Eastern Railroad Discussion > NS signal.

The intermediate signal at 152, (Painesville on NKP line Chicago to Buffalo) did something interesting. Eastbound showed advanced approach meaning next home signal would be approach so they had an eastbound lined up. So westbound should have been all red, however it showed approach. Wonder why this is. Maybe signal malfunction I was thinking but this signal has done that before. Anyone else see this happen or know what causes it?

Posted from Android

Sounds to me like you are looking at intermediate signals with nothing lined up. 

Rathole Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sounds to me like you are looking at intermediate
> signals with nothing lined up. 

​on the same track a dispatcher setting traffic for one direction would set intermediate signals in the opposite direction to stop and proceed ... did you go back and check the eastbound signals again... perhaps the dispatcher changed traffic in your travels ,,,

Nothing lined either way could produce this result if the next signal after the Advance Approach isn't an absolute. Are you sure the next signal is, in fact, a home signal? Based on the milepost, I would think this is the first intermediate east of the east end of Painesville siding.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/08/16 20:20 by toledopatch.

That's possible if the dispatcher didn't have the previous CP lined up. Example CP 194 (Berea) is lined up for an eastbound to go east on one track, so the distant signal at 195 would show a clear on one track eastbound, but the dispatcher didn't have CP 197 lined up to go east so the westbound signal at 195 on track one would be approach. Hope this helps .

The symbol formerly known as Q122 is out.

toledopatch Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Nothing lined either way could produce this result
> if the next signal after the Advance Approach
> isn't an absolute. Are you sure the next signal
> is, in fact, a home signal? Based on the milepost,
> I would think this is the first intermediate east
> of the east end of Painesville siding.

Yes it is, next signal east of said intermediate is home signal for west end of Perry siding, if i had more time I would have ran out there to check it

Posted from Android

Rathole Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sounds to me like you are looking at intermediate
> signals with nothing lined up. 

Agreed. 

this is a reiiteration but in 261 territory I don't see how both of the opposite intermediates on the same track in the same block can display indications other than Stop and Proceed when trains can still operate in that block whether the signal at the CP is pulled up or not ... on the NEC in 261 territory block occupancy doesn't set the opposing intermediate signals at Stop and Proceed ... traffic direction set by the dispatcher sets the signals to red (Stop and Proceed) in the opposite direction whether the block is occupied or not ...

Most of the signal systems on Norfolk Southern's various 261 territories do not require the dispatcher to manually set a direction. It is possible to have intermediate signals in places that display a clear in both directions until a direction is set by a route lined through a control point.

The only line on my territory that still requires a direction be set is a line that once used Wabash's Manual Block Remote Control system. 



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/09/16 08:23 by ARandall70.

Out_Of_Service Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> this is a reiiteration but in 261 territory I
> don't see how both of the opposite intermediates
> on the same track in the same block can display
> indications other than Stop and Proceed when
> trains can still operate in that block whether the
> signal at the CP is pulled up or not ... on the
> NEC in 261 territory block occupancy doesn't set
> the opposing intermediate signals at Stop and
> Proceed ... traffic direction set by the
> dispatcher sets the signals to red (Stop and
> Proceed) in the opposite direction whether the
> block is occupied or not ...

Some Rule 261 signal systems are "left as last used" so the red remains in the direction opposing the most recent movement until the dispatcher lines a new route. Others clear up the opposing direction as trains pass the intermediates, unless a following train is lined in. Still others clear up the intermediates once the last lined train passes the next home signal.

I'm not sure what's going on with the scenario described in the original post here. The most logical explanation would be that the signal described is one of two intermediates between the east switch at Painesville and the west switch at Perry, in which case the "no-trains-lined" aspects would be Approach in one direction and Advance Approach in the other, depending on which siding this signal was closest to. But looking at Google Earth I could only find one intermediate signal between Painesville and Perry, which means that (if I read the OP correctly) the eastward signal at West Perry must have been showing Approach. So for whatever reason, the DS probably had that signal lined up even though nothing was lined up eastbound out of Painesville at the time.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/09/16 08:42 by toledopatch.

toledopatch Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Out_Of_Service Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > this is a reiiteration but in 261 territory I
> > don't see how both of the opposite
> intermediates
> > on the same track in the same block can display
> > indications other than Stop and Proceed when
> > trains can still operate in that block whether
> the
> > signal at the CP is pulled up or not ... on the
> > NEC in 261 territory block occupancy doesn't
> set
> > the opposing intermediate signals at Stop and
> > Proceed ... traffic direction set by the
> > dispatcher sets the signals to red (Stop and
> > Proceed) in the opposite direction whether the
> > block is occupied or not ...
>
> Some Rule 261 signal systems are "left as last
> used" so the red remains in the opposing direction
> until the dispatcher changes it. 

