30(3) in a rear end collision?

[jjamtrak]

Does anyone know if #29 will run on Wednesday 8/6? I need to catch that train for a connection in Chicago and I called Amtrak and they have no information.

 

[jis]

Why wouldn't it run on the 6th? Nothing that has transpired so far would cause it to not run, unless some track work intervenes.

 

[oldtimer]

To explain the involvement of the conductor, as stated earlier he is in charge of the train IE the captain of the ship. The engineer is required to call the conductor signal indications (all signals on some roads and just indications that do not display a clear signal on others). Thus if there was an initial signal display other than clear it would have been called by the engineer back to the conductor. The conductor is then responsible to see that the engineer complies. If the engineer complied he must have had a more restrictive signal before entering the block occupied by the freight train and should have transmitted that via radio to the conductor. That signal should have displayed a stop, a stop and proceed, or a restricting speed (being able to stop in one half of the distance of vision). Unless there is a signal malfunction you are given a warning to slow down. The signal can also as it is said "go red in your face" if the rail continuity is disturbed such as act of vandalism. It is apparent from the low level of impact that the engineer was operating at under track speed, therefore the conductors involvement.

 

[Steve4031]

This is pure speculation on my part. Judging from the light impact, the engineer and conductor were already dealing with more restrictive signal indications. 30 was already operating at a slow speed which allowed it to stop without more than a hard coupling. IMHO the engineer and conductor were alert enough to follow the signals that required slowing down. The issue is what happened with the signal protecting nfs 058. Was it missed by the engineer or did the signal malfunction.

 

[jis]

Possibility is that they were operating under restricting speed, but unfortunately a little too fast to stop within half the visual range or some such.

 

[oldtimer]

Possibility is that they were operating under restricting speed, but unfortunately a little too fast to stop within half the visual range or some such.

That is also my conclusion, jis I just wanted to explain the whole signal procedure to those that are not as adroit at railroading as you and many others here.

 

[Big Iron]

Possibility is that they were operating under restricting speed, but unfortunately a little too fast to stop within half the visual range or some such.

That is also my conclusion, jis I just wanted to explain the whole signal procedure to those that are not as adroit at railroading as you and many others here.

I'm one of those less adroit at railroad operations so an uneducated question. Would the operating crew been in the same amount of trouble had they not hit the other train for having over run a block occupied by that train???

 

[MattW]

Possibility is that they were operating under restricting speed, but unfortunately a little too fast to stop within half the visual range or some such.

That is also my conclusion, jis I just wanted to explain the whole signal procedure to those that are not as adroit at railroading as you and many others here.

I'm one of those less adroit at railroad operations so an uneducated question. Would the operating crew been in the same amount of trouble had they not hit the other train for having over run a block occupied by that train???

Not necessarily. Some controlled signals are setup to allow a "restricting" aspect to light up when there's a route set through the signal, but the preceding train hasn't fully cleared the block yet, it was explained as a way of keeping traffic flowing a little bit better, and giving the dispatcher a means to let a following train proceed without having to "talk them by" the signal (I know it requires paperwork, but the specifics of that, I do not know). Intermediate signals (protecting train movements between controlled areas) are generally treated as stop and proceed which has a similar effect, except the train has to stop first before moving past the signal, while I don't think they do with a restricting aspect. This video (not mine) demonstrates this as the first aspect the signal comes up to after the Amtrak train passes is restricting, notice it's only a short amount of time from the Amtrak passing (you can still see it!) to the restricting coming up:



General question, what was the train the Capitol Limited hit? Intermodal? Mixed-freight?

 

[crescent2]

How much distance or time is generally required between trains on the same track? My friend and I, who aren't overly interested in signals and such, were very surprised at the frequency of freight trains on the track beside ours on one of our trains. I think this was on the wb Cap Ltd. We would see a freight train seemingly every few minutes for a long stretch. It was just for that one segment.

 

[MattW]

How much distance or time is generally required between trains on the same track? My friend and I, who aren't overly interested in signals and such, were very surprised at the frequency of freight trains on the track beside ours on one of our trains. I think this was on the wb Cap Ltd. We would see a freight train seemingly every few minutes for a long stretch. It was just for that one segment.

Signal blocks are usually every 1.5-2 miles, they're right at 2 miles here on CSX's Georgia Sub, and some segments may have shorter blocks, down to a mile on main track, and much shorter in terminal areas (can't generalize much further, every railroad is different in this aspect). To make things easy, we'll say your train is going 60mph and the freights are stopped. Let's say the host railroad requires 3 blocks between trains, so you have a train every 3 blocks. If the signal blocks are 2 miles apart, then you could see a train every 6 miles, or every 6 minutes. If the freights are moving in the opposite direction of your train, then you could see them much more frequently, maybe as short as 3 minutes in our example.

 

[crescent2]

Thanks, Matt. Our perception, which is only a perception, was that it was a freight every two or three minutes for awhile. We didn't take the trouble to time them. This was out in the middle of nowhere. Just a lot of trains--much more frequently than we'd ever see around here.

 

[strangebrew]

Ic, we have to be given a red signal bypass. There is no signal aspect for our track that allows entering an occupied block without contacting control. Learn something new every day.

