Thanks to all for their kind replies to my question. In the process of re-reading the question I realized the question could have been more clearly stated. The trials of being old and a being a Viking. I should say I have been hanging around railroads all my life and have a layman’s understanding of how signal systems work. My question should have been more along the lines of when running at authorized speed in fog or snow so dense the crew can only see the nose of the locomotive, getting a clear indications from the cab-signal, how does the railroad account for the unseen hazards that may be lurking on the tracks or right next to the tracks? A person(s), a stalled car, heavy machinery next to the tracks that was not called to the railroad’s attention, a large object that has fallen on the tracks but did not break the circuit, all scenarios that would be invisible to the crew until they were right on top of the problem. All which could cause the loss of life or a serious wreck. Under normal visibility conditions the crew could warn trespassers or hopefully stop before striking anything fouling the track. The qustion should have been, does the crew on its own, or under orders from the dispatcher, slow down when the visibility is zero or almost zero in cab-signaled territory.
And the return of the first-responder:
Traveling at Restricted Speed is the only thing that requires the speed of the train to be reduced far enough to stop short (within half of the range of vision) of trains, engines, obstructions, or anything that may cause the speed of the train to be reduced. The train crew would be entirely within their authority to proceed at the maximum authorized speed. A dispatcher would expect them to do this, saying that they should know where the grade crossings are, where the construction projects along their line are located, and that he (the dispatcher) had no knowledge of any storm that would have caused any trees to be blown onto the right-of-way. And there is some point where trespassers and people legally going across unmarked railroad crossings have to bear responsibility for their own actions. They should not approach a crossing without eyes and ears open. If they don’t think it’s safe to cross, they shouldn’t be doing it.
But then, I would expect an engineer who has lost track (sorry!) of where he is to proceed more slowly. Most of these guys are familiar enough with their territory to know roughly when to expect the next whistle board to appear, the next signal, and so on. But one overriding rule is, “When in doubt, the safe course must be taken.” If, in the engineer’s opinion, that course is to slow down–or stop–that’s what he should do.
This is, mind you, the opinion of a railroader who does not take a train out on the road, and has only his rulebook and the opinions of others to go by. I’m sure I’ll take plenty of flaming for what I’ve just posted, but it should be interesting, regardless.
There is nothing that requires the engineer to slow down, if he is running under clear signals…
However, if the dispatcher receives a report of trees down, slides, or other incidents, he may issue train orders slowing train speed. The engineer may also slow down if he thinks conditions warrant.
Nick
H*ll with the cab signals. They won’t tell you the Texaco truck is high-centered on the grade crossing. I’d slow down to a reasonable speed, considering visibility.
Hays
Unless one has a mile or more of unobstructed visibility of a identifiable obstruction to the track in clear weather the train is not getting stopped on visual indications alone, and who can see a obstruction from a mile distance. The reality, no matter the weather…unless the obstruction is identified to the train crew well in advance of the obstruction…a train operating at track speed will not get stopped in sight distance of the obstruction.
Trains do not have the stopping distances of highway vehicle…either cars or trucks. Cars & trucks operate on sight. Railroad ope
This is an interesting question, but maybe it would have been better to clarify the question in the first thread rather than starting a second thread. If I understand the answer to the question, it is this:
If you have clear cab signals, you can proceed at track speed unless told otherwise, even if there is zero visibility ahead. But if you think it is unsafe to do so, you may slow down to whatever speed you think is safe.
Is that the correct answer?
If it is, it seems like an odd way to handle the situation. It has been mentioned that engineers are supposed to know where the grade crossings are. It is one thing to know their location in relation to other landmarks, but if you painted the windows black, would engineers know exactly when the train is approaching a crossing? </
One incident that pretty much fits your ‘hazard hidden by the fog’ scenario was the wreck of Amtrak’s No. 2, the Sunset Limited, at Big Bayou Canot in Alabama in 1993. As a result of the fog, the barges hit and damaged the bridge by pushing the track as much as 38’’ out of line. A few minutes later at around 3 AM in the morning and in the same fog, the train comes cruising along at track speed - nothing pulled down the signals otherwise - and ran into the damaged bridge, derailing and killing 47 people. More details and links to the NTSB report can be found over on the recent Railroad Bridge Failures thread in this Forum.
Basically, it seems the accepted standard here is that the train is entitled - but not required - to proceed at full track speed on its supposedly exclusive right-of-way, unless there’s an obstacle of such a nature that would affect the signal system, or some other supervening warning or notice, such as from the dispatcher or observed extreme conditions as noted above, etc. That such operations have been occurring for many years without a huge loss of life - the wreck above, and some collisions of trains at unprotected grade crossing with vans full of migrant farm workers and the like in California’s notorious valley fogs, etc., excepted - says that the judgment and consensus of society via the regulators and legal system is that an appropriate balance between speed and safety has been achieved. Such events can and will continue to occur, but they will be ‘off-the-wall’ type scenarios, which seem to be accepted as an inherent risk of doing business and keeping the operation running more or less on-time. Without a doubt more can and will be done to improve safety in those conditions - such as adding crossing signals and vehicle presence detectors, and maybe infra-red video cameras to the locomotives to help the crews see further through the fog, etc. -
That is not the point of cab signals. Any person will slow down if they see a truck high-centered on the crossing (and any sane person would probably dump the train). But I could give you a list of grade crossings over hills or around bends that you can’t see until you are on top of them. Are we supposed to run prepared to stop short of every crossing?
You say any prudent person would slow down if they see a truck stalled on a crossing. But isn’t the point of this thread whether or not it is required or necessary to run slower in limited visibility when they can’t see ahead, even though cab signals are clear?
