[PRCo] Re: Cab Signals vs Wayside Signals - Baltimore & Lease Back Financing

[Schneider Fred]

I have no idea how you could override ATO system on BART.   I know  
that road manual only allowed 25 mph so that you could not accelerate  
beyond that.   If you could switch to that above 25 and then have  
complete control and coast, I don't know.   I only ran a BART train  
once and that was in yard manual control at Hayward in 1972.  I don't  
remember a whole lot about it.   I also have no reason to believe  
that 10 or 20 or so different systems all behave the same when when  
different signal and component designers were involved.

What is obvious to me is that the world has changed.   IN 1910 or  
1920 or 1930 we wrote a rule book.   We assumed, and most often  
rightfully so, that our platform staff were intelligent and could be  
counted on to do what the rule book and the supervisors told them to  
do.   In many instances companies didn't even need rule books because  
their staff had brains and could put two and two together and achieve  
four without having someone do it for them.   If we had some dufus  
who was unable to cooperate, he no longer worked for us.   But most  
men had this strange belief that they wanted to come home at night  
and see their wife and children.   They weren't O. D'd on drugs.

Life became better.   We protect the jobs of the idiots.   They have  
rights too, you understand.

Whenever we have a better mouse trip, we always seem to create a  
better mouse.   I remember the engineer on the Erie-Lackawanna who  
was coasting an MU train downhill one day.   I was in the cab  
(unofficially).   He had shifted the reverse key into neutral (off)  
because that killed the deadman without applying air on those cars.    
He could negate the intended protection it offered and blissfully  
coast down hill.   He was the better mouse.

Now, very sadly, we have gotten to the point where even a rule book  
doesn't work.   We now need to have superimpose global satellite  
navigation systems on top of other mechanical operating systems to  
stop a train because just making a rule that says you may not text  
message while running a locomotive makes no sense at all to the idiot  
running the engine.   Therefore the designers attempt to produce a  
fail safe system and, as we see in Baltimore, there is no such thing  
as fail safe other than turning off the power and leaving the  
equipment in the yard.

On Nov 21, 2008, at 3:49 PM, Phillip Clark Campbell wrote:

>> ----- Original Message ----
>
>
>> the signal system was changed when they did the
>> double tracking.  From wayside signals with
>> inductive train stop to a cab signal system.
>> .... the principal downside to cab signals from
>> an operations standpoint is that the operator
>> has no way to act preemptively.  With wayside
>> signals the operator has the ability to know that
>> a speed reduction is in the offing and it allows
>> him to apply brakes conservatively when he knows
>> rail adhesion is poor.  Cab signals do not allow that;
>> the signal aspect drops instantly without prior warning,
>> and he has to apply braking immediately at a braking
>> rate that has been chosen, most likely, by someone
>> with no idea of the operating environment.
>
>> "Left to their own devices, signal engineers will always
>> require that the train be placed in full service braking
>> when it is given a more restrictive signal aspect, and
>> if the rail adhesion is poor and the train cannot achieve
>> the requested braking rate, their "Brake Assurance"
>> feature will eventually dump the train in emergency.
>> And then, since signal engineers do not consider the
>> slide control designs on the railcar to be equivalent to
>> their "Fail Safe" cab signal design, they will insist that
>> after so many seconds of attempting to correct sliding
>> wheels it is required that the slide protection be turned off
>> (assuming that the rail car originally had slide protection in
>> emergency) and thus force the train to slide to a stop with
>> locked wheels.  For the signal engineer, flat wheels warm
>> the heart, as they prove that their system worked."
>
>
> Mr.Schneider;
>
>
> Very informative summary from Mr.Anonymous isn't it.  I lived in  
> San Francisco (Parkside) in the early 1980s when the Boeing cars  
> were introduced and they used cab signals in the subway didn't  
> they.  Operators found a way to overcome the bone chilling stops  
> when the computer took over because it perceived the braking rate  
> was insufficient thus dumping it into emergency.  The operators  
> turned the reverser key to neutral which effectively puts the car  
> in park doesn't it.  Thus only the disc brakes are applied to  
> complete the stop which is then much smoother.
>
> Operators stated that they had 3-seconds to react when given a  
> reduced speed by the cab signals which meant putting the controller  
> into full service brake mode.  Once the car slowed to below the  
> posted cab speed the operator could then apply power if needed.  If  
> the computer sensed that the braking was insufficient then the car  
> would be dumped into emergency and the astute operator would put  
> the reverser in neutral.
>
> Some operators anticipated the speed change and slowed the car  
> approaching the impedance bonds which made for a much smoother ride  
> without bone chilling stops.  Other operators rode over the bonds -  
> knowing that they would get a slower speed demand - and then placed  
> the car into full service when that demand was realized.  By the  
> time the computer returned control to the operator the car slowed  
> well below the posted speed and had to be brought back up only to  
> have the same happen at the next impedance bond.
>
> If the operator did not respond fast enough to speed changes then
> control would be taken away from the operator altogether and the car
> would need to make a complete stop before control was restored  
> wouldn't it.
>
> I do not know if other rail cars could be put into neutral as the  
> Boeings.
>
> I totally overlooked the fact that signaling is used.  This rules  
> out sanding whether wayside or cab signals doesn't it.  Wayside  
> signals replaced because of human error and accidents; cab signals  
> cause other problems.  Every thing has 'side effects' doesn't it.
>
> In another post you mentioned Sacramento being caught up in the AIG  
> fiasco.  BART has to come up with $40-million fast for the same  
> reason - AIG.  Another news item said that SF Bay Area transit  
> systems have 'several hundred' of such lease back loans.  What  
> other systems are involved?  I haven't heard more.  Here are two  
> quotes from the URL below:
>
> "San Francisco made several hundred millions of dollars worth of  
> deals,..."
>
> "Transit agencies, then, are like crack addicts, addicted to the quick
> benefits of loans, leases, and other poorly considered deals."
>
> http://thetransportpolitic.wordpress.com/2008/10/26/short-term- 
> thinking/
>
>
>
> Phil
>
>
>
>
>
>