Dispatchers don't change signals. They line routes. 

Out_Of_Service Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Rathole Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Sounds to me like you are looking at
> intermediate
> > signals with nothing lined up. 

There is no stop and proceed on this line. This is former NKP.
>
> ​on the same track a dispatcher setting traffic
> for one direction would set intermediate signals
> in the opposite direction to stop and proceed ...
> did you go back and check the eastbound signals
> again... perhaps the dispatcher changed traffic in
> your travels ,,,

Posted from Android

toledopatch Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Nothing lined either way could produce this result
> if the next signal after the Advance Approach
> isn't an absolute. Are you sure the next signal
> is, in fact, a home signal? Based on the milepost,
> I would think this is the first intermediate east
> of the east end of Painesville siding.

Toledopatch, you are wrong about this. With the new signaling system in place we regularly get an advance approach at Flint, eastbound on the Sandusky District at S11.7. The very next signal is an absolute, Worthington, and the second signal is an intermediate, 6.6. The first time I saw it I was like how in the heck is this even possible. We, it is and it happens regularly. The explanation was its because of the newly upgraded signal system. It's weird but its the way it is.

Posted from Android

Some flavors of CTC have a hard traffic state so one direction is always showing Stop and Proceed.  Others allow the opposing block to float until a direction of traffic is established by a route being set at an interlocking or a train entering the line segment at a hand throw switch. US&S usually did the former and GRS the latter. NKP was a US&S customer and would not havehad opposing proceed indications, however it appears that the resignaling now allows for this.

NS9743 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The intermediate signal at 152, (Painesville on
> NKP line Chicago to Buffalo) did something
> interesting. Eastbound showed advanced approach
> meaning next home signal would be approach so they
> had an eastbound lined up. So westbound should
> have been all red, however it showed approach.
> Wonder why this is. Maybe signal malfunction I was
> thinking but this signal has done that before.
> Anyone else see this happen or know what causes
> it?
>
> Posted from Android

toledopatch Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Out_Of_Service Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > this is a reiiteration but in 261 territory I
> > don't see how both of the opposite
> intermediates
> > on the same track in the same block can display
> > indications other than Stop and Proceed when
> > trains can still operate in that block whether
> the
> > signal at the CP is pulled up or not ... on the
> > NEC in 261 territory block occupancy doesn't
> set
> > the opposing intermediate signals at Stop and
> > Proceed ... traffic direction set by the
> > dispatcher sets the signals to red (Stop and
> > Proceed) in the opposite direction whether the
> > block is occupied or not ...
>
> Some Rule 261 signal systems are "left as last
> used" so the red remains in the direction opposing
> the most recent movement until the dispatcher
> lines a new route. Others clear up the opposing
> direction as trains pass the intermediates, unless
> a following train is lined in. Still others clear
> up the intermediates once the last lined train
> passes the next home signal.
>
> I'm not sure what's going on with the scenario
> described in the original post here. The most
> logical explanation would be that the signal
> described is one of two intermediates between the
> east switch at Painesville and the west switch at
> Perry, in which case the "no-trains-lined" aspects
> would be Approach in one direction and Advance
> Approach in the other, depending on which siding
> this signal was closest to. But looking at Google
> Earth I could only find one intermediate signal
> between Painesville and Perry, which means that
> (if I read the OP correctly) the eastward signal
> at West Perry must have been showing Approach. So
> for whatever reason, the DS probably had that
> signal lined up even though nothing was lined up
> eastbound out of Painesville at the time.

There is only one intermediate signal between Painesville and Perry. The line here in most spots have just one intermediate signal between sidings.