 

[Anderson]

I can't wait to see the NTSB report on this one. I've got a friend on 29(4) who got bustituted; on the bright side, he got to use the lounge and Amtrak seems to be doing right by him. I told him to enjoy a good sleep once he gets on the train and look forward to breakfast in the morning.

For the record, said friend is using the train to get to the RNC meeting in Chicago. Despite some Twitter theatrics, he actually isn't mad, and I'm going to try and walk him through getting a voucher. As I told him...if this was an airline, he'd probably just be SOL.

 

[neroden]

In light of this, what is the conductor's responsibility if s/he suspects an engineer is under the influence before he takes over the controls? Or during the trip is DUI?

The conductor has the right to relieve the engineer from duty. I actually read a story from an old hand about a conductor who had the engineer removed from the train *by police, in handcuffs*. (This was not for suspected intoxication, but simply for not operating in a manner which the conductor considered prudent.)

....anyway, one of the several reasons why conductors and engineers have to "qualify on the territory" is that there are a ridiculous number of different signalling systems in use in the US. There's no standardization -- the same lights may mean different things on different sections of track. (Cab signals generally eliminate this craziness).

Judging from the low speeds, my *guess*, and it's only a guess, is that this was a move at "restricted speed", which means "be prepared to stop within half the range of your vision", and either the engineer overestimated the range of his vision, or his brakes weren't quite as good as he thought they were. The freight train may have been particularly invisible for some reason. Restricted speed moves are used for finicky yard work where you can't guarantee clear blocks, but they're also sometimes used on the mainline under special circumstances.

As someone noted, on some railroads absolute stop signals are very uncommon and the most common restrictive signal aspect is "stop and proceed at restricted speed". This is actually not a very safe method of operation, which is why certain other railroads don't do it. I have no knowledge of the particular rules on this section of track.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Safety and speed are a matter of compromise, Nathaniel.

 

[neroden]

Of course, in this case, it is possible that allowing restricted-speed movement may have ended up slowing the train down a LOT.

 

[oldtimer]

Just as a reference a few years back the Pere Marquette rear ended a train that had a string of unloaded container cars. It was broad day light with two qualified engineers in the cab. Both were confused by a signal indication after they went from one railroad to another and the signal aspects meant different speeds. Both were terminated, the fact that both were relatively new engine service employees did not make a difference. One is a friend of both my wife and I and she has never returned to engine service.

 

[neroden]

The pile of different signalling aspects in the US is actually kind of disgraceful. Hopefully a general move to cab signals will eliminate this unnecessary source of confusion.

 

[NW cannonball]

I was looking at Google maps around the accident site - (incident? see nothing on the NTSB site about this minor incident)

There may be interlocking signals involved, not just blocks.

Could be a lot of things, not just block signal failure.

There's seemingly an interchange with another rail line near the incident (not accident) site. Maybe with hand throw switches and dispatcher responsibility for fouling the main and all that.

That opens up a lot more possibilities for signal and/or dispatcher failure.

Let's just defer judgment and wait for the probably never NTSB answer. (zero injuries, minimal damage to engines and rails)

Any investigation will be limited. We'll never hear what happened.

 

[Steve4031]

29 which left Pittsburgh yesterday is showing service disruption into Chicago on status maps. Amtrak reports a 1:12 pm arrival. I'm going out on 30 tonight. If they use this same equipment we may be late departing tonight. Any opinions as to what will happen? I'm thinking the operating crew will need rest if there is a shortage of crews from this mess.

Glad I switched my reservation for continuing to Miami to 97.

 

[user 1215]

I'm still baffled at how a conductor who is in the train is responsible for calling signals. He can't see them! This was one of the problems in the Metrolink disaster.

Why don't the signals have some sort of checksum that would force them to fail dark rather than fail clear or approach? Kinda like a traffic signal where you are forced to stop (like a 4-way stop sign before proceeding) and get dispatcher authorization to then move forward.

 

[NW cannonball]

Please VF - asking questions you already know the answers to -- please-man.

You, and me, and every other long-time poster here know that the signals are designed o fail safe.

 

[MetraUPWest]

^They CAN fail, it's just rare. Signals are tested at regular intervals per the FRA. If one is wired wrong it can cause a false clear. If a problem develops in the circuitry it is designed to display the most restrictive indicatioc- restricting or stop.

I've heard Amtrak already said there was a rules violation, and I'm sticking with my fatigue theory.

Engineers are supposed to tell the Conductor every signal, and the Conductor repeats it back. If the signals weren't being called out the Conductor will be in trouble. If they were he/she will likely be put back in service.

 

[jis]

Remember the Wolverine accident when a Wolverine (AFAIR it was a Wolverine. It was on the Michigan ITCS segment) accelerating out of a station landed up in a yard track instead of on the main line and derailed? It had clear indication on the main. It was found that some signal folks were tinkering around in the control box without proper authority.

BTW, some more info on the 30 rear end collision.... the collision speed was 3mph. The FRED on the NS freight was not working. Both the freight and the Amtrak crew are on leave pending investigation.

 

[NorthShore]

The FRED on the NS freight was not working. Both the freight and the Amtrak crew are on leave pending investigation.

How are freight train rear ends marked? Is it typically just the FRED or are additional red lights placed on the last car?