BNSF (and maybe others, I don’t know) is replacing standard switches with ICS models. Why? What is the advantage supposed to be?
(1) Perceived faster time exiting & entering main tracks in dark territory.
(2) Fewer complaints from wimpy trainmen about hard to throw switches. (Ergonomics)
(3) In some places, fewer run-through switches and split point derails.
(*) But you are still supposed to inspect the switch before you throw it.[^o)]
We are now told that if a switch requires more than a quick sweep to clean, we are to leave it and go on to the next task, and report it to track maintenance. Same goes for iced over crossings, regardless of whether they are on railroad or customer owned track, we aren’t even allowed to try running the engine through first to bust up the ice/snow/mud.
#snownogo
What is the difference between “standard switches” and “independently controlled switches”?
I’m guessing we’re talking about the radio controlled power switches. Enter a code to query the switch, another to line it one way, another to line it the other.
Jeff
In a traditional interlocking, if you have a crossover and the two switches are lined differently, you can’t clear a signal over either track. For instance, if the crossover switch on Main 1 is lined and locked for straight movement, but the other half of the crossover on Main 2 is not lined and locked for straight movement, you can’t clear a signal over Main 1.
On BNSF, Independently Controlled Switches (ICS) refers to a crossover where this is not true - in the situation above, the dispatcher could run trains on Main 1 regardless of what’s happening on Main 2. So a maintainer can do regular testing and adjustment on one switch at a time without shutting down the whole railroad.
This is what the term ICS means. But it is not new, and has been implemented pretty much every time a control point has been resignaled for well over a decade. So I’m not sure if this is actually what you are referring to?
Sometimes people use the term to refer to control points that are set up so that maintenance workers can get authority over one of the switches while still running trains on other parts of that same track. For instance, suppose you have a double crossover, where the switches on Main 1 are far apart from each other and the switches on Main 2 are set close to each other - so, if you draw a schematic with Main 1 on top and Main 2 below, the crossover makes a “V” shape. If it is possible to get an authority over one of the two crossover switches on Main 1, while still running trains through the other crossover, some people will refer to those as “ICS” switches as well - but I don’t think that’s technically correct. The decision of whether to set up the CP this way is totally independent of whether the switche
[quote user=“dpeltier”]
BILL GRIFFIN
BNSF (and maybe others, I don’t know) is replacing standard switches with ICS models. Why? What is the advantage supposed to be?
In a traditional interlocking, if you have a crossover and the two switches are lined differently, you can’t clear a signal over either track. For instance, if the crossover switch on Main 1 is lined and locked for straight movement, but the other half of the crossover on Main 2 is not lined and locked for straight movement, you can’t clear a signal over Main 1.
On BNSF, Independently Controlled Switches (ICS) refers to a crossover where this is not true - in the situation above, the dispatcher could run trains on Main 1 regardless of what’s happening on Main 2. So a maintainer can do regular testing and adjustment on one switch at a time without shutting down the whole railroad.
This is what the term ICS means. But it is not new, and has been implemented pretty much every time a control point has been resignaled for well over a decade. So I’m not sure if this is actually what you are referring to?
Sometimes people use the term to refer to control points that are set up so that maintenance workers can get authority over one of the switches while still running trains on other parts of that same track. For instance, suppose you have a double crossover, where the switches on Main 1 are far apart from each other and the switches on Main 2 are set close to each other - so, if you draw a schematic with Main 1 on top and Main 2 below, the crossover makes a “V” shape. If it is possible to get an authority over one of the two crossover switches on Main 1, while still running trains through the other crossover, some people will refer to those as “ICS” switches as well - but I don’t think that’s tech