Metro-North Train Operators Running Red Lights

Steamboat Willie wrote:The so called "playback" as stated by Clean Cab does not show you signal aspects, only the route if given. In my opinion, I think playback should include any and all activity of what signals were displayed. I don't think the system is entirely fool proof.

I've seen a few playbacks and you can see if a route is lined and locked and you do see either a red or green signal indication. But it does not show you just what the signal in the field is, but since MN basically only has two indications (Stop or Proceed Cab) it technically is showing what the engineer in the field sees.

I'm not sure what event recorders MN has on their equipment, but an event recorder can show speed, signal indication, and other info. The event recorder can show from the last signal to the next signal and the speed at which the train was traveling should the signal drop in front of the engineer. It will also show if an alarm would go off which will cause the engineer to react to the downgrade in the signal.

Unfortunately the mistakes being made in this industry are being learned from and not costing lives.

Its a shame how the news gets reported and people who view the news take the information as gospel.

RearOfSignal wrote:From CBS 2 News...

Two-thirds of the violations are happening on the miles of tracks at Grand Central Station.

RearOfSignal wrote:Just to be fair, engineers are claiming that they get signals thrown in their face in the terminal more frequently than before, even some of the recent stop signal violations have stated this. As we already know there are new engineers, conductors and RTC's.

DutchRailnut wrote:Off course we want zero red light violations, but 5 in 2013 ?? not greatest record but consider we got over 1000 trains a day passing hundreds of signals.
we just doubled amount of trains to Half hour service so now we get twice amount of .....................................................................

I see all of this together and think there is a connection. The station across town has similar problem. It is a mix of new employees meeting old infrastructure with a healthy dose of congestion in a terminal that is causing a huge problem. With the increase in traffic, trains are being stuffed into places they wouldn't have been under better circumstances, leaving them signal to signal. The interpretation of where a train "physically" sits versus where the dispatcher "thinks" it is can lead to stop signal violations. People have literally released their brakes to perform a brake test, the slack lets out and hits the circuit leading to charges of a stop signal violation.

Even when they are overturned, they are still reported as stop signal violations, which is why I wouldn't say this is an "alarming" figure.

LIRR272 wrote:I'm not sure what event recorders MN has on their equipment, but an event recorder can show speed, signal indication, and other info. The event recorder can show from the last signal to the next signal and the speed at which the train was traveling should the signal drop in front of the engineer. It will also show if an alarm would go off which will cause the engineer to react to the downgrade in the signal.

Unfortunately the mistakes being made in this industry are being learned from and not costing lives.

Its a shame how the news gets reported and people who view the news take the information as gospel.

The event recorders will show signal indication as far as the cab signal is concerned but it will not determine the wayside signal. In GCT, where the majority of signal violations occur, there is no code in the rail. Because of this the train is continuously picking up a restricted cab signal. What it can not determine is the wayside signal indication.

There are four different wayside signals indications in GCT. Three of them mean basically the same thing, proceed at restricted speed (with variations). The fourth is STOP.

It's because of circumstances such as this that PTC is in the process of being implemented. This way the train will automatically stop when approaching a stop signal.

It's because of circumstances such as this that PTC is in the process of being implemented. This way the train will automatically stop when approaching a stop signal.

Trains have passed stop signals since the first train turned a wheel (Well, there were no signals back then, but you get my point). Runway incursions have occurred since aviation was created. Fatal automobile accidents occur everyday. PTC is being implemented due to knee-jerk government who panders to the "think of the children", "we all live in a bubble and nothing bad can happen to us" society, without any regard to cost, or business productivity.

truck6018 wrote:
It's because of circumstances such as this that PTC is in the process of being implemented. This way the train will automatically stop when approaching a stop signal.

I do believe though, there will be no PTC in GCT...

correct PTC is only planned from CP1 to CP75/CP 275/CP 183? it won't work in yards or terminals like GCT

DutchRailnut wrote:correct PTC is only planned from CP1 to CP75/CP 275/CP 183? it won't work in yards or terminals like GCT

I think you mean CP 274. CP 275 would be Mill River on Amtrak territory.

Ok any more nits to pick ?

truck6018 wrote:

LIRR272 wrote:I'm not sure what event recorders MN has on their equipment, but an event recorder can show speed, signal indication, and other info. The event recorder can show from the last signal to the next signal and the speed at which the train was traveling should the signal drop in front of the engineer. It will also show if an alarm would go off which will cause the engineer to react to the downgrade in the signal.

Unfortunately the mistakes being made in this industry are being learned from and not costing lives.

Its a shame how the news gets reported and people who view the news take the information as gospel.

The event recorders will show signal indication as far as the cab signal is concerned but it will not determine the wayside signal. In GCT, where the majority of signal violations occur, there is no code in the rail. Because of this the train is continuously picking up a restricted cab signal. What it can not determine is the wayside signal indication.

There are four different wayside signals indications in GCT. Three of them mean basically the same thing, proceed at restricted speed (with variations). The fourth is STOP.

It's because of circumstances such as this that PTC is in the process of being implemented. This way the train will automatically stop when approaching a stop signal.

