The Jon Roma article in the March, 2008 issue was good as far as it went.
The simplified signalling used by some railroads is a penny-wise invitation to disaster. Furthermore, the argument that the cost of converting signals on tens of thousands of miles of track would seem to exaggerate the true proportion of an issue that is only relevant at control points with a restricted aspect, and only entails adding or changing a signal indication.
My question is how or why permission was given to a passenger train to enter an occupied block from a control point? This was not a swiching move. Why wasn’t the engineer at least advised by radio to proceed cautiously to stop short of the train ahead and made an acknowledgement before given a restricted signal? Would this allow a following train to advance or go around?
I do this stuff for a living so I find your comments interesting. I don’t know what you mean by “simplified signaling”. Would you define that?
How much money do you think is appropriate to spend to revise U.S. signaling systems, rulebooks, training, and track to provide standardized aspects and indications? Would a trillion dollars be worth it to you? I might underestimate. You probably are thinking I made that number up, so here’s some facts. One cannot just “change aspects” at control points without understanding the ramifications of such a change. Unless the signal equipment at that CP is modern solid-state, it will require a complete re-equipping of the control point – a one-switch end-of-siding control point, which is as simple as it gets, is $500,000. Even if it is solid-state the engineering and field work is easily $50,000-100,000.
Before aspects are changed at a CP, it’s necessary to consult the aspect charts to see if intermediate signals need to be reaspected and respaced. R
What I call “simplified signaling” is the use of only two signal heads to indicate through or diverging movements. In many cases, this is a rationalization of previous “so-called ‘speed signalling.’” Speed signalling was not a practice confined to Eastern roads. This practice was wide-spread, but is in a state of conversion in the case of Metra lines in the Chicago area, the UP, and former BN lines.
Adding a signal aspect, whether old electro-mechanical relay-based or modern solid state would not require a complete re-equipping in most cases. In the first instance, additional relays might be hard-wired in the existing cabinet, and often there is room. The railroad may want to replace this equipment anyway; but you can’t charge the full cost to adding another aspect. Money also would be spent on cabling and a signal lines; but an additional/replacment signal head can be mounted on the existing mast.
The need to consider respacing signals seems moot inasmuch as the signal in advance of a restricted aspect at the control point would show approach. This requires being in contol and prepared to stop short of the next, control point, signal just as in the case of a stop aspect.
As far as rulebook changes are concerned, this is virtually routine with every change that comes along. Unless the entire railroad has been converted, signal indications will depend on the rules for individual sites, control points.
I do not dispute a rule for restricted speed for the signal indication at the location in question. The onus is on the engine crew to get it right. The point is that signal indications may be non-uniform or in a state of change even on the same railroad, and more so when crews operate over two railroads.
Another inconsistency is that, under track warrant practices, orders must be acknowledged. Entering an occupied block strikes me as being similar to operating in track
I think this has entered into the realm of opinion. You’re arguing there’s a need for change, that the cost-benefit threshold has been met, and the technical problems are not extraordinary. I don’t see any of that, but I concede that my direct experience with Class I railroad operation, rules, engineering, traffic & marketing, wayside signaling design, construction, and modification, and CBTC design, adaptation, and implementation may have blinded me to the bigger picture. I’m often told by the young bucks that I’m “cynical” or “too negative.”
If you have any questions you’d like me to answer, or if I can help you in your pursuits, or if you’d like to know my insights why your program isn’t happening, fire away. I find your knowledge of railroad operations, signaling, rules, and engineering fascinating. I’m here to help!
The engineer is supposed to be qualified to operate upon the territory for which he/she takes the call to go to work on. Qualified, in part, means he/she understands the difference in the signal systems of the various roads they are to operate on. Lets be real, when you (as the engineer) start seeing PRR position light signals in front of the train it certainly should trigger some situational awareness, if it doesn’t then perhaps this engineer wasn’t fully qualified on this territory and never did understand the signal system.
I personally do not feel that a national “One signal fits all” is needed. Above all, the train dispatcher certainly doesn’t have the time to tell every train that there is a train ahead.
[#ditto]!!! I was thinking about this thread last night while I was at work, so I looked at a legnth fo acouple of track segments just after a control point. I found a couple on the desk that I was working that were over 30,000 feet long. This means that depending on the amount of intermediate signals in that block, it is very possible that a train entering that occupied block could be doing so on a clear indication. As a dispatcher, I do not know what indication is out in the field, and to start telling trains what signals they have will lead you to have to cash out your job insurance.
The Railroads had the cost of changing over to air brakes. It was done for safty. Signaling is an old way of doing things and must be changed. The cost can be managable if done right.
And how many billions are you willing to donate to keep the cost manageable? Even on one of todays Class I systems there are at multiplicity of signal system designs, even where the signals display the same aspects. Todays Class I’s are made up of many included fallen flag carriers. On all these properties, no signal system was installed in one fell swoop all at the same time and all within the domain of one lead signal engineer with a single technology available.
Railroad signal systems have been installed piecemeal over time. Each Subdivision or significant line segment was done as the press of traffic required more capacity and it was determined that the signal system was the most cost effective way to gain the capacity. One fact of life in any company is that leadership chages over time, and with each change in leadership there are changes in ideas, couple the changes in leadership with the ever changing offerings of technology in the area of signals and you begin to come up with compounding levels of signal design over the years. Even in updating antiquted signal systems with modern technology, the entire system cannot be done at the same time. As each year goes by, technology changes.
