CSX Calling Signals

Wasn't there a case recently in western NY where a freight crew heard an Amtrak train call a signal indicating the trains were on a collision course? I believe the freight crew stopped where they were and the Amtrak train was able to stop short of the freight.

Calling signals is a good thing- it lets other crews, on other trains and on the ground, know what is happening where.

First, there is the TREMENDOUS volume of traffic on the former Water Level Route. Which means, with calling signals, it's just one long stream of cacophony. Trying to service an industry anywhere along there is nearly impossible if there's traffic nearby...everyone talking over each other, makes communication between the crew during shove moves dangerous.

Then the switching crew should be using another channel, or hand signals. Or wait until the nearby traffic has cleared and radio communications are free.

[quote="JBlaisdell"]Wasn't there a case recently in western NY where a freight crew heard an Amtrak train call a signal indicating the trains were on a collision course? I believe the freight crew stopped where they were and the Amtrak train was able to stop short of the freight.

Calling signals is a good thing- it lets other crews, on other trains and on the ground, know what is happening where.

actually no,at that time, signals were not called over the radio through new york state.what the freight crew heard was a detector going off.luckily both trains were able to stop.

JESSERABBIT wrote: There was also a wreck on the Wash to NYC route involving a "high speed" (as they were called in those days) passenger train near the town of Northeast Md. I believe that may have played a role in the mandating of the calling of signals. I will do some research on this subject and see if there is any more information available.
I hope this helps.

I gather you are commenting on the Jan. '87 Chase wreck. That wreck
did not spur a requirement for calling signals rather it required the addition
of speed control to all locomotives operating on the Northeast Corridor.
In addition, that wreck spurred the requirements of engineer certification
and mandatory drug testing.

amtrakhogger wrote:...that wreck spurred the requirements of engineer certification and mandatory drug testing.

Certification, yes. Drug testing, no. FRA required post-accident and other reasonable cause blood testing prior to this event. The individuals involved in that collision were tested under the regulation in question, actually. That's how it was discovered that the Conrail engineer had been using illegal substances.

MSchwiebert wrote:It's been done on the "Chessie" side for over 15 years now, and I would hardly consider the B&O west of Greenwich OH (with 2 of the top 3 heaviest traffic segments on the entire system) or the C&O north of Fostoria, the B&O south of Deshler, or the C&EI out of Chicago "light density" Does it make any less sense than acknowleging a defect detector?

Before we were forced onto CSX operating rules...we used to call the twelve miles between GN Tower and Willard, the slow-motion approach. Frequently we'd spend over two hours covering that last (or first) few miles...and we (all of us, even the CSX guys out of Willard) would breathe a sigh of relief as we rounded the bend onto the Indy line and could bump it up to track speed.

This is exactly WHY I hold that CSX rules aren't fitted for high-density operations...I have seen how they work, or don't work, compared to NORAC.

Yes it makes less sense than acknowledging a detector. There are relatively few detectors. There are signals every two miles. Quite a difference between 30 miles between announcements, and two miles.

mmi16 wrote: And the rule as saved countless lives and untold millions of equipment damage from MofW workers and other trains hear trains call signals that indicate that SOMETHING is not RIGHT.

That's dependent on the track gang sitting there listening to the radio...something they may not always have time to do.

Under NORAC we had clear signage letting train crews know they were approaching a work gang. And our bulletins were organized by milepost. There was no mistaking that large "A" board two miles out.

Today, what's used is an all-purpose "firecracker" (yellow with a red slash) that can mean a speed restriction, a stop board, or any other limiting condition. Since there's frequently a slow order on a stretch before crews come out to repair it (and put up a stop board) it's easy to mistake the approach-speed-limit firecracker with the approach-stopboard firecracker.

mmi16 wrote:Railroads are still composed of human beings and human beings make mistakes. Graniteville, SC on the NS is an example of a man failure incident that should never have happened....it did. They enter blocks they don't have authority to, they run signals, they transpose numbers of milepost when requesting authorities, they do any of a thousand different things that can cause a collision between and train and either another train or roadway equipment. A train announcing it's progress, signal by signal and block by block over the road channel gives all those who are not on the train the opportunity to reconcile there proximity to the train.

A work gang isn't going to hear the train until it's four miles away. So they may hear two signal announcements; or they may only hear one.

And if they're busy, they may hear NONE. They're not out there to listen to the radio. They're running equipment; paying attention to the work.

