LIRR Operating Rules / Signals

CLiner2005 wrote:LIRailfan79...
There is a website - I assume former PRR and/or PC - that has an instruction format for Position Light Signals. It was obviously published prior to the demise of PRR/PC. I do not know if there have been changes to this information since it was published, however, I think it will give you a general idea of Position Light aspects.

www.rr-fallenflags.org/pc/pc-poslitsig.html

Thank you! Very nice!

I don't see why the LIRR should change their trainning or rule books at all. they perform the basic function they're supposed to - keeping everyone safe, very well.

Maybe, years from now, if/when the LIRR goes over to an entirely new signal system/concept, you'll see a change, but for now, that's not really happening.

It works, it's not broken, everyone understands it, it keeps us passengers safe. Why change it?

...things I like about the old rules was that the rules were there for the operation of the railroad rather than individual trains; it was all there to be read, seen, understood, tested upon, and practiced. Therefore, trains moved because the rules and timetables said they should and could unless otherwise restricted by bulliten or train order. Under the new systems, nothing gets done by a train until a form is issued to it and any decision to alter that form is from the dispatcher issuing said form. The result is frequent delays while the dispatcher finds time to tend to the problem and issue new forms and this all leads to slower operations.
I am impressed with the LIRR operation in terms of equipment, scheduling, service, and the pride and professionalism in which the rules and timetable are practiced and executed. I do not see this elsewhere, at least not to the same degree. I would not want to see the employees of the LIRR nor the railroad itself lose this distinction.

If the postition lights were replaced with a difrent type signal, could the overall rules stay the same?

make the new aspect reprosent what the position lights of the same aspect ment.

Joe, the type of signals, i.e., color light, position, pedestal or someone standing there with a candle does not affect the overall rules system in place. The aspect of the signals of course do in many cases but not the apparatus to display it.

As long as the apparatus diplays the indications that are in the present Rule Book or are added to the Rule Book with the present rules in mind..everything is the same.

All apsects on the LIRR had a color light aspect at one time. The Long Beach Branch had color light signals years ago. "Clear-Block" had a color light aspect too. So nothing will change if position light signals meet their demise.

There is colors lights being installed on the Montauk between Patchogue and Speonk. This is in conjuction with the new 261. Someone told me the replacement parts with the old position light signals are harder to come by.

The LIRR is moving closer to a "go-no go" type of signal system similar to that in use in parts of Metro North, where a signal aspects conveys no other information other than go or stop. There was some internal debate about the type of signals used in the new 261 area, with the imigrant designers in the Signal Department winning out with color lights only because those in charge of the branch did not take a stand.

In previous attempts to move from position lights to color lights some departments resisted strongly and foiled the Signal Department's attempts.

I think you'll see more color light signals coming your way and less position lights in the future. While the Signal Department likes to say parts are not available for position light signals, its simply not the case.

As information, the FRA believes that color light are less apt to be run through. Strange as it may sound, they insist this is the case. I would think the opposite were true, especially in areas with so much "light pollution".

Clem

<i>The LIRR is moving closer to a "go-no go" type of signal system similar to that in use in parts of Metro North, where a signal aspects conveys no other information other than go or stop.</i>

Isn't the PW line more or less like this, now?

<i>There was some internal debate about the type of signals used in the new 261 area, with the imigrant designers in the Signal Department winning out with color lights only because those in charge of the branch did not take a stand. </i>

Shouldn't they be consulting with the guys who run _the train_ not the branch?

<i> While the Signal Department likes to say parts are not available for position light signals, its simply not the case. </i>

Next time someone there says that, pull out a US&S catalog. They still sell PL stuff, they still offer it for new installations. Lots of places still use it besides the LIRR.

<i>As information, the FRA believes that color light are less apt to be run through.</i>

Love to see the data behind *that* one.

<i> Strange as it may sound, they insist this is the case.</i>

If it's like a lot of the FRA's 'logic', it's probbably based on gut feelings or hand-me-down stories and data. Of course, they could always produce a good study to support this notion, but I strongly suspect one doesn't exist.

<i> I would think the opposite were true, especially in areas with so much "light pollution". </i>

Particularly if the line is alongside a street with traffic lights!

Can you detect color farther away? Probbably. But seeing a blob of colors ahead and not knowing if they're meant for you seems to be rather useless. I know standing on the Mineola platform, I can see the PLs off by NHP clearly, though they can be hard to read if one bulb is brighter than another.

I suspect that there are places where color does better, and places where position does better. In other words, I doubt either type has a distinct advantage. Admittingly human interfaces isn't my strong point.

Anyway, with a go/no go system, you're so close they're probbably both the same in terms of readability, and you're creeping up slowly anyway.

Aren't most color signals these days less of the 'searchlight' variety and more like traffic signals, i.e. they have a wider viewing angle?

The LIRR DID use color signals for many years.

The old semaphore arms were color indicated for non-daylight use.

While they were eventually changed to position lights, thanks to the influence of the Pennsy, the semaphores with color signals were in use for a good 100 years on the LIRR.

