “track warrant” territory I have never heard of this happening.
Now, that said. There must be some operational issue here that is causing confusion. Maybe the issue is that one of the siding switches is radio operated and the other is not (I’m guessing. I don’t know the territory).
We have a radio operated switch here and it must be activated for the desired route every time you approach it. Perhaps the crew that released the track back to the dispatcher knows radio switches need to be activated, thus lined for the desired route, but forgot that only one siding switch and not both are radio operated. When I’ve had “work” authority over the radio operated switch in my territory, I didn’t care about its position when I gave the track back to the dispatcher. I know each train must activate the switch for their desired route.
So it is either operational confusion and the company needs to make a operational change or that crew was stupid and should be fired.