Passenger Trains > NORAC signals and Standardization of signals among RR's

This is an excellent example of the madness that mergers have wrought upon just ONE set of signal rules in one rulebook.

http://broadway.pennsyrr.com/Rail/Signal/aspects_us_norac.html

http://modernrailroading.com/DigitalLibrary/Norac/signalaspectsandindications.htm

Go down to Rule 290 and look at all the different indications there are for a "Restricting" then think of trying to keep seven other RR's signal rules and five other rulebooks straight in your head as work out of Chicago. Yes, it is crazy.

Don't even get me started on the insane glob of arrangemnets that decades of consolidation at CSX - without any editing of out of numerous duplicative signals - CSX people have to learn.

Norac is different from most other rulebooks in that the signals are part of the actual rules and not subject to individual carrier application. I found Norac to be the best signal rule system I've ever studied and worked with, as every signal indication tells you exactly what you're doing and when, you don't have to flip through the TT and try to figure out the speed on a switch, normally the signal you get is the speed you can do.

I've long argued for ONE national set of signal rules, but of course the cost to implement would be staggering, and all the carriers would scream to have their own particular indications exempted.

I'm damn happy all I have to know are BNSF signals now (along with the simple and easy to grasp KCT signal rules) and they were pared down and made quite simple to learn and operate with in comparison to others right after merger.

Imagine what a mess the Air Traffic Control system would be if some airports had one standard for approach plates, some used another, some used blue taxiway lights, others used green, etc etc. Granted railroaders normally only run on one division and never see anything but their own carriers' stuff, but in Chicago, you'll see it all and then some and you'll never keep it straight.

Again, cost trumps safety and sensibility.

I recall the Penn Central training manual:

"If it is not all red, it is not red at all."

Good memory aid.

stash Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I recall the Penn Central training manual:
>
> "If it is not all red, it is not red at all."
>
> Good memory aid.

With the flashing red aspect now becomming common for Restricting on western roads:

"If the red is movin', so can you."

Another one we used have in NORAC class that might have come in handy recently:

"Bottom Yellow restricts a Fellow."

NZ

Standardization of signals sounds like a great idea.

As a kid, I always found looking at the old Pennsylvania NEC circular lunar signals to be very exciting. With the combinations of horizontal, vertical, diagonal, blinking, etc you knew exactly what was ahead.

(Hey, I had a deprived childhood...)

I always thought, "can't be seen, must be green".

A standard rule book for all of the railroads is most essential and the sooner the better. There
are too many different rule books today and indeed some Amtrak people are working out of five or
maybe even more sets of rules. I know the general context of the rules is pretty much the same
but the real rule is often different from book to book. What is OK on CSX is not OK on NORAC and
some crews on the same train work both books in different areas. What works here will not work
there.
Is it any wonder that we have problems with operator error (operator in this case being the
operator of a locomotive) and a major problem results.
The railroad industry needs to set down together and write a common rule book that applies
throughout the entire industry. If they are not willing to do this on their own, the FRA should
direct them to do so and if they still will not, then the FRA should do it for them. Differences
in signals or other details can well be covered in a special instruction(s) in the employee
timetable.
If this were to prevent one accident, it would be well worth while.
s

I'm ok with all that. But one of the primary roadblocks that remains is the differing equipment to display an aspect. CSXT and NS are "basically" down to 2 or 3 sets of rules, semi sort of based along the lines of the different types of equipment installed by predecessors. B&O CPL's and SBD Color light, though they share the same rule numbers and definition of indication, will always appear completely different in the field due to aspects they display.

Easy enough to implement a standardization plan, say with a target date of 2020 or whatever. RR's anymore are upgrading signals with regularity, especially with massive changeovers to Electrocode happening. By then they could have them changed over as a matter of course without it being a huge extra expense.

Love to have CPL's as a photo backdrop but a pain in the arse to work with! And the Pennsy all-white light PL's are easily confused in their indications, one leans this way, or both ways, or ...... Great to work with at night or in the fog, but when one gets fogged up from a long night at the office and trying to keep an alphabet soup of signals straight, trouble.

I do strongly feel that a yellow aspect should in no way shape or form be associated with an indication requiring restricted speed at a signal. Ditch the lunar too, very hard to make out in certain lighting conditions.

Flashing red on a controlled signal, or solid red on an automatic with a number plate with a full stop required before proceeding, is best.