The prevailing point of view seems to be that it is not necessary to run slow under such circumstances because there is no hazard that running slow could prevent.
I think that one could compile a long list of track or right of way contingencies capable of causing death or injury to the crew that could be avoided by direct sight ahead, or by running slower if the sight ahead is limited by fog or other obstructing weather conditions. I am surprised that anyone could conclude otherwise.
[quote user=“Bucyrus”]
You say any prudent person would slow down if they see a truck stalled on a crossing. But isn’t the point of this thread whether or not it is required or necessary to run slower in limited visibility when they can’t see ahead, even though cab signals are clear?
The prevailing point of view seems to be that it is not necessary to run slow under such circumstances because there is no hazard that running slow could prevent.
I think that one could compile a long list of track or right of way contingencies capable of causing death or injury to the crew that could be avoided by direct sight ahead, or by running slower if the sight ahead is limited by fog or other obstructing weather conditions. I am surprised that anyone could conclude otherwise.
[quote user=“Bucyrus”]
You say any prudent person would slow down if they see a truck stalled on a crossing. But isn’t the point of this thread whether or not it is required or necessary to run slower in limited visibility when they can’t see ahead, even though cab signals are clear?
The prevailing point of view seems to be that it is not necessary to run slow under such circumstances because there is no hazard that running slow could prevent.
I think that one could compile a long list of track or right of way contingencies capable of causing death or injury to the crew that could be avoided by direct sight ahead, or by running slower if the sight ahead is limited by fog or other obstructing weather conditions. I am surprised that anyone could conclude otherwise.
[quote user=“Murphy Siding”]
[quote user=“Bucyrus”]
You say any prudent person would slow down if they see a truck stalled on a crossing. But isn’t the point of this thread whether or not it is required or necessary to run slower in limited visibility when they can’t see ahead, even though cab signals are clear?
The prevailing point of view seems to be that it is not necessary to run slow under such circumstances because there is no hazard that running slow could prevent.
I think that one could compile a long list of track or right of way contingencies capable of causing death or injury to the crew that could be avoided by direct sight ahead, or by running slower if the sight ahead is limited by fog or other obstructing weather conditions. I am surprised that anyone could conclude otherwise.
Could it be, because the foggy conditions do not hamper the operation of the train? It hampers the operation of other people and things that should be watching out for the train.
Not to sound callous, but the train is made to operate on the railroad’s tracks, at a given track speed. For better, or for worse, it’s the job of others around to keep themselves and their vehicles off the railrod’s tracks, and out of the way of the trains. Folks should be resonsible around trains, no matter what the weather or visabilty.
Yes, that’s the question, as I understand it; and the answer seems to be, ‘‘No’’.
I think you’re overstating that a bit. More accurately, while there may be hazards that running slow could prevent, those hazards are usually not the railroad’s responsibility - the railroad is entitled to assume and rely that the track is clear, if that’s what the cab signals indicate. The cab signals and signal circuits are set up to detect and warn of all of the usual and severe hazards - mainly stopped and opposing trains, switches lined wrong, broken rails, anything else that might shunt the track circuit. and maybe the slide detector fences and the like - that’s about it. So, once those hazards have been addressed and cleared, the railroad is then entitled to run at full speed, if it chooses to assume the risks and rewards of doing so under such circumstances - a very libertarian view of the issue, don’t you think
Cab signals or not, I think I can sum this up pretty easily.
Visibility has to be good enough for the engineer to know where he is on the railroad. His knowledge of his territory and movement authority (by any means) takes care of the rest. There are no other provisions that tie safe operations to visibility.
With the notable exception of ‘restricted speed’.
Paul and Norris,
Where to begin? You guys misunderstand my viewpoint on this, and I think you are going overboard in your assumption of the supremacy of running trains full speed with no visibility because cab signals tell them everything they need to know, and they can’t stop in time for the unexpected anyway.
First of all, with regard to my viewpoint on this, set aside completely any concern about running into people who should not be in the way. What I am saying in previous posts here has nothing whatsoever to do with that issue. Bystanders and motorist are supposed to stay out of the way of trains, and if it is too foggy to see, they must act accordingly.
I am not suggesting that trains slow down to make anybody safer except for those on board. But if railroad companies or engineers don’t want to slow down, I could not care less. Run as fast as you want. I am just looking at the objective reality that there is a windshield and a view ahead of a thousand things that could be wrong. So it seems bizarre to suggest that there is no difference between seeing the view ahead and not seeing it.
[quote user=“Bucyrus”]
Paul and Norris,
Where to begin? You guys misunderstand my viewpoint on this, and I think you are going overboard in your assumption of the supremacy of running trains full speed with no visibility because cab signals tell them everything they need to know, and they can’t stop in time for the unexpected anyway.
First of all, with regard to my viewpoint on this, set aside completely any concern about running into people who should not be in the way. What I am saying in previous posts here has nothing whatsoever to do with that issue. Bystanders and motorist are supposed to stay out of the way of trains, and if it is too foggy to see, they must act accordingly.
I am not suggesting that trains slow down to make anybody safer except for those on board. But if railroad companies or engineers don’t want to slow down, I could not care less. Run as fast as you want. I am just looking at the objective reality that there is a windshield and a view ahead of a thousand things that could be wrong. So it seems bizarre to suggest that there is no difference between seeing the view ahead and not seeing it. This is not analogous to flying air
What don’t I understand? You say you look out the side windows for landmarks rather than looking out the windshield for landmarks. If the fog is so thick that you can’t see out the windshield, how do you see out the side windows?
The view of the ground out the side window is much closer to you than the view over the nose. And if you had a little bride at the foot of the hill, wouldn’t you be looking for her, too?