Railroaders' Nostalgia > Speed Signals Explained

Sometimes you just get frustrated…

Starting in 1992, Caltrain spent about a decade upgrading the former SP San Francisco Peninsula line from ABS and Interlocking to CTC, which was, as you would suspect, a great improvement. To us 'end users', the new system functioned almost identically to SP CTC installations, and likewise continued to use the SP traditional route signal arrangement with which we were all familiar.

Towards the end of the work, Caltrain rather suddenly changed course for reasons that still are not clear to me. In their wisdom, Caltrain decided that it would replace the route signaling setup with a speed signals arrangement. The process involved replacing all of those still-new absolute signals, as well as the remaining old intermediate block signals with multi-headed hydras.

We BLE officers were generally apprised of the plans to the level of actually being consulted about the placement of one signal mast. When the new arrangement was up and (sorta) running, it was apparent to us that adjustments were in order. Amtrak's number two signal department guy on the (speed signaled) NEC rode with me one day, and I (uncharacteristically) patiently explained about various misappropriate signal indications and a host of other nagging issues. The signal guy gave me a straightforward answer, to the effect that, yeah, Caltrain had a poorly designed setup, but it minimally complied with FRA standards, and that was all that anyone higher-on cared about. I truly appreciated his honesty, if not the portent of his words.

Accordingly, the results were not good - for a host of esoteric reasons that I won't get into here. Overall, we engineers were not pleased, because our way of thinking, a straightforward signal arrangement had been replaced by a more complex one that actually conveyed less useful information. In fact, the new system was complicated enough that one of the civil engineers on the Caltrain staff responsible for the new installations never was able pass the test on the new signals given to Amtrak operating employees.

What was done was done, but I was not able to leave it alone. By way of ongoing, futile protest, I came up with an addendum to the Caltrain rules (below) that I distributed during rules classes. You may note the frustration.

EO



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/18/15 11:43 by hogheaded.

---

---

Having come to Caltrain from a "normal" railroad, I too was surprised by the shift from route signaling to speed signalling. The extra cost to be able to tell the engineer they had to be at 50 MPH rather than it was a diverging move coming up did not strike me as the right info to impart. The "logic" I heard expressed was that the engineer therefore did not need to memorize what speed to be at for any specific location, they just had to obey what the speed signal indication displayed. That would then be "simpler" for them. I particularly remember the "Christmas Tree" aspect displayed as you come out of Tunnel 1 on the way to the 4th and King Station as being "simple" to understand what was intended ahead. 

Given that I was on the track and structures side, not the signal side, it was a big learning curve for me to try to make sense of it. I was always able to pass the MOW version of the GCOR and Physical Characteristics exams. 

I appreciate your amended signal aspect chart and can look back at it with amusement as I have moved on back to "normal" railroading.

Jeez! Could even our number #1 Engineer Lenny, let alone the Farm Animal understand all of that? I'm sure glad I'm retired from that rat race!

Hilarious stuff as always Ed, and a lot of work too! Peachy Keen!

We've used speed signaling for decades here in NORAC country, but it sounds like Caltrain "customized" it a little too much. I can't think of a good reason for having more than one aspect for a given indication on a single route like that.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/18/15 17:23 by CPR_4000.

Can't stop laughing,,, must find diaper...

It's called Booze-Allen and changing your supplier/designed in mid-project.

Having just run the Peninsula a couple hours ago following 154 all the way with my fair share of Approach Limiteds, Approach Mediums, and Approach Slows, I would argue this is a much better system than route signals and should be expanded further.

This post raises questions that somehow never entered my old head before. I was raised on the SP with the ingrained belief that the signal system was a science and I never heard it questioned by anyone. Knowing that both hogheaded and wharfrat have years of experience on the SP, before Union Pacific came on the scene and before Caltrains was even thought of,
I post the following question to each:
What are your views on the old SP signal system? What I'm asking is whether it was thoughtfully set up and adequate to handle your needs for safe and proper train handling.

wharfrat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
Having just run the Peninsula a couple hours ago following 154 all the way with my fair share of  Approach Limiteds, Approach Mediums, and Approach Slows, I would argue this is a much better system than route signals and should be expanded further.

I just spent four days in rules class finishing just this evening. This made me laugh my a$$ off, which I sorely needed. Thanks!

