Discussion relating to the operations of MTA MetroNorth Railroad including west of Hudson operations and discussion of CtDOT sponsored rail operations such as Shore Line East and the Springfield to New Haven Hartford Line

Moderators: GirlOnTheTrain, nomis, FL9AC, Jeff Smith

  • 128 posts
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  by Terminal Proceed
 
Gentlemen lets keep this topic in line with METRO NORTH and not foreign railroads.
  by Train538
 
I'm pretty confused here. Is ACSES being pushed to be installed on Metro-North or just PTC?
  by DutchRailnut
 
ACSES is one of many PTC systems, since the rest of NEC gets ACSES its no more than logical that MNCR went with ACSES.
the PTC systems are not compatible with each other .

http://www.fra.dot.gov/rrs/pages/fp_1265.shtml
  by Train538
 
Ah, okay. Awesome! I'm really glad MN is going with ACSES! It's a very safe system and makes more sense than the current system. Is their a specific name for the current system?
  by DutchRailnut
 
Current system is Cabsignal (CAB) with Automatic Train Control (ATC) it will only stop a train when its going faster than given signal indication or if Engineer does not acknowledge a signal reduction.
a train could technicaly pass a red signal or rear end a train at 15 mph or below.
or have a headon at 30 mph if one train ran a signal.
With ACSES these two scenario's are eliminated (we hope) plus ACSES can reduce speed for work zones.
  by Patrick A.
 
Dutch am I correct in assuming that the PTC system will not do anything to increase speeds/decrease running times?
  by DutchRailnut
 
correct block lenght stays same and so are speeds, just because you get ACSES does not mean you upgrade the entire railroad and elliminate all speed restrictions.
  by Train538
 
What progress has been made lately on the New Haven Line with installing ACSES?
  by DutchRailnut
 
wiring, lots of cable, and years of more work befor it gets cut in.
  by freightguy
 
The general consensus from studies of PTC implementation is it will actually slow things down. Operators are expected to travel a few mph slower than normal to avoid computer intervention. Also the train stopping premature can block other tracks at interlockings crossovers etc from the PTC. The near-term expectation is for the PTC to decrease system efficiency.
  by RearOfSignal
 
The current signal system already slows things down compared to most other railroad signaling systems.
  by F-line to Dudley via Park
 
freightguy wrote:The general consensus from studies of PTC implementation is it will actually slow things down. Operators are expected to travel a few mph slower than normal to avoid computer intervention. Also the train stopping premature can block other tracks at interlockings crossovers etc from the PTC. The near-term expectation is for the PTC to decrease system efficiency.
It's increased capacity on the Shoreline vs. what was there before. But the Shoreline is way different from the NHL in signaling density and complexity. ACSES is neither a magic bullet or a surefire capacity killer. It all depends on what layout it's running on top of. MNRR territory's well-defined constrictions are constrictions under any overlay. And nobody's yet devised a feasible way to improve it, so the game doesn't fundamentally change under PTC.
  by freightguy
 
I'm not too familiar with ACSES speed control. However in a bit of irony we towed the first Genesis locomotive MN 204 with the ACSES system installed due to an ATC failure around 2 weeks ago. The stuff I quoted is from a recently published book " Train Wrecks- The Forensics of Rail Disasters" published in 2012. Probably a safe bet the class one railroads will not be able to meet the 2015 PTC deadline. The radio spectrum needed alone is beyond comprehension.
  by LIRR272
 
Why was the loco towed due to a cab signal failure? Is this common on MN? As far as I know a locomotive can run under its own power even with the cab signal cut out or inoperative but at 79 MPH.
  by DutchRailnut
 
Cab signal failure gives max speed of 59 mph and slow speed(15 mph) through each interlocking.
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9