When the Class I’s decided to have their Centrailized Train Dispatching centers, one of the biggest problems that was encountered, was to make the multiplicity of signal systems installed in the field appear to operate in the same manner from the Train Dispatcher’s view point. Without computers to accomodate the varying requirements of each system encountered it would not have been possible.
If I have opinions, they come from questions that arise in an issue.
I have work experience in transportation planning and dealt with a lot of railroad issues from abandonments to commuter services. This was a labor of love. I continue to be a rail advocate and keep trying to find out as much about the industry as possible and to get the facts when something dubiuous comes along. Many issues go beyond my experience and knoledge. This site provides a forum for discussion of concerns and for sharing information.
You very well may have more experience than I. One of your valid concerns is cost-effectiveness of investments. PTC involves safety issues that must take into account aspects such as societal values that are difficult to quantify. PTC also can become a political question as well as a political hurdle.
The last I heard Positive Train Control was close to acceptance in Michigan. The lack of success in Illinois on the Chicago-St.Louis Corridor led the State to cancel the program and to look to the proven cab signaling technolgy. I didn’t know there was so much active interest in PTC among the railroads beside BNSF and UP. I am skeptical of PTC when companies get government R&D contracts to re-invent the technology avoiding someone else’s patents. I can be cynical with a good reason too.
To my knowledge, most of the railroads in the Chicago area have upgraded their automatic block signal systems to solid-state electronics and coded track circuits to eliminate costly wayside pole lines. Cab signalling amounts to a plug-in card, a building block in the system’s architecture. It seems so simple. What am I missing?
The Metra RID, UP West, and maybe the BNSF already have cab signalling for at least part of the lines. For years I have urge NICTD, RTA and CATS (now CMAP) to put cab signalling in their transportation plans for the rest of the network for speed compliance. Me
The Michigan PTC project is a one-off demonstration project created by the FRA and Amtrak in furtherance of the goal of achieving higher speeds for passenger trains first and a communications-based train-control system second. Not unsurprisingly, given its architecture, encountered severe technical problems. It is grandfathered and not subject to the requirements of 49 CFR 236 Subpart H, the FRA rule published on March 7, 2005, to establish risk-based performance standards for all processor-based train control systems. As a result it is a complete dead-end.
Given the report of a red-over-yellow aspect, it’s safe to assume that the Red Team no longer rules, and color light signals have replaced the position light that had a 135-deg lower diagonal array under a horizontal, later red, array restricted indication.
Just to clarify, I was talking about the occupied signal block protected by the restricted aspect at a control point; not including all the intermediate blocks and signals to the next control point. The former Conrail main signal blocks in the City were about 1 - 1-1/2 miles long. I suspect this hasn’t changed much with NS.
Had the freight train been in the second block ahead, a through approach or diverging approach would be appropriate. However, given the limited aspects with two signal head route signalling, the more restrictive rule would apply for a diverging route at the control point in question. Yes, the train engineer is supposed to know the applicable rule; but the difference from one location to the next is bound to lead to more accidents, it’s human nature.
Train warrant operation addresses this problem by requiring radio acknowledgement for authority to move. Dispatcher permission by radio seems to be necessary to enter a block when the signal is red in ABS territory. A resticted aspect at a control point would be no different than a permissive stop indication at an intermediate signal.
Had the freight train been three blocks ahead, a clear, green-over-red, or clear diverging, red-over-green, would be appropriate with no possible confusion.
The patchwork of signal aspects and indications on railroads is bad enough already. Railroads seem to be in a constant state of change with regard to signals, so why not establish a standard? I for one think it’s time for a national standard; and the discussion could begin with an evaluation of the Canadian standard and best practices world-wide. For the sake of continuity, adopting Canadian signalling aspects and rules would be desirable if suitable.
Would it be desirable to install cab signals, automatic train control, on high speed passenger lines despite an overlay of ETMS just to satisfy the FRA while avoiding the qualification process?
The piecemeal implementation of railroad signalling you point out is both the cause and opportunity for standardization. The issue is not so much the technologies as it is the signal aspects displayed at control points and approach signals.
My off-the-wall guess is that most current installations would be compliant given the industry and professional objective of making clear distinctions between signal indications and the applicable operating rules. Standardization can be an industry initiative decided by consensus. Hopefully this may deflect further federal involvement that proved to be obstructive in PTC and ADA requirements.
Cost is another matter and a greater challenge given the state of the economy. The federal government may be inclined to invest some money in national infrastructure with a new administration. No one wants to see another interstate bridge collapse; but the railroad industry can point to infrastructure needs as well in the examples of the M&B bridge collapse in Murtlewood, AL and of the Pere Marquette collision. Railroads are better for the environment and energy efficiency as well.
The problem is getting the money without the Catch 22. Zero percent loans? Open grants? A share or redirection of the fuel tax that may still be going into national debt reduction? A piece of an increase in the federal Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax? Any ideas?
I have read all of the responses here and I don’t believe this part of the question was ever addressed. I believe that a restricted proceed is commonly used to allow a train to enter an occupied block, regardless of freight or passenger equipment. The obvious reason to me (non railroader) would be to keep the traffic flowing more freely. It also seems to me (non railroader) that this is by no means an unsafe practice if the signalling rules are followed. Please note that I am not considering the non-standard signal issue in my reply, only the matter of the use of restricted proceed on its own merits.