Posted from Android

SALGUY Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> toledopatch Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Nothing lined either way could produce this
> result
> > if the next signal after the Advance Approach
> > isn't an absolute. Are you sure the next signal
> > is, in fact, a home signal? Based on the
> milepost,
> > I would think this is the first intermediate
> east
> > of the east end of Painesville siding.
>
> Toledopatch, you are wrong about this. With the
> new signaling system in place we regularly get an
> advance approach at Flint, eastbound on the
> Sandusky District at S11.7. The very next signal
> is an absolute, Worthington, and the second signal
> is an intermediate, 6.6. The first time I saw it
> I was like how in the heck is this even possible.
> We, it is and it happens regularly. The
> explanation was its because of the newly upgraded
> signal system. It's weird but its the way it is.
>

How can you possibly get an Advance Approach if the next signal is Stop? (other than a defect, of course)

It's certainly appropriate for Advance Approach to display if the second signal is Stop -or- Stop and Proceed -or- Restricting, regardless of whether any of the signals is automatic or controlled.

But as I stated in a later post, the only plausible scenario for a signals facing in opposite directions at the same location to display the aspects described in this post is for the next signal beyond the one displaying Advance Approach, in this case a home signal, to be lined for movement and displaying Approach even though nothing is lined into the block before the home signal. It is possible to do that, but not common; for example, a dispatcher could be lining an eastbound train up ahead of time even while that eastbound waits at a siding farther west for a westbound that has already cleared the block in question.
 

Patch has it right. Nothing lined into that block, but a signal lined out of that block. Many people make the mistake of thinking signals are always lined by the dispatcher in a consecutive, orderly fashion. This is not the case. The dispatcher may have lined signals for a meet at the next siding, while allowing the autorouter to line the trains up to that siding. SALguy, if you are getting advance approaches at CP's, it means the autorouter is not adjusted properly to clear signals far enough ahead. You should report these to the dispatcher if it's like that every time. Some locations have been fixed, some have not. The dispatchers will have no idea what aspect you have in the field. Autorouter only lines two CP's ahead, this is likely what is happening at Flint. Worthington won't line until you knock down Powell Rd (eastbound). 

halfmoonharold Wrote

Autorouter only lines two CP's
> ahead, this is likely what is happening at Flint.
> Worthington won't line until you knock down Powell
> Rd (eastbound). 

We were able to convince the company (and GE) to adjust this at one location with many short blocks guarded by CP's. In this 10 mile or so stretch, autorouter will line up 4 CP's in a row.

Posted from iPhone

In my area of the Piedmont Division, some of these Advance Approach issues with the Autorouter persisted well over a year after the Autorouter was turned on.  In one particular location near Charlotte, NC, there are seven consecutive control points, some of which are spaced close enough to warrant the use of Advance Approach indications.  At some of these locations, they quickly reprogrammed the Autorouter to line multiple control points in advance of a movement, but at one location, they did not program reprogram the Autorouter for about a year and a half.  During that period, unless the dispatcher manually lined one of the control points, every train would encounter an unnecessary Advance Approach indication.  Thousands of trains operated on unnecessary Advance Approach indications before they reprogrammed the system to line three control points in advance at this location.  To me, this seems like "baiting" crews into complacency in compliance with the signal system.  Heck, we always get this Advance Approach here, why slow down?  

Halfmoonharold mentioned that there are locations on his division where this scenario has not been fixed yet, and Off-pending mentioned that they were able to "convince" the company to fix this scenario in his area.  Why in the world do these scenarios persist, and why does the company need to be "convinced" to fix these scenarios?  This shows the disconnect between these massive technology initiatives and the real world railroading that the technology is supposed to improve.  NS publicly touts the great fuel savings and network velocity benefits of the Movement Planner and Autorouter, fitting more trains on less track, and in reality they are slowing their trains down and baiting crews into complacency in compliance with the signal system.  Any wonder why stop signal violations were sky high last year?  More stop signals = more stop signal violations.

As far as weird signal things go, NS set one up in Toledo when it replaced the signals at CP289 a year or two ago.

Westbound trains lined to cross over at CP292 now get an Approach Limited at both CP289 and the intermediates at milepost 290 before seeing a Limited Clear at CP292. Nobody I know can explain why they did that. If the reason is to get the trains slowed down to 45 mph sooner than the 290 signal, then why not just do away with the intermediate at 290 altogether? The other solution that wouldn't be an "echo" like this would be to display Advance Approach Medium (G/Y/R) at CP289 in this case, but I haven't seen that aspect outside of the New York commuter district, 35 years ago, and don't know if it even exists in the current rulebook.