Passenger Trains > 79 mph FRA rule

When did the FRA first set down the 79mph (and other speed limits) rule? I have heard many stories from the 30\'s and 40\'s of 100mph+ running on the old PRR, ATSF, IC, and others for instance.

All the above RR\'s you mentioned had either ATS or cab signals or both, all of which allow speeds of greater than 79 MPH. However, RR\'s like the Seaboard Air Line, Philadelphia & Western, and parts of the Pennsylvania-Reading Seashore Lines among many others, did not have any type of speed control and since they weren\'t as strict as they are today about speeds, 100 MPH was still very frequently attained.

The original ICC rule appeared circa 1947, but the final deadline for compliance was circa 1951? so some 90 mph limits weren\'t removed immediately.

On April 25, 1946, CB&Q train #39, the Exposition Flyer (predecessor of the California Zephyr), ran into the rear of train #11 which had made an unscheduled stop at Naperville,IL to inspect its train. 45 people were killed and 69 injured in this accident. The accident was caused by the failure of the engine crew of #39 to operate the train in accordance with signal indications.

As a result of this accident, the Interstate Commerce Commission opened Docket 29543 on May 20, 1946, with a view toward requiring the installation of cab signals, automatic train stop or automatic train control on all lines of railroad where trains operated in excess of 50 miles per hour. After hearing varying views on the subject, the ICC decided to require:

- Cab signals, automatic train stop, or automatic train control wherever passenger trains were operated at speeds of 80 miles per hour or higher

- A block signal system wherever passenger trains operated at speeds of 60 miles per hour or higher

- A block signal system wherever freight trains operated at speeds of 50 miles per hour or higher.

The principal result of this order was the reduction of passenger train speeds to 79 miles per hour outside of cab signal or train stop territory, and to 59 miles per hour in "dark territory". Similarly, freight train speeds were reduced to 49 miles per hour in "dark territory". A few railroads did install cab signals or train stop to preserve higher speed limits, but by this time it was clear to most roads that further investment in passenger trains was not warranted. In fact, most previous installations of cab signals or train stop were in response to an earlier ICC order requiring their installation on at least one subdivision of each road for experimental purposes.

That MARC - Amtrak collision is just one more reason NOT to run ANY passenger train in the push mode - EVER. People will make mistakes from time to time, but if there is always a locomotive on the front of every passenger train, far fewer passengers would be hurt or killed in a collision.

That awful collision is yet another reason to install ATS or ATC on ALL passenger trains.

MargaretSPfan wrote:
> That awful collision is yet another reason to install ATS or
> ATC on ALL passenger trains.

A system is needed for safety but I don\'t believe ancient technology like ATS is the answer. GPS-based systems would seem to offer the best protection. All trains need it, not just passenger trains. Otherwise, only certain trains would have the safety feature, not all trains.

MargaretSPfan wrote:

> That MARC - Amtrak collision is just one more reason NOT to
> run ANY passenger train in the push mode - EVER.

Please explain why this is so necessary. I\'m not trying to be callous about it, but to put things in perspective, there are something like 40,000 deaths on the highway each year. Railroads are something like 10 times as safe, on a passenger-mile basis. Where is the urgency?

Further, push-pull mode is common in much of the rest of the world.

> That awful collision is yet another reason to install ATS or
> ATC on ALL passenger trains.

Again, where\'s the urgency, given the public\'s acceptance of the risk of driving?

run8 wrote:
> Please explain why this is so necessary. I\'m not trying to
> be callous about it, but to put things in perspective, there
> are something like 40,000 deaths on the highway each year.
> Railroads are something like 10 times as safe, on a
> passenger-mile basis. Where is the urgency?

Suppose a passenger train fail to obey a stop signal and runs into a freight train. Beside the potential casualities, suppose there was a string of propane tank car and a nearby string of, say anhydrous ammonia or chlorine tank cars. Imagine the propane cars just blow up, with all the ammonia or chlorine there...Could even be two freight trains colliding. For example, in 1998, CN 781, a gasoline tank car unit train, derailed near Mont St-Hilaire. Train 306, coming in the opposite direction on the other main track ran into the derailed tank cars, turning them into a giant fireball, destroying the locomotives, dozens of cars and killing its two crewmen (Paul Davis and Robert Thériault).

Rail does handle much more dangerous goods than the roads. It may be safer overall, but it still requires tougher safery criterias than roads. However, even CTC or ATS couldn\'t stop the accident related above from happenning, it was the result of unfortunate circumstances. The 781 had to derail just a few seconds ahead of 306...

In Canada, passenger train operate up to 100mph on FRA class 5 track under plain CTC (no ATS or cab signals), and so far we\'ve had no problem resulting from this increased speed. The Thamesville wreck in 1998 (?) occured in dark territory and was caused by a misaligned switch by a CN crew which worked the territory a few hours before; CTC has since been installed by CN on every dark territory line where passenger train operate in Southern Ontario (the Chatham and Grimsby subs), to be sure it won\'t happen again.

Transport Canada requires cab signal and speed enforcement system for speed higher than 100mph - which we don\'t hve yet. Sounds like a good compromise between the strict 79mph FRA limit and the arguments of no-limit no-rules FRA-must-die proponents.

JF

<In Canada, passenger train operate up to 100mph on FRA class 5 track>

I don\'t believe the FRA track classes apply in Canada, any more than the signal rules do. Does Canada have a comparable set of track standards?

MargaretSPfan wrote:

> That MARC - Amtrak collision is just one more reason

If you read the NTSB report on this event, you will find that ATS/ACS would not have prevented this accident. Bob

timz wrote:

> The original ICC rule appeared circa 1947, but the final
> deadline for compliance was circa 1951? so some 90 mph limits
> weren\'t removed immediately.

Yes. Santa Fe had until Oct 1952 to comply. The chosen response was not to reduce speed to 79 mph but to install Intermittent Inductive Automatic Train Stop (ATS). Approximately 2000 miles of the California and Texas main lines were equipped as were all high speed passenger diesel cab units and numerous passenger steam locomotives. Most ATS was installed in 1950 and 1951. Only track segments which normally exceeded 80 mph were included. ATS remains in place on some districts and is still used by Amtrak. Bob

Stash and run 8 have the right idea, IMHO. But let me add, why does a government agency tell a private operation like a railroad just how fast they can run their trains? True, automobile speeds are designated but here you have a scramble system with no dispatchers and an understanding that most drivers cheat on speed limits anyway. Can you imagine a commercial jet that gets a 200 mph tail wind and winds up doing a ground speed of 700 mph being required to slow down to 550?-I don\'t think so. It should be up to the individual railroads to determine safe train speeds.

Hal

J-1Hudson wrote:

> Stash and run 8 have the right idea, IMHO. But let me add,
> why does a government agency tell a private operation like a
> railroad just how fast they can run their trains? True,
> automobile speeds are designated but here you have a scramble
> system with no dispatchers and an understanding that most
> drivers cheat on speed limits anyway. Can you imagine a
> commercial jet that gets a 200 mph tail wind and winds up doing
> a ground speed of 700 mph being required to slow down to 550?-I
> don\'t think so. It should be up to the individual railroads to
> determine safe train speeds.
>
> Hal
>
> [%sig%]
Actually, FAA controllers specify every aspect of an airliner\'s passage, including speed. As long as a railroad never crosses a public road, I don\'t care what they do. But if they do cross a public road they have an obligation to warn the public and to do it at a speed that is appropriate to conditions. With modern technology, this can all be done at a very reasonable cost.