EtoinShrdlu Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's called Booze-Allen and changing your
> supplier/designed in mid-project.

"Steve", the original perpetrator of the system, rode with me early-on in in the process, ostensibly to get input, but we never got to that in a mere hour and a half because he was too busy sounding his own horn, so to speak. I didn't hear much of what he said, since about five minutes into the "conversation" alarm bells began ringing...in my head.


xrds72 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Having come to Caltrain from a "normal" railroad,
> I too was surprised by the shift from route
> signaling to speed signalling. The extra cost to
> be able to tell the engineer they had to be at 50
> MPH rather than it was a diverging move coming up
> did not strike me as the right info to impart. The
> "logic" I heard expressed was that the engineer
> therefore did not need to memorize what speed to
> be at for any specific location, they just had to
> obey what the speed signal indication displayed.
> That would then be "simpler" for them. I
> particularly remember the "Christmas Tree" aspect
> displayed as you come out of Tunnel 1 on the way
> to the 4th and King Station as being "simple" to
> understand what was intended ahead.

You hit the nail right on the head, all the more impressive since you aren't an operating guy.

Any engineer will tell you that there are few things more fundamental to the craft than memorizing track speeds. It's amazing how short a time that it takes to internalize them, however. And speeds are only a small part of what an engineer must commit to memory: air spots, stopping spots and hazzardous spots; operating rules, air brake rules and  special instructions; all the rest. It's all part of the job that we were hired for. To suggest that we need speed signals because we can't remember things is a flat insult.

In regards to your insight about speed signals not indicating exactly where you are headed, if somebody cannot understand why an engineer (sharing 47 miles of multiple track territory with maybe fifteen or twenty trains) needs to know the particulars of where he/she is headed in advance, one should be designing tinker toys, not signal systems. Route signals tell you this with an economy of signal heads, to boot.

Another flaw of (Caltrain's) speed signals is with what they supposedly were designed to avert - the need to memorize specific speeds at specific locations. This is what the E-Z Guide was all about - the exceptions to the norm. In several places on Caltrain (which the engineer must memorize), signal aspects give non-standard speed indications, a self-defeat to the logic behind speed signals.

I can still remember the speeds on most of the territories that I ran on during my career, but darned if I can remember a goodly number of speed signal indications after only six years of retirement. Jeeze, until now I hadn't considered that maybe this is because the short-term memory goes first…


johnw Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Jeez! Could even our number #1 Engineer Lenny, let
> alone the Farm Animal understand all of that? I'm
> sure glad I'm retired from that rat race!
>
> Hilarious stuff as always Ed, and a lot of work
> too! Peachy Keen!

John, I really miss our silly banter in the engineers' lounge.

As far as Farm Animal was concerned, speed signals were his undoing. One particular progression of southbound speed signals in the CP Brisbane - CP Sierra area was a trap (probably still is). He fell into it, ran a stop signal ,causing his dismissal, which was later commuted to a medical retirement. I understand that he has a nicely landscaped ammo dump in Arizona.

CPR_4000 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> We've used speed signaling for decades here in
> NORAC country, but it sounds like Caltrain
> "customized" it a little too much. I can't think
> of a good reason for having more than one aspect
> for a given indication on a single route like
> that.

There IS a straightforward, if not good, reason, but hell, I've already bashed the Caltrain bureaucracy enough for one thread.

When I studied NORAC rules at mid-career, I judged them to be borne of some sort of Satanic ritual, but to each his own, I guess.


wharfrat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Having just run the Peninsula a couple hours ago
> following 154 all the way with my fair share of
> Approach Limiteds, Approach Mediums, and Approach
> Slows, I would argue this is a much better system
> than route signals and should be expanded further.


Why were you tailgating? (-:


EO

hogheaded Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> When I studied NORAC rules at mid-career, I judged
> them to be borne of some sort of Satanic ritual

You know us Easterners . . . in bed with the devil and all that.

>What are your views on the old SP signal system?

Route signaling -what the SP used- is just fine.

>What I'm asking is whether it was thoughtfully set up and adequate to handle your needs for safe and proper train handling.

It had to be, according to ARA/AAR signaling standards and practices, many of which have been incorporated into the applicable statutes and regulations.

