New Rule 562 Cab Signals on The RRD Mainline

Silverliner II wrote:

whovian wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the passenger speed on the current SEPTA mainline 70mph when the Reading Co. still owned it?

You are correct. And the Reading didn't have welded rail either!

In modern times on the Reading Company, the speed on the Bethlehem Branch between Tabor Jct. and Lansdale was 60 (55 west of Jenkintown in later years); on No. 2 track (eastbound) from Oak Lane to Jenkintown, it was 70; on the New York Branch it was 75.

There was welded rail between Melrose Park and Jenkintown on what today is #2 track. The speed was 70mph in that section. Reading co. circa. 1970 - 1976.

Lucious - for someone who doesn't work in the industry, I think what you posted was a very concise and pretty darn accurate portrayal of the situation.

It seems to me (and I do work in the industry) that one of the problems stems from an unforgiving speed control system. You should not have to "slam on the brakes" when your cab drops from Clear to Approach Medium. This is a quite normal progression, as engineers know, and does not happen only in emergencies - it's a common everyday occurrence that should *not* cause an unduly large reduction or a higher than comfortable jerk rate (defined as the rate of change of acceleration). The answer on that front could come in many forms, but the way that the system works on the NEC between Hudson and "A" on the High Line (a rule 562 installation) is that there are two intervening cab signal aspects between full on Clear and Approach Medium - Cab 80 and Cab 60. This allows a signal designer to "stretch out" his/her safe braking profile so that more 'gentle' speed reductions can be taken in advance of an occupied block. In fact, during the peak of the peak hour, it's a given that 60 MPH is the capacity-maximizing "cruising speed" on that section of the railroad. At 60 MPH, it's possible to push over 20 trains per hour (at an average headway of 2 minutes and change to 3 minutes) through the High Line, North River Tunnels, and on into Penn Station New York.

The other issue is the "autorouter". I don't have a lot of knowledge of this system, so take what I say with a grain of salt. But if this automated system is not lining the route at a time and place far enough in advance of the first speed downgrade before a diverging move, then it's useless from an operating standpoint. From a dispatcher's convenience standpoint, I'm sure it seems great. The answer here (and again, very little knowledge of how SEPTA's system works) is to push the route request out at least to the first cab signal master location (the cab version of a wayside signal) in advance of the master location where the first reduction would have to happen to be down to the correct diverging speed.

Just my 2 cents, guys. Very interesting stuff from the guys on the front lines.

On Amtrak's "High Line" between Rea Interlocking now and A in NYP, the territory is 562, cabs, no waysides. Also, there are "cab signal" wayside signals outside of 562 territory, noteably at Lane interlocking, which when the "cab signal" signal is displayed, trains are to follow the speed shown on their cab signal unit, which is 80mph there, even though that regular interlocking rules and 261 rules are in effect - its to use the 80 mph crossovers, without requiring a reduction to 45mph (Approach Medium in the cab)

One of the differences between SEPTA's and Amtraks 562 territories, is that Amtrak has many interlockings very close together, and even though the only wayside signals in 562 are those of Home signals and only show the condition and occupancy of the track in the interlocking limits ONLY, you can see the next interlocking, and the next interlockings home signal, adn get an idea as to the condition of that interlocking up ahead, and train occupancy further up the line, unlike SEPTA, where the interlockings are further apart, and distant signals are not in service.

Also, to take full advantage of 562 territory, the ancient 4 aspect cab signal units used have to go. To go from clear to an Approach Medium in the cabs (allowing 45mph, don't get it confused with an approach medium fixed signal, allowing 30mph) means either MAS or slowing down alot. In order to satisfy the Automatic Train Control system, which requires an application of the brakes when the cab signals drop (change to a more restrictive indication) a brake pipe reduction of at least 17psi (sometimes 25psi, depending on some equipement) is necessary to get the "suppression" light to come on, which is telling the ATC equipment that you are slowing the train adequately enough to comply with it.