Color my world!

Good article yesterday from the Sun-Times:

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/679684,CST-NWS-train04a.article

And a very well done article in the Trib:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-traincrash_04dec04,1,4919968.story

NebraskaZephyr Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> stash Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I recall the Penn Central training manual:
> >
> > "If it is not all red, it is not red at all."
> >
> > Good memory aid.
>
> With the flashing red aspect now becomming common
> for Restricting on western roads:
>
> "If the red is movin', so can you."
>
> Another one we used have in NORAC class that might
> have come in handy recently:
>
> "Bottom Yellow restricts a Fellow."
>
> NZ


My ex-UP neighbor had one
"If it yellow, run mellow"

Slow Approach vs. Restricting

Perhaps he confused these two rules.

Slow Approach is Yellow over Red, while Restricting is Red over Yellow. Slow Approach is also Red over Red over Flashing Yellow while Resitricting is Red over Red over Yellow. If fatigued or not paying complete attention to the aspect because of some distraction or simply forgettign and trying to remember the aspect, it would be easy enough to confuse the order of the two colors or forget one saw a Steady Yellow.

Slow Approach says slow speed until the train clears the interlocking, then medium speed prepared to stop at next signal. That pretty much describes what the engineer did. He slowed down to ~10 mph in the interlocking, then sped up to 35+/- mph once he cleared it.

If this is what happened, and I can't see there being another really good explanation other than simple ignorance, it makes a lot of sense.

Under whose rules does Y/R represent Slow Approach? I've always seen that display for the Approach aspect. Except for certain dwarf signals, I've always thought that the top lamp had to be red for any diverging-route signal.

abyler Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Slow Approach vs. Restricting
>
> Perhaps he confused these two rules.
>
> Slow Approach is Yellow over Red, while
> Restricting is Red over Yellow. Slow Approach is
> also Red over Red over Flashing Yellow while
> Resitricting is Red over Red over Yellow. If
> fatigued or not paying complete attention to the
> aspect because of some distraction or simply
> forgettign and trying to remember the aspect, it
> would be easy enough to confuse the order of the
> two colors or forget one saw a Steady Yellow.
>
> Slow Approach says slow speed until the train
> clears the interlocking, then medium speed
> prepared to stop at next signal. That pretty much
> describes what the engineer did. He slowed down
> to ~10 mph in the interlocking, then sped up to
> 35+/- mph once he cleared it.
>
> If this is what happened, and I can't see there
> being another really good explanation other than
> simple ignorance, it makes a lot of sense.

It's already been stated that the Englewood signal does not have a "slow approach" aspect. Either red over yellow = "restricting", or red over flashing yellow = "medium approach." Yellow over red as "slow approach" is only applicable on a DWARF signal. On a high signal, it is "approach."
Also, the Sun-Times article seems to imply that the engineer should have slowed down just because there were trains on the two adjacent tracks. That has NOTHING to do with the Amtrak trains speed. If they thought they had a "diverging approach", the only thing they had to worry about is finding the next signal. If they had responded properly to the "restricting" aspect, they would have been creeping around ALL the curves, including the one just west of the Englewood diamond, where reports say they sped up.

PumpkinHogger Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Norac is different from most other rulebooks in
> that the signals are part of the actual rules and
> not subject to individual carrier application. I
> found Norac to be the best signal rule system I've
> ever studied and worked with, as every signal
> indication tells you exactly what you're doing and
> when, you don't have to flip through the TT and
> try to figure out the speed on a switch, normally
> the signal you get is the speed you can do.

And in typical bass-ackwards railroad mentality, NS will be pulling out of NORAC mid-2008 and replacing their operating rules with a brand new single-system version. The "new" book will be derived from both NS and NORAC, and will have bits and pieces pulled out of each.

I guess having NS convert completely to NORAC would have made too much sense, and been too cost effective (since large parts of NS already use NORAC and wouldn't have had to be trained on it other than their yearly exam) so instead they're going to teach EVERYONE a new set of rules and make the passenger agencies learn to do it their way.

Of course, the Shared Assets Areas will be retaining NORAC, which means NS people in those areas will have to carry two sets of books, and take two rule tests per year.

Hmmmm ... what happens if EVERYONE on NS fails their new rules test? Is NS ready to take the entire system out of service?

Hope they're ready to actually TEACH us the new rules, instead of just handing us the book and informing us that there will be a test on it later.