>Having just run the Peninsula a couple hours ago following 154 all the way with my fair share of  Approach Limiteds, Approach Mediums, and Approach Slows, I would argue this is a much better system than route signals and should be expanded further.

Having used route singals all my RR career (40+years) and observed speed signals in action a few times, all I can say is that the more signal indications you have, the further you descend into TMI overload. The simplest explanation of the difference between route and speed signals is that with route, the signal tells you where you are going to go. You have to be qualifited on the territory, so you know what speed you have to go at any given point, so the only things to worry about are the speeds through turnouts (switches). With speed signaling, you still have to be qualified on the territory, and you are told what speed to go by the signal. It's jsut that you have no idea of where you might be going after you pass the signal.

>> It's called Booze-Allen and changing your supplier/designed in mid-project.

>"Steve", the original perpetrator of the system, rode with me early-on in in the process, ostensibly to get input, but we never got to that in a mere hour and a half because he was too busy sounding his own horn, so to speak. I didn't hear much of what he said, since about five minutes into the "conversation" alarm bells began ringing...in my head.

I've run into this too - - - only from the Amtrak Choo Choo U and mechanical wizards from back East re their 26-C air brake system.

>Another flaw of (Caltrain's) speed signals is with what they supposedly were designed to avert - the need to memorize specific speeds at specific locations.

I've taken to calling this Brain Dead Train Driving. It's also a case of the Blind Leading the Sighted.

>I can still remember the speeds on most of the territories that I ran on during my career, but darned if I can remember a goodly number of speed signal indications after only six years of retirement. Jeeze, until now I hadn't considered that maybe this is because the short-term memory goes first…

Same here.

>Why were you tailgating? (-:

Famous Low Water (Linn) comment over the radio: "We've got another yellow signal back here."; to which the engineer who was relating the story said "And here I was going 65 mph with empties!". I used this several times on Lenny while following him up the Peninsula one day with the Post Office train, to the amusement and delight of the pilot (Santa Clara - SF). That was the day I realized how short SJ - SF really is. It's about the same as 10th St - Bahia, and Gilroy - SF is equivalent to 10th St - Sac.

That's hilarious stuff Ed.  I never had any problem with speed signals, but I thought it was a good example of trying to fix something that wasn't broken.  Route signals worked just fine for a lot of years.  Things were getting pretty boring around here.  Thanks Ed for spicing it up again. 

"We ignore today to use yesterday to build tomorrow."  I'm going to use than from now on.  Excellent.

Just wait until CalTrak gets electrified!

Westbound Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This post raises questions that somehow never
> entered my old head before. I was raised on the SP
> with the ingrained belief that the signal system
> was a science and I never heard it questioned by
> anyone. Knowing that both hogheaded and wharfrat
> have years of experience on the SP, before Union
> Pacific came on the scene and before Caltrains was
> even thought of,
> I post the following question to each:
> What are your views on the old SP signal system?
> What I'm asking is whether it was thoughtfully set
> up and adequate to handle your needs for safe and
> proper train handling.
>
> wharfrat Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> Having just run the Peninsula a couple hours ago
> following 154 all the way with my fair share of
> Approach Limiteds, Approach Mediums, and Approach
> Slows, I would argue this is a much better system
> than route signals and should be expanded further.

This came in under the radar when I was composing my characteristically long-winded response, further above.

It's not really a case of comparative safety between the two, per se, but more about which better fits the Caltrain operation. Caltrain's speed signal system was presumably based upon the NORAC model, which has been around for a long time, and I've never heard anyone say that speed signals are inherently unsafe, or that they are "less safe" than route signals. Properly designed, both are/were fine within their limitations.

My fundamental problem with the concept of speed signals simply is that they give no concrete advance warning about onto what path your train is to be headed. I don't want to get into lengthy explanation, except to that it is preferable to develop a clear course of action before getting into the thick of it. It may be hard to envision, but running a train only one track over from normal can create a host of safety issues, in particular. That Caltrain's speed signals use more signal heads and appliances (and signal indications) to convey less useful information than route signals is more of a problem for the taxpayers footing the bills than for me. My job was to adapt to the new system, and like most, I managed well enough. If an approach medium tells you to go past the next signal at not exceeding medium speed, its pretty straightforward that you don't exceed the 25 mph track speed at that next signal. That the indication is worthless is no never-mind since you know your track speeds, despite what your handlers may think.


daylight Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "We ignore today to use yesterday to build
> tomorrow."  I'm going to use than from now on.
>  Excellent.
>
> Just wait until CalTrak gets electrified!