At NJT before all the real old equipment was upgraded to SDU, (and ADU's capable of the 80 and 60 mph indiciations) speed display units - totally digital screens showing speed and cab signal indication by speed allowed, not by aspect, trains which would encounter a Cab Speed wayside signal aspect, or a cab signal change in their cabs, would have to respond to an Approach Medium in the cabs, requiring at least a 17psi brake reduction, and slowing the train from MAS speed, 60, 70, or 80mph or whatever, to get it under 45mph, and with a 17psi reduction, releasing the brakes before the train hits 45 or under (so you could slow down, and when the brakes are released, you would be going 45) is a no, no, and the system will dump the train. YOu have to hold that application until 45 is reached, THEN release the brakes, thats why trains slow down so hard, then speed up, because by the time the trains brakes have released, you may be going between 35 and 40. The SDU's allow the cab signals to come down gradually (at least in theory, its works.....okay) from MAS to either 80 or 60, then another cab signal change in the next cab signal block to 45, then to Approach (30), then to Restricting (20) for a stop signal up ahead. Not MAS to 45 to 30 to 20. The newer SDU system spreads out the distanced needed, and sort of prevents the rediculous slamming on the brakes necessary.

I think the main problem I have with SEPTA's system, in regards to our topic here, is the REACTIVE nature of which locomotive engineers are forced to govern their trains. I believe that the fixed wayside signals enable an engineer to be far more proactive in their operating procedures, because each signal has an ASPECT and an INDICATION as explicitly defined in the NORAC book of rules.

I think that 562 is a wonderful system for SEPTA's Neshaminy line because trains operate through there on average about once an hour. Furthermore, the higher track speed, the station spacing, and the interlocking spacing are conducive to the success of the system there. There is little likelihood of trains following one another, and generally the cab system remains at a clear unless their is a diverting move at an interlocking ahead or a stop signal. In this case, the 'drop spots' are in sensical locations and they do not interfere with the smooth operation of the consist.

The autoroute system is generally effective, as long as every train is ontime. It is not so effective when a cog gets stuck in the system. SEPTA's problem is in autoroute combined with the physical characteristics of their mainline between Glenside and 16th street Junction. The 'tree and its trunks' nature of the Reading side makes autorouting less than favorable. In order to allow a southbound R-5 into Glenside you have to delay an R-2 southbound leaving Ardsley under an approach to stop at Carmel; the same R-5 goes through Jenkin, which delays the R-3 from the Neshaminy branch; the same R-5 delays the southbound R-8 coming from the Fox Chase Line; the same R-5 may delay the southbound R-6 if he is stopping at North Broad and requires to do their station work on #4 track. Now imagine if the R-5 were late. Remember, that once he clears, you have to wait for him to clear the longer Cab Signal blocks to get a favorable aspect such as Clear in the ADU (aspect display unit). Each train follows one another down one single track. SEPTA locals operate in each direction through out this territory on average of about once every 8-10 minutes, generally all making local stops. As long as every one is ontime, the delay is minimal and the autoroute displays signals; but all it takes is one train to be delayed a little bit, and now the computer starts to go a little haywire. Now, the routing that a human dispatcher would have probably preferred is circumvented by this multimillion dollar bust of a system SEPTA purchased, which probably would be more effective on a subway system (but I guess SEPTA's bus company mentality got the best of them once again).

All of this could have been avoided if SEPTA would have used the same thought process they applied to the West Chester Line to the main line. Cab signals in conjunction with bidirectional fixed automatic block signals. The system would have yielded the SAME benefits as the current one, and engineers could operate their trains more efficiently. As of now, even with all of the so called advances and improvements SEPTA has made, the speeds along the newly improved territories are the same as, and in some cases slower than, the previous noncab signal fixed wayside territory that was around since time immemorial along there.

I've never been on the AMTRAK or NJT portions of 562 territory, so I can't comment on it other than to say that I am quite sure that those railroads were far more practical in their application of it than SEPTA is, along with everything else.

I guess Amtrak, etc passed on moving onto a newer style signalling system, like LZB, where the cab signal unit displays the currently allowed speed, the next allowed speed, and the *distance* to that speed change? With that, you know how fast you can go, how fast you'll be allowed to go, and how far you are from that point...

I'm sure the SEPTA dispatchers get frustrated with the autorouter as well.

On our locomotives (CSX), when we get a cab signal change, there is a "countdown to penalty" feature. When we apply the brakes, the countdown begins, but the more the speed slows, the more time adds itself back to the counter, in order to make for a smooth slowdown to the required speed.