Obviously they were effective.

Here are the colored lenses (close to the signal mast), with the arms for daylight operation. The lenses were green, red and amber and were back-lit. This was at "PT" in Eastport. The cabin is in the background.


Dave Keller

Nasadowsk, this time I must agree with you. The operations people definately prefer the position lights.

When the Signal Department threatened to put them on the Port Washington Branch, with a whole new list of aspects crews had to memorize and learn at the rebuilt Great Neck interlocking, Transportation said, "absolutely not". Not without a plan for uniformity elsewhere, NO WAY! When Signal said position light components were not manufactured, Transportation said "bull----!" Thus the new Neck Interlocking has new (5 volt) position lights.

Apparently this stand was not taken on the Montauk Branch. Either good reason was given to switch to color lights and the Transportation folks in that division were sold on them, or nobody cared to fight the issue. Or perhaps a plan was finally formulated to systematically switch over. I doubt that.

As far as the FRA's data regarding visibility goes: For better or worse, they make the rules and their rules and recommendations will figure highly in any liability should anything go wrong.

Now Mr. Keller is absolutely right, as usual. The old LI was a haven for color light signals. Why, up until maybe 1976 (?), the Long Beach Branch had color light block signals and a Special Instruction said something like

"from time to time position light signals will be replaced with color light signals".


Clem

In all honesty I think that the best signaling system is that which combines colour and position, ie the B&O CPL system. The CPL system uses colour to tell you how many clear blocks ahead (green = 2, yellow = 1, lw/red = 0) and then the position of a white or yellow-white orbital to give the engineer specific actions. The twin lamp position system of the central head defines a plane from which the orbital position can be easily inferred. Moreover, a position system helps to differentiate the RR signal from backgroun light pollution.

So, to sumarize, the B&O CPL system provides:

-High visability via large twin lamps
-Redundency via twin lamps
-Instant conveyance of block information via pure colours
-No colour mixing a la Red over Yellow over Green of a colour light system
-Failsafe aspets
-A position system that is recognizable at distance
-Resistant against background light pollution

I hope that the FRA can gets its head out of its ass and realize that the number one cause of run through stop signals is the overuse of the colour RED in colourlight systems. On the old B&O the only time when you see RED is when you need to stop or move at restricting speed. On the PRR/LIRR you never see red. On the PC/CR they only use Red at interlockings and even then it is never used as a lower placeholder.

I think that if the SIRT can stick with B&O CPL's the LIRR can stick with PRR Pl's as well. Heck, they are honestly NOT making B&O CPL equipment any more. The SIRT had to jury rig safetran PRR PL equipment. Oh, NS has also installed at least 3 new PRR Pl signals on the Pittburgh Line within the last 2-3 years. One within the last 12 months.

<i>I hope that the FRA can gets its head out of its ass and realize that the number one cause of run through stop signals is the overuse of the colour RED in colourlight systems</i>

Oh yeah, right. The FRA pull it's head out of its ass. Sure. They're almost as backward as the EPA, and a lot more backward than the FAA (who does boneheaded things - witness Boeing vs the FAA over ETOPs, but total silence on the growing use of composites in comercial aircraft (even though the failure modes aren't totally understood), not to mention little controls issues (highlighted by the flt 587 report)).

Anyway, I guess with a go/no go type wayside signalling, it's less of an issue. And in any case, I'd say a decent cab signal system would beat any wayside one out there, not to mention cab signalling allows for moving block and other interesting typpes of signalling which increase capacity. granted, it makes failures of onboard equipment a pain, but with micros and solid state stuff, instead of those funny frequency sensitive relays....

Clem: When you said above that Signal Dept. wanted a whole new set of color aspects on the PW branch, did you mean that the present PL signal indications would be used in color-light form? Or were you just talking about stop and go aspects like Metro-North's?

And Nas: Even if you had a moving-block or total cab-signal system, you would probably still have home signals at the interlockings. Even the automated Washington D.C. Metro has them.

Wash. D.C. aspects are: Red-over-Red = Stop, and single lunar-white = proceed. I've no idea why they didn't use the more logical green for proceed.

Metro-North aspects: Red-over-Red = Stop. Single flashing green = proceed as per cab signal indication.

Head, when Great Neck Interlocking went electronic, the Signal Department wanted a single color light signal at the beginning of the interlocking. It would be red or green. Red would say "dont go," green would be "go". New indications would have been written.

As anticipated, the electronic processor at Neck is a nightmare with a huge rate of failure. Sorry Nasadowsk, while electronics can be great, they ain't great in Great Neck.

The latest signal change being discussed on the LI is a revision of Rule 262 which would permit a train operating in Rule 261 territory to make a reverse move on the main with verbal permission. As things are now, in those areas a train that slides pass a station or that has debris stuck under it cannot back up an inch without a train order. There are those who feel the loss of protection provided by such a revision could be dangerously misunderstood by a weak minded crew, although NORAC rules already permit this in the East River Tunnels.

Clem