Yeah, but having no idea of what's going-on with Caltrain currently, I ask: How does Positive Train Control mesh in with the current system. Are all of those impressive signal bridges going to be melted down into dumpsters?  Wharfrat, now's the time to get even with me!

EO

 



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/20/15 16:51 by hogheaded.

Speed signals are appropriate in an environment where there are multiple tracks, many control points, and crossovers and turnouts of varying speed. Take a look at Amtrak's TT for Washington-Boaton. There are 73 CPs between New Your and Wahsington. In some areas, 6 main tracks. I defy any Engineer to memorize all the turnout speeds on that territory.

On a mostly 2MT environment, like CalTrain, with 23 CPs between SF and San Jose, and most of the crossovers No. 20, good for 40 or 45 mph, it would propbably be easier to remember the crossover speeds.

A consulting firm named SYSTRA was involved in the signal design work. Their signal simulator was initlally built for use on the Long Island, a PRR-owned railroad, so speed signals are what SYSTRA is familiar with.

And then, of course, to make matters interesting, is the use of Route signals between Santa Clara and Gilroy. So crews need to know BOTH types of signal protocols! Not to mention, a different definition of Limited, Medium, and Slow speeds than what is found in NORAC.

 

Diverging moves through Clatrain's #20 turnouts (which make up most of the crossovers in the CP's) are at 50 MPH

JGFuller Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Speed signals are appropriate in an environment
> where there are multiple tracks, many control
> points, and crossovers and turnouts of varying
> speed. Take a look at Amtrak's TT for
> Washington-Boaton. There are 73 CPs between New
> Your and Wahsington. In some areas, 6 main tracks.
> I defy any Engineer to memorize all the turnout
> speeds on that territory.
>
> On a mostly 2MT environment, like CalTrain, with
> 23 CPs between SF and San Jose, and most of the
> crossovers No. 20, good for 40 or 45 mph, it would
> propbably be easier to remember the crossover
> speeds.
>
> A consulting firm named SYSTRA was involved in the
> signal design work. Their signal simulator was
> initlally built for use on the Long Island, a
> PRR-owned railroad, so speed signals are what
> SYSTRA is familiar with.
>
> And then, of course, to make matters interesting,
> is the use of Route signals between Santa Clara
> and Gilroy. So crews need to know BOTH types of
> signal protocols! Not to mention, a different
> definition of Limited, Medium, and Slow speeds
> than what is found in NORAC.
>
You've summed things up nicely. I had the pleasure of making a head-end trip on the NEC, and the necessity of employing of speed signals quickly became evident. As you rightly point out, Caltrain is a whole different animal. If Caltrain's setup included provisons for indicating routes I would have simply have written it off as just another innocuous piece of insufficiently thought out design work - not hazardous, not helpful.

I wouldn't make much of Caltrain engineers facing two different signal protocols, as I suspect that many engineers out there routinely face three or perhaps more railroad rule books on a daily basis. The fundamental problem is not comprehending the signals, but rather keeping current with all of the changes in the railroad-specific modifications to NORAC or GCOR, along with each RR's TT bulletins and special instructions. At the very minimum, you don't want to look ignorant when your managers are out joint-testing you on somebody else's railroad. Hell hath no fury like a manager embarrassed (-;

My biggest disappointment about the whole affair was that the drafting square and triangle boys never bothered to establish an effective dialogue with us end users. In other words they preferred employing theory to the exclusion of hundreds of years of territory-specific operating experience. Thus, we figuratively got a set of one-size-fits-all bikini briefs, and the fit was a little loose. But heck, that's the way that the world and human nature turns.

EO

 

Why didn't they just put the MPH on the signal lens?  May be a stupid question but, it sure seems more simple to me.

tomstp Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why didn't they just put the MPH on the signal
> lens?  May be a stupid question but, it sure
> seems more simple to me.

No such thing as a stupid question. The overall answer gets very involved, but the fundamental problem is a lack of visability/readability of the numbers a sufficient distance ahead of the signal when a speed reduction is involved. This might be practical with in-cab signals, and perhaps is even done somewhere.

EO