I understand the event recorder doesn't show the wayside, but doesn't that fall upon the engineer to observe and control his train based on the signal he sees? If it drops in front of him or is different than what is displayed in the cab, should he not report the situation? If the engineer reported a signal change, you can compare the event recorder data to what the engineer reported and if there are playbacks from the RTC (based upon what was mentioned earlier) you can alos use this data as well.

So the question I ask if the engineer is operating at restricted speed through out GCT and the signal changes to Stop, approximately how long would it take the engineer to respond with a brake application to stop the train? I know its not going to stop on a dime.

Would ACSES work inside GCT since the system communicates with the cab signal system?

Again ACSES does not work at restricted speed in terminals and in yards, because all off it is same speed.
On mainline it measures the distance from Cab signal going to restricting to as they have set distances.

The tracks in Grand Central Terminal could be coded to insure a stop occurred before something terrible happened but it would cost money and maybe they do not want to spend money for that. Here in Florida the Florida East Coast while it is freight only still has a very modern cab signal/train control system and they have both a restricting cab indication and a stop cab indication. I believe a special action is necessary with a stop indication on the cab indicator before the train can proceed or the system will prevent its movement. Such a system could work in the areas of Metro North where a stop is necessary and this includes Grand Central Terminal as well as New Haven, North White Plains, Harmon and other such locations.
As for engineers running stop indications, I agree it is nothing new and it is usually but not always the fault of the engineer involved. I remember back in my time with the Met. Region of Conrail as well as the early days of Metro-North the engineers in the training program were being instructed to "run agressively" and I certainally believe there is a difference between running agressively and running safely. I remember a couple of times being on an instruction train where an instructor from the training program was riding with the engineer trainee and I was sitting up in one of the front seats of a train of M-2's. At that time we had a 20 MPH restriction for M-2's in at least a part of the Park Avenue Tunnel on tracks 3 and 4 and they were exceeding that restriction. I went up to tell them that they needed to slow to 20 and the instructor was not pleased with my actions. Most of this was before they had cab signals and ATC and often I had a trainee whom would crowd the signals and I did not like that either Basically it finally reached a point where I told them I did not want any more trainees assigned to my job period and they were not thrilled with that either because I had trains which made short turns and they wanted these people to be familiar with such moves but I had to worry about my job and that meant the most to me. Now I admit that this is well over 15 years to the past and maybe things are different today but I was not sold on their training practices of the mid 1980's. In the days when we still had firemen on the passenger trains I would often let them run the train but I always insisted that they follow all rules, live up to the speeds and take no chances, I always said to them if you follow the rules you will stay out of trouble.
Noel Weaver

DutchRailnut wrote:Ok any more nits to pick ?

Not trying to be critical, just correcting a small mistake.

DutchRailnut wrote:Again ACSES does not work at restricted speed in terminals and in yards, because all off it is same speed.
On mainline it measures the distance from Cab signal going to restricting to as they have set distances.

I believe that the new ACSES II system now in service is smarter than the original and can handle any track configuration. Might not handle it well, but it can handle it. ACSES II uses a data radio to provide route and signal information to the on board unit which keeps track of the trains position and calculates braking curves to the next speed restriction or stop signal. Actually ACSES I didn't rely on a fixed distance from the cab signal cut point, instead it used the same internal navigation system to determine the stop point after being triggered by a cab signal drop.

ACSES won't work in terminal areas because the best it can offer in terms of accuracy is getting the train to stop up to 1000 feet from the Stop signal (and even that's not guaranteed). Moreover PTC is not required in "terminal areas" according to the draft FRA regulations so why throw good money after bad? I'm probably wrong, but I believe that terminal areas were allowed up to 40mph so trying to stuff the Croton and New Haven complexes under that exemption would also be wise.

I've mentioned this before, but the most practical PTC system is going to be something akin to what is now seen on driverless cars. A computer vision unit detects the Stop signal and a radar or lidar scanner backed up by internal navigation determines the correct stop point. All the vital components go on the train. If a driverless car can already detect and stop at road traffic lights, the same technology would work on a railcar as that problem is a pure subset of the other. Such a PTC ststem wouldn't even require ATO as it could function in an advisory role like currently envisioned PTC systems.

I don't see PTC being a viable option in GCT complex, Jersey Mike. I for one am not a fan for straddling or "crowding" signals as mentioned above, but often times especially working an Emergency room job you need to get relatively close to a signal to fit into pockets. I believe it's on track I, between the IS2 and the IN1, it will fit 6 coaches and an engine, and thats literally hovering over the signal. Especially during rush hours, where trains are coming in and out of the yard in GCT this will remain a common practice and I don't see this place making an exception. You're expected to know where you are. I know on track C there are paddles with car markers fastened to the handrail to help you spot when fitting in the pocket there.

LIRR272, under normal circumstances whether you're in the terminal or out on the road, if the signal were to be taken away from you the RTC or train dispatcher should notify you of such action. Does it always happen? In a short sense, no. Then theres the argument of what they see up in the Operations Control Center and out in the field. There have been conflicting reports of a few recent scenarios, of which I will not disclose here where what happened out in the field was not in correspondence to what was seen upstairs.