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

[Schneider Fred]

You keep saying ..... "didn't he?" and "do they?"   It may be your  
matter of speech but  I don't know.


On Nov 22, 2008, at 2:54 PM, Phillip Clark Campbell wrote:

> Mr.Schneider;
>
>
> I spoke of Muni-Boeing - easy to confuse the two words isn't it  
> (Boeing - BART) or maybe you are just giving another example with  
> BART which is interesting.  I rode the Muni L-car from Parkside to  
> downtown (only rode BART for the experience.)
>
> As I remember the Boeing cars allowed for '3-top-speeds' - 50, 25,  
> 10.  When 'about' 1,000-1,200-feet behind another car in the subway  
> the top speed would drop to 25.  If traveling above that speed the  
> op had 3-seconds to put the car into full service brake didn't he.   
> At 'about' 500-feet, 10-mph is the top speed and again the operator  
> has 3-seconds to respond with full service brake.  If the operator  
> meets the demands and slows to less than 10-mph he can apply power  
> and move immediately behind the car in front and can even ram it at  
> 10-mph if inattentive.  Thus cab signals do not rule out low-speed  
> accidents do they and they can still run off the end of the track  
> unless other measures to prevent same are taken.
>
> If the operator did not respond within 3-seconds then the operator  
> lost total control of the car and it 'must' come to a complete  
> stop.  With the distances between impedance above, full service  
> braking is far more than adequate to prevent an accident and keep  
> the cars at a good distance.
>
> If the computer sensed that full service braking was insufficient -  
> slide, for instance - then the computer puts the car into emergency  
> even though an emergency doesn't exist.  In emergency, the car  
> 'must' come to a complete stop before power can be restored.  This  
> was a bone chilling stop and could cause accidents on board,  
> especially with elderly and most especially if they are standing.   
> Thus ops found that putting the car in neutral over rode emergency  
> but allowed for full service braking using only the disc brakes   
> (track brakes are cut out and neutral bypasses the motors so no  
> dynamic) - smooth stop and 'dead' car.  Going into neutral totally  
> kills the car - it 'must' stop and it 'must' be restarted.
>
> Very interesting the differences you note below, especially  
> coasting in neutral - I honestly don't understand the advantage  
> here to bypass the deadman.
>
> We have the rules of today because of mistakes in the past don't  
> we.  Remember the early 1900s accident with a low floor running  
> away in the tunnel on Christmas Eve day - alcohol was involved,  
> motorman was apparently 'angry' because he had to perform the  
> conductor's job by putting the trolley pole back on the wire, and  
> how on earth did he lose the trolley in the tunnel?  Too fast  
> through the junction with a dewirement at the frog?  Back then may  
> 'spotters' rode the car to 'insure' compliance and the spotters  
> were needed because many violated rules.  I very seriously doubt a  
> transit company operated without a rule book; they still exist  
> today don't they.  If people of the past were so good then why the  
> high accident rate with equipment?  Shouldn't be any accidents at  
> all.  Washington car sees a skirt running, dumps sand, backs up on  
> single track - rules violations?  Disastrous head on accident  
> between 2 Brill 37s happened didn't it.  'If' people of the
>  past performed any better it is because they knew they were likely  
> watched.
>
> Rules started with The 10 Commandments and even earlier but it is  
> possible that the situation relative to the 10 is even worse today  
> isn't it.  Our justice system can't display 'it' because it is  
> 'religious' but the Constitution doesn't say freedom 'from' but  
> freedom 'of' religion doesn't it.  Our government was set up with a  
> system of 'checks and balances' because the founding fathers  
> recognized the frailty of mankind that power corrupts and absolute  
> power corrupts absolutely, doesn't it.  These checks and balances  
> are against the highest people in the land over 200-years ago.
>
> Management is just as bad as the worker; look at the fiasco today  
> created by greedy people in very high places with tremendous  
> educations.  Michael Milken, Enron, Kenneth Lay and his sudden  
> death is very suspicious and there a multitudes like these in high  
> places.  This loan-lease back problem with AIG and transit agencies  
> is just one example of highly paid / highly educated people taking  
> serious risks which 'generally' work in an inflationary economy.   
> Here is the URL again:
>
> http://thetransportpolitic.wordpress.com/2008/10/26/short-term- 
> thinking/
>
> Alcohol testing of safety sensitive employees nationwide resulted  
> from airline pilots and railroad engineers being intoxicated on the  
> job.  Pilots are certainly well educated and highly trained.  Even  
> after mandatory testing there are news stories where alert people  
> have prevented totally inebriated pilots from boarding planes.
>
> Better trap better mouse.  No;  imperfect world.  'We' can't make  
> anything failsafe and thus someone is able to find the weakness and  
> exploit it.  Sometimes it is called loopholes isn't it.
>
> People are people are people any where any time.  As I said above,  
> we have the rules of today because of mistakes in the past don't we.
>
>
> Phil
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
>> From: Schneider Fred <fwschneider at comcast.net>
>> To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
>> Sent: Friday, November 21, 2008 5:43:18 PM
>>
>> 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.
>>
>
>>
>>>> ----- Original Message ----
>>>> Fred Schneider wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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."
>>>
>>>
>>> On Nov 21, 2008, at 3:49 PM, Phillip Clark Campbell wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>