Virginia Railway Express sees growth, challenges in 2011

Jersey_Mike wrote: Speaking of the CSS it strikes me as strange that CSX would still keep that stretch of track through DC as non-CSS territory. Every train passing through there has to have CSS equipment yet CSX is too cheap to install the code units between RO and CP-VIRGINIA.

CSS is in place on the RF&P all the way north past VIRGINIA to ANACOSTIA. I know CSX's freight units have some funky type of cab signal equipment, and there were some bulletins pertaining to it(which may be what you are referring to), but it doesn't apply to VRE/Amtrak. You pick up/lose the code a feet north of the "END CCS" sign at Virginia.

CSS is in place on the RF&P all the way north past VIRGINIA to ANACOSTIA. I know CSX's freight units have some funky type of cab signal equipment, and there were some bulletins pertaining to it(which may be what you are referring to), but it doesn't apply to VRE/Amtrak. You pick up/lose the code a feet north of the "END CCS" sign at Virginia.

Unless they extended the cabs over the past year the CSS begins and ends at RP as indicated by the signs. The CSX freights have to be equipped with a form of pseudo ATC that automatically makes a minimum brake application after certain CSS downgrades if the engineer doesn't. The Amtrak/VRE speed control meets those minimum requirements and then some.

They've done a lot of improvements over recent years, I wouldn't be surprised if they have extended CSS. The sign could be obsolete and if Cobra is getting CSS Indications I gotta believe its in service to at least CP-VA. Oh it was pretty wild today, I heard on my scanner a CSX hogger call RO: North Rosslyn Junction, Cobra has previously mentioned that some of the old timers have stuck with the heritage names for interlockings.

Davis

Huh, how about that cobra ? Apparently you don't knowwhat you're talking about and a non railroader knows more. Anytime I need clarification on a rule(which I won't since I knowthe rules very well) i will just call jersey mike. ;p

Nahhh....guess I don't LOL. Try as I may I have NEVER seen that there little sign....

Seriously though....thats an OLD pic....believe me its extended.

Regardless of the presence of the sign or lack thereof (I'm not gonna get into an argument, I believe Cobra, he operates through there daily), the sign's presence would still really have little effect. If you are travelling SB in CSS and territory and see a BEGIN CSS sign then its almost just like a redundant reminder. That whole area still confuses me but I'm slowly getting more of a feel of it.

Davis

Regardless of the presence of the sign or lack thereof (I'm not gonna get into an argument, I believe Cobra, he operates through there daily), the sign's presence would still really have little effect. If you are travelling SB in CSS and territory and see a BEGIN CSS sign then its almost just like a redundant reminder. That whole area still confuses me but I'm slowly getting more of a feel of it. What I still don't get about the RF&P is why almost all intermediate signals can give APPROACH LIMITED, regardless if there is even an interlocking coming up after the intermediate signal. You an get an APPROACH LIMITED in advance of another intermediate signal, not even an interlocking in some places. Its like APPROACH LIMITED = ADVANCED APPROACH. Weird...

Davis

I determined the problem is inconsistent documentation in CSX's ETTs and the fact that the RF&P CSS had/has different rules than the Conrail CSS. For example the conformity rules on the classic RF&P have Medium Clear and Medium Approach match up with a Restricting Cab Signal. Also the CSX flavor of ATC is only required south of RO.

[quote]What I still don't get about the RF&P is why almost all intermediate signals can give APPROACH LIMITED, regardless if there is even an interlocking coming up after the intermediate signal. You an get an APPROACH LIMITED in advance of another intermediate signal, not even an interlocking in some places. Its like APPROACH LIMITED = ADVANCED APPROACH. Weird...[/quote[

That is actually a fairly standard practice, although more typically implemented with Approach Medium. Advance Approach wasn't even implemented on many signal aspect systems in favor of only using Approach Medium.

*EDIT* I checked my 2008 CSX ETT (current) and as I mentioned before it does not list the stretch of track between CP-VIRGINIA and RO as being equipped with CSS. This matches the signage, but does not match the 2005 CSX ETT which had CSS all the way through the trench. See for yourself, page 108. So I don't know what's going on with that.

Jersey_Mike wrote: *EDIT* I checked my 2008 CSX ETT (current) and as I mentioned before it does not list the stretch of track between CP-VIRGINIA and RO as being equipped with CSS. This matches the signage, but does not match the 2005 CSX ETT which had CSS all the way through the trench. See for yourself, page 108. So I don't know what's going on with that.

Being new to CSX territory some of the things they do are, ahem, odd. Any changes to the ETT in between releases(looks like they publish one every three years *shrug*) are shown in System/General bulletins that we have to carry. It was quite a tomb of info until they released the 1/1/11 ETT, where the maps were all updated(CSS in the trench, third track from Franconia-RO, SRO decommissioning, etc.), as well as special instructions. For a while there the pile of paper was nearly an inch thick.....

Cobra,

In the new ETT did they list the intermediate signals on the charts or not? The 2005 ETT had all the intermediates on there like "4-MILE RUN" and "VAN DORN" but 2008 only had interlocking names.

Thanks

Davis

Not in the ETT. I don't know if CSX has actual track profile charts like NS does that show them however.....

Yeah idk. In the 2005 CSX ETT the intermediates were listed in bold font and that was their identifier. Is the 2011 ETT posted anywhere yet?

Davis