And with high traffic volume, one transmission won't stand out; not if the radio's exploding with chatter. Frequently we have to call the foreman - a transmission AIMED AT HIM BY NAME - four times or more.

mmi16 wrote:In regard to the False Clear....there are numerous causes for False Clears, other than sabatoge. Some are as simple as a crack in the back of the signal assembly and the sun shining through the crack during a 10 minute segment of the day. Needless to say there are also a hundred different reasons that relate to defects in the signal system or the causes of nature....a dead rat shunt terminal in the signal case to cause a False Clear. Operating 5, 10, 15 or 20 thousand ton trains at speeds up to 79 MPH is serious business and any opportunity that can be taken to prevent a tragedy should be utilized.

Bravo Sierra.

In ten years out here....I have heard ONE credible claim of a false clear. I have heard of a dozen or so times the crew's tried to CLAIM a false clear...frequently it's come from misreading the signal or reading the wrong signal. For example, one claim was that a signal displayed "medium approach" when in fact it displayed "restricting." That particular signal CANNOT DISPLAY "Medium Approach." The problem was that NORAC "Medium Approach" is CSX's "Restricting." And yes, a collision came out of it.

Another case came when a NORAC-trained guy read a CSX "Restricting" as a "Medium Clear." (The Seaboard "lunar white" looks for all the world like a green in some conditions). It happened on the entrance to Willard Yard. The crew on the train ahead was supposedly listening to the radio. So too was the Train Director in Willard...yet nobody said anything and the crew rear-ended at Medium Speed.

I will trust the signal system over the hope that "somebody" will hear an incorrectly-read signal and respond to it, any day of the week.

There are a whole lot more people on and about the tracks than just the gangs you see working....Signal maintiners, Track inspectors and any number of other employees that are on or about the track with their pickup or other trucks and their radios on. While it may be a minor pain for a train crew to announce their progress it has saved more incidents from becoming actual collisions than you know. The incident that make the news are the collisions.....not the collisions that were avoided.

mmi16 wrote:There are a whole lot more people on and about the tracks than just the gangs you see working....Signal maintiners, Track inspectors and any number of other employees that are on or about the track with their pickup or other trucks and their radios on. While it may be a minor pain for a train crew to announce their progress it has saved more incidents from becoming actual collisions than you know. The incident that make the news are the collisions.....not the collisions that were avoided.

I'd be interested in where you're getting your data.

NOT calling signals, on Conrail/pre-CSX, did not result in inordinate numbers of track workers being run down. Work gangs fouling tracks were given Form Ds taking the affected tracks out of service; or on ongoing jobs, were given flagmen.

These days it's almost commonplace to come around a bend to see welders or work gangs scattering like cockroaches caught in the kitchen light. If calling signals is supposed to replace flagmen or Form D control...I'd say it's not working as well.

conrail_engineer wrote:

mmi16 wrote:There are a whole lot more people on and about the tracks than just the gangs you see working....Signal maintiners, Track inspectors and any number of other employees that are on or about the track with their pickup or other trucks and their radios on. While it may be a minor pain for a train crew to announce their progress it has saved more incidents from becoming actual collisions than you know. The incident that make the news are the collisions.....not the collisions that were avoided.

I'd be interested in where you're getting your data.

NOT calling signals, on Conrail/pre-CSX, did not result in inordinate numbers of track workers being run down. Work gangs fouling tracks were given Form Ds taking the affected tracks out of service; or on ongoing jobs, were given flagmen.

These days it's almost commonplace to come around a bend to see welders or work gangs scattering like cockroaches caught in the kitchen light. If calling signals is supposed to replace flagmen or Form D control...I'd say it's not working as well.

Data comes from incident reports that pass through the Operations Center....Calling signal does not replace Form D's or 707 orders it provides another layer of potential protection and awareness. Run into a track car when you have overlooked your Form D and find out.

The cynic within me says, I guess it was cheaper than upgrading the signal system.

I understand the former NYC/Conrail system well; the CSX signal system used in the Willard vicinity is quite different but in what ways I'm not sure. With the system on the NYC mainline, it's impossible to run without clearance from the dispatcher without passing at least two negative signals...at the very least, an approach and a stop signal.

Should an engineer be impaired or deranged, first he would go through an interlocking without being lined up - that would alert the dispatcher immediately. From that point on EVERY signal would be red - on the off chance the crew missed the distant and home signal to the interlocking. To have a head-on, the engineer would have to blow through a succession of reds - with the dispatcher calling him and any opposing traffic.

With the CSX signal system, it may not be so restrictive. I was once inadvertently lined onto the same track as an opposing train...the signal displayed "Restricting," but that is frequently what is given when leaving the yard. In spite of our calling signals (and the other train) it was discovered when the dispatcher, or chief, intervened and directed us to stop, put a man on the point, and reverse back into the yard.

And no, we did not hear the other crew calling signals; and apparently they did not hear us. Radio chatter is horrendous, one long string of calls, directions, chit-chat and signal-calls.

That's my view...but hey, what do I know. I only work there...

Duplicate post...I get a flag, "debug mode."

Sorry...