I was riding the front car of a set of Budds out of Center City recently when the cabs dropped on us between Elkins Park and Jenk South. The engineer put the train into full service instantly, and yes it was quite a rough slowdown. But I remember someone telling me years ago that there is hardly any time between a cab signal drop and a penalty application if you put anything less than full service on.

I would say a timer is needed....and lose the autorouter!

And then we can just concentrate on our new game show called "When Will Newtown Junction Fail Again Today?"

SEPTA probably lowered the track speeds because of lack of maintenance on the rail, ties, and ballast, but never raised it after new track was installed.

Jtgshu, thanks for the explanation. The new Silverliner V specs includes support for a 9 aspect cab signal system, which may address some of the issues you mention.

Obviously, SEPTA should be retrofitting the Silverliner IV cars with the new system as well, but I don't know about any plans to do that. They also need to install equipment on the ground that transmits those extra codes.

They also need to install equipment on the ground that transmits those extra codes.

More money for more junk!!! I love it! No wonder nothing gets better with SEPTA!

Lucius Kwok wrote:SEPTA probably lowered the track speeds because of lack of maintenance on the rail, ties, and ballast, but never raised it after new track was installed.

Jtgshu, thanks for the explanation. The new Silverliner V specs includes support for a 9 aspect cab signal system, which may address some of the issues you mention.

Obviously, SEPTA should be retrofitting the Silverliner IV cars with the new system as well, but I don't know about any plans to do that. They also need to install equipment on the ground that transmits those extra codes.

I disagree in regards to your conjecture as to why SEPTA lowered the track speeds. Newtown Jct. is a newly reconfigured interlocking with new rail and ballast, equipped with longer crossovers than were there before. Carmel interlocking was good for 55mph, SEPTA reduced it to 30mph on both tracks; the ride has been rough through there for years and now SEPTA wants to impose a restriction. Many of the other slower speeds I've referred to in my previous posts, particularly on the Newtown Branch, are due to the cab signal system displaying indications of APPROACH MEDIUM (45mph), APPROACH (30mph), and RESTRICTING (not exceeding 15-20mph depending) throughout roughly 80% of the branch that has a maximum authorized speed of 50-60mph passenger.
With regards to SEPTA retrofitting the GE's with a 9 aspect display unit, We'll probably have Silverliner X's (as opposed to V's )on the property before that happens. Don't hold your breath.

whovian wrote:With regards to SEPTA retrofitting the GE's with a 9 aspect display unit, We'll probably have Silverliner X's (as opposed to V's )on the property before that happens. Don't hold your breath.

Unless Amtrak gets around to making ACSES a requirement between NYP and WAS. Then, SEPTA will have no choice.

Right now, anything operating on Amtrak between New Haven and Boston HAS to have ACSES, and the P&W, CSX, and MBTA had to have the needed displays installed. Some MARC locomotives already have ACSES installed as well. NJT has already covered themselves for that with their new SDU equipment too. Once again, SEPTA is on the trailing end of things, and will be scrambling to catch up when the time comes.

That's because SEPTA is too busy spending money on high level platforms at Ft. Washington or Smart Stations on the subways. Think about it for a minute...how many projects do they have going on right now that are sucking resources from what we really need done?

Man, is that project at Fort Washington taking forever. Those guys must be paid by the hour. Rome probably was built faster. SEPTAOLOGY 101 folks, you'd have to be an idiot to fail this course.

Those guys must be paid by the hour.

Is it a sub doing it or are "SEPTA Forces" getting the award for this one. Nothing seems to be done with any swiftness these days, with the winner being the MFL reconstruction in West Philly (they must of taken notes from "To kill a Neighborhood"). The 15 rebuild is a close second (3 years to replace some track and overhead), followed by the eternal contruction presence at FTC, which technically is still not done.

Rome probably was built faster.

Look how fast trolley lines and railroads were built back in the day, now with modern machines building and rebuilding, it takes 3 times as long. Kind of helps prove my theory that whatever efficiency technology gives us, some other driving force negates the gain:
How many paperless offices have computers given us?
Computers replacing file cabinets cost more than warehousing documents
Modern trains with modern signals run slower
You guys get the idea....

jfrey40535 wrote:That's because SEPTA is too busy spending money on high level platforms at Ft. Washington or Smart Stations on the subways. Think about it for a minute...how many projects do they have going on right now that are sucking resources from what we really need done?

Ummm.....two hundred thirty-four?