Siemens to manufacture 83 Airo Intercity Trainsets for Amtrak: Design, Delivery, Acceptance

If the signal system isn't reliably detecting trains that run on it, it's broken.

Other railroads seem to detect Amtrak trains just fine. Failure to detect is a serious problem that you shouldn't be trying to patch around.

Tadman wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2024 11:28 am

Nasadowsk wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2024 9:19 am Why doesn't the FRA make CN fix a broken signal system? Other operators don't have this issue.

From what i understand, it's not considered "broken" because CN uses a different lower voltage (or something like that) that is activated perfectly fine if a <60mph freight goes through, which would usually be 20 cars++. Its the small and light passenger trains that cause problems. This happened in the past with Amtrak RDC's on IC tracks in western Illinois, too.

Additional information I have heard, not sure if it's true or not. But it's the speed differential circuits having the problems, especially for faster train speeds that passenger trains run at compared to the slower train speeds of freight trains. Crossing signals must activate sooner for faster trains than slower trains. Just like CN tracks used by VIA, they give the passenger train operators two choices; run at freight train speeds (around 45 mph) or run at passenger train speeds (around 80 mph) with 32 axles.
Looks like Amtrak chose to add cars (axles) while VIA chose to slow down.

Wacky idea here: could Amtrak add tiny little wheels (think hi-rail/MoW equipment size) that are electrically connected to the existing trucks and count those as axles?

Probably more a shoe type arrangement, to increase contact. Possibly magnetically aided. It's really not a difficult problem to solve.

It's even easier than that - simply have the FRA tell CN to fix their broken system.

Of course, this requires the FRA to grow a pair, and be an actual safety/regulatory agency, as opposed to a roadblock for passenger rail, doing the work that the freight railroads can't do.

Wonder what happens the first time a freight does not activate a crossing warning with severe collision consequences? Will FRA finally step in??

Nasadowsk wrote: ↑Sat Nov 09, 2024 9:52 am It's even easier than that - simply have the FRA tell CN to fix their broken system.

I'm not as smart about this stuff as you are, but wouldn't that require re-equipping every crossing on the former IC mainline? This could be a $50m+ project.

At that rate, CN should either buy Amtrak 20 new baggage cars or loan them some OCS cars and would be a lot cheaper than changing all the crossing gate equipment.

I can't imagine the Coast Guard, FAA, or any other regulatory agency letting this crap slide for as long as it has. God knows if CN was running a nuke plant with such abandon, the NRC would have shut it and yanked the license ages ago.

SEPTA runs short trains with no issues, the LI runs short diesels on the Oyster Bay with no issues. Others run short trains just fine.

Tadman wrote: ↑Sat Nov 09, 2024 1:55 pm
I'm not as smart about this stuff as you are, but wouldn't that require re-equipping every crossing on the former IC mainline? This could be a $50m+ project.

What does CN's finances have to do with a failure of them to make their signal system work?

At that rate, CN should either buy Amtrak 20 new baggage cars or loan them some OCS cars and would be a lot cheaper than changing all the crossing gate equipment.

No, there's something wrong with their system. If it's failing to detect trains, that's on them, not Amtrak. If it were a hyrail, yeah, but we're talking about a heavy locomotive pulling heavy cars. If it's not detecting an Amtrak train, what confidence should anyone have that it can detect a freight train?

I bet if the FRA required CN to stop their trains at every crossing, and flag it, a solution would suddenly appear...

Tadman wrote: ↑Sat Nov 09, 2024 1:55 pm I'm not as smart about this stuff as you (Mr. Nas) are, but wouldn't that require re-equipping every crossing on the former IC mainline? This could be a $50m+ project.

It sure wasn't an issue "back in my day" at Uof Ill.

If I recall correctly, the UP made Amtrak either run longer or slower trains on the Missouri River Runner services to ensure something on their system worked correctly. I also understand CSX requires trains under a certain axle count only operate at restricted speeds. If CN is a little more cautious than other railroads about its minimum axle count to operate at full speeds, why should the FRA get involved?

Computer security rules from DISA or NIST are always the minimum acceptable standard, but there is nothing preventing someone from requiring a system exceed those standards, and no legitimate reason to argue someone shouldn't have higher standards than that. The same is true of FRA safety standards -- the FRA dictates the minimum acceptable safety standard and shouldn't have any reason to object to a railroad exceeding those standards.

This is not to say that I think CN should just be able to arbitrarily require Amtrak and VIA run differently on its rails than on others without a justification that allows Amtrak or VIA to consider options for dealing with that rule, but I'm not sure any regulator can fault CN for having a more stringent safety standard than other railroads may choose to have.

How is the standard more stringent? Where does the FRA say that railroad crossings should only be triggered by trains of a certain length, as opposed to any train that is legitimately operating on the line?

Take a step back, folks....

1) The laws requiring Amtrak access and priority don't dictate at what speed their trains can operate.

2) CN's signaling and crossing protection systems meet FRA's requirements for CN's trains operating at their timetable speeds.

It's on Amtrak to work within those parameters.

Sent from my SM-S911U using Tapatalk

Don't see anything here about whose trains are operating on the rails or what speeds:

https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-49/section-234.225
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-49/section-234.227
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-49/section-234.229

lensovet wrote: ↑Sun Nov 10, 2024 12:23 am Don't see anything here about whose trains are operating on the rails or what speeds:

https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-49/section-234.225
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-49/section-234.227
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-49/section-234.229

Look at section 234.1
(a) This part prescribes minimum—
(1) Maintenance, inspection, and testing standards for highway-rail grade crossing warning systems;
.......
(b) This part does not restrict a railroad from adopting and enforcing additional or more stringent requirements not inconsistent with this part.

When it comes to testing, a shunt of 0.06 Ohms should activate the grade crossing signals.
There's no time limit, nor speed of activation for the signaling system to work during a test.
It either works or it doesn't.
I personally tested about every other month a grade crossing on a plant spur track across a Texas highway, the shunt either worked or it didn't. Most maintenance required was keeping the batteries full of acid, replacing an overhead light signal hit by an oversized truck, and patching bullet holes and bullet damage to the signal box and its internal components.
Luckily, a train crossed that highway about once every 10 years. That train may have reached 10-15 mph speed. But someone was out every month doing the monthly preventive maintenance on it.