Signals on Hudson Line

What year were the ABS signals removed from the MNCR owned part of the Hudson Line?

I believe 1990, or thereabouts. I remember a ride onboard an M-1 train at that time, looking out (as I imagine readers of this forum generally do) the front. By coincidence there was a MN trainmaster standing next to me. He asked me if I saw anything different about the line. He didn't know I was a connoisseur of these matters and knew exactly what he was referring to, but I took the bait and immediately replied that the waysde signals "were missing."

MetroNorth should reinstall the wayside signals. LIRR still has theirs. Understand that they were removed per suggestions from some "Rocket Scientist" upper management who were at the time recently employed by MN. It wasn't the idea of the signal department people per se. Those wayside signals give an extra measure of safety. Cab signals were meant to be a suppliment to the wayside signals and not to replace them. I know, they cost too much to maintain. One accident and there goes all the savings right down the tubes.

They just weren't eliminated without something else to replace it. LIRR did indeed remove most of it's waysides, with the exception of Jamaica/NYP and portions of the Atlantic Jamaica/Flatbush, and those were left in only to accomodate speed failures in a rush hour. Otherwise, the cab signal indicator works just as well and you have that less light bulbs to change...

If they are removed, then they were replaced with something such as cab signal system or the rules of that portion was changed accordingly, as the FRA wouldn't permit otherwise...

And since when were cab sigs meant to supplement waysides? Waysides are redundant, as you get the same information from the signal system, whether it's displayed on a signal outside or as a "code" in the tracks...

If you have ever run a train in severe fog or snow you in cab signaled territory and you cant see a foot in front of you, that little box in your cab makes it just a little better. It gives you signal indication and there is no looking for the next wayside or what was that last signal?. The system is set up that you must apply the brakes to a specified reduction and accknowledge the signal change in a certian amount of time, if you dont you will receive a penalty brake application which will bring the train to a stop.

Normal cab= normal track speed
Limited cab=not to exceed 45mph
Approach cab=not to exceed 30mph
Restricting cab= not to exceed 15mph

The PRR which was probably the original railroad in the US to use cab signals, used both wayside signals and cab signals. They never removed the waysides. The cab signals were meant to suppliment the waysides for extra protection. But then again what do I know. I'm just a stupid former railroader who has been studying these things for the past 45 years. The waysides were removed for cost cutting purposes.

Working out of ALB going south to NYP you have both types of cab signal systems, with and without waysides. Which system is safer I dont know. As a side note the B&A is cab signal territory without waysides except for the home signals at interlockings, that system was in place before Metro North installed there system.

As a former railroader you must know that when operating in cab signaled territory with waysides the cab signal and wayside must conform or the more restrictive signal governs. If because of weather conditions or operator error you miss a wayside signal and it was more restrictive than what your cab signal displays you could find yourself in a situation you were not prepared for.

They never removed the waysides. The cab signals were meant to suppliment the waysides for extra protection. But then again what do I know. I'm just a stupid former railroader who has been studying these things for the past 45 years. The waysides were removed for cost cutting purposes.

Actually the PRR pioneered the use of cab signals without fixed wayside signals and it was Conrail that took it to heart a la the Fort Wayne and Boston Lines.

And since when were cab sigs meant to supplement waysides? Waysides are redundant, as you get the same information from the signal system, whether it's displayed on a signal outside or as a "code" in the tracks...

This is incorrect. There are 14-21 wayside signal aspects and only 4-6 standard cab signals aspects. If waysides are truely redundent then we would have never developed all those extra aspects. Now, in the case of intermediate block signals, yes, they can be replaced. But when it comes to home and distant signals you are loosing information.

Ideally a signaling system needs to tell the engineer what he should be doing now and what he should be doing at the next signal point. Current cab signal systems only tell the engineer what he should be doing now. This might not be a problem on all passenger lines with trains that can go from 80 to 0 in 2000 feet, but when you get freight trains into the mix you start seeing problems with train handling. This is why freights on MNRR face such horrible speed restrictions.

The optimal solution is to have fully descriptive home signals and wayside distant signals. This system is in service on the Amtrak Shoreline between New Haven and providence.

thanks Mike for your intelligent comments on cab/wayside signals.

<i>This is why freights on MNRR face such horrible speed restrictions.
</i>

Well, as the name used to say until a few years ago:

"Metro-North <b>Commuter</b> Railroad"

Note the abscence of 'freight' in that name. Thus, one can imagine MN really doesn't care about the plight of freight in their territory - they don't move any, and it's not what they exist for.

Isn't it kind of poetic justice that the freights on Metro North get treated much the same way as Amtrak on the frieght's lines.

John

"Metro-North Commuter Railroad"

Note the abscence of 'freight' in that name. Thus, one can imagine MN really doesn't care about the plight of freight in their territory - they don't move any, and it's not what they exist for.

Much to the detriment of the local economy.

When Conrail ran the show before MNCR they let the physical plant go to hell. now the state has fixed it up, and Conrail(CSX) wants to get better deals/better speeds ??? they should have thought about that when they were in charge.

DutchRailnut wrote:When Conrail ran the show before MNCR they let the physical plant go to hell. now the state has fixed it up, and Conrail(CSX) wants to get better deals/better speeds ??? they should have thought about that when they were in charge.

Didn't the plant go downhill under Penn Central? Conrail just inherited it all.

Conrail didn't do much to slow the slide. Then again, I suspect they were more than happy to get out of passenger rail in '83.