Has anyone witnessed trains sliding past stop signals due to rain, leaves, oil, etc.? Are these considered discipline events? Are they usually reported if they occur?

Unless the signal drops red in front of you (which I have had happen to me), you should have received restricting signals before you encounter a red signal. You should know the territory well enough to know where the next signal is and what aspect to expect when you encounter it and be ready to act on whatever it may be. There have been instances I have seen in which a braking problem led a crew to get by a red, but if you do,you have some explaining to do, as well as an investigation to deal with.

In the case of the signal changing while in view, what happens? You miss the signal and back up?

If an absolute signal "drops in your face" (CSX crew term), to red and you get by it, first the dispatcher's board is going to flag it right away. Since you've probably dumped the air into emergency attempting to stop in time (most of us really don't want to leave ourselves open to getting past a stop signal - even one clearly malfunctioning), you're probably already stopped when the dispatcher calls you to tell you to stop (they do know what train is where).

Now, I'm not sure how this works on any other signaled railroad, but on CSX, if you tell the DS that the signal dropped in your face, they will tell you to stand-by for what seems like an eternity while a supervisor checks the recording of that signal's status. Absolute signals are recorded, and if the problem was not a malfunctioning intermediate signal before the absolute, in about 10 minutes the DS should come back on telling you that yes, it was the signal's fault, you have permission to pull from where you stand, and proceed at restricted speed to the next signal. If the problem was a malfunctioning intermediate signal before the absolute that gave you better than an approach when it shouldn't have, then you're probably going to be taken out of service pending an inspection of the previous signal - and you'd better hope it malfunctions the same way for them that it did for you.

This is similar to what happened at Fredericksburg, VA in September of 2000, when Amtrak Auto Train #52 got a clear signal Northbound at Fredericksburg (an absolute signal), and a VRE commuter train was sitting in the Fredericksburg station, just beyond the Fredericksburg signal. Fortunately, a CSX freight train coming the other way heard #52's engineer call the clear signal, knew that the VRE train was in the station, and warned the Auto Train to stop in time. Culprit was a bad batch of insulation in that (and other) signal boxes that caused wires to cross and give a "signal improperly displayed". The VRE train's crew was busy getting the train ready for boarding and didn't catch the mis-called signal. Tragedy averted. This is one reason I think calling signals is a very good idea, and I really don't know why NORAC rules don't call for doing that? Under NORAC rules, crews acknowledge defect detector results on the radio, but do not call signals over the radio.

Since I have a knowledgeable audience, can you tell me how engineers are currently taught to brake? I assume there is a recommended braking level that leaves a certain amount of reserve for the scenario I describe where the engineer finds the track more slippery than he/she expected.

This issue came up at a conference last weekend on advanced train control systems. The speaker claimed that the advances of electric braking would not actually translate into improved headways because the engineers would feel obligated to brake conservatively for worst case scenarios. I was not able to read their paper, so I could not study the details of the claim. It seems silly on the surface to me. If you have more responsive brakes, why wouldn't headway performance improve? I think the speaker was not comparing current practices and envisioned future practices equally.

If there is a signal displaying a stop indication in a location that would make stopping or starting a little troublesome, I just wait at the approach signal. It is this reason why I like advance approaches.

Any agreement? That is a really interesting response from a system planning point of view. It is a "gaming" of the signal system by the train crew. It is not the kind of response we might consider at the advanced dispatch/control planning stage.

That presumes that control planners give the slightest thought to train handling when deciding where to site home signals. Generally, I'd expect them to place home signals in front of turnouts. :-) And I'd expect the engineering department to place turnouts where it's POSSIBLE to place turnouts based on the physical characteristics of the railroad; i.e. constrained by canyon walls, bridges, locations of industries, grade crossings, endangered sprite darters, etc.

The only place I can think of where train handling is dominant in design is transit. Mainly in power distribution for electric transit.

I've seen signals put in places that make you wonder if the Signal and Operating Departments ever talk to each other about these things. I've seen signal departments move a signal from a perfectly good place- tangent track with good visibility, to the middle of an s curve[i][/i] on a pretty good grade. After a few pulled drawbars and broken knuckles and burned rails, the signal was again moved...back to where it was!

Never witnessed it, and never hope to (since I'll probably be on another train approaching the area when it happens).

Yes, they are always considered discipline events (other than a signal dropping on a crew, as explained above). Passing a stop signal without proper permission is an automatic FRA engineer's license decertification (30 days 1st offense). That's not even taking into account the fact that most control points are not equipped with derailing devices to prevent a collision in the event a train passes a stop signal. At a lot of control points, that one engine length could mean the difference between going home to your family, or being zipped up in a body bag.

In both the carriers' and FRA's eyes, an engineer is supposed to be qualified on the territory, supposed to always be in control of their train, and supposed to take weather conditions into account. There are no "mulligans" for passing one without permission. In most cases, it results in dismissal for the first offense.

Because signal commands are recorded and monitored, the vast majority of the time they are recorded and handled accordingly.

The speaker was correct in assuming that the new electronically controlled air brake systems won't reduce headways, but for the wrong reason. It's not the engineers, it's the carriers. All of the major freight carriers teach engineers to use the dynamic brakes as the primary braking system. In fact, some will discipline engineers for attempting to "stretch" or "power" brake a train by using the automatic air brakes. Others are so restrictive that they will assess discipline for making a running brake release outside of set parameters in their operating rules (mostly dictated by train length and speed). The current mindset is that the automatic air brake is the method of last resort ... to only be used if the dynamics can't stop the train, or if something is wrong.

Why? Because they don't want to pay for brake shoe replacement, or broken knuckles when an engineer's talent runs out. Unless the carriers have a radical reversal in their methodology, I don't see them suddenly wanting to pay for increased brake shoe replacement simply due to electronically controlled air brakes.

Some have claimed that signal blocks can be shorter, or trains can run faster with the newer systems. Honestly, I don't see either of that happening. Either one costs money that the carriers aren't willing to spend.

Until it becomes cheaper to wear out brake shoes faster than the way they do it now, I believe the newer brake systems are nothing but wasted money. No sense paying for it, if the engineer isn't allowed to use it.

I would agree with the engineer. There are areas where it's better to hang back at the approach signal, and make a run for a hill rather than pull up to the stop signal and risk stalling on the grade. There are also areas where we HAVE to lay back a considerable distance from a stop signal, because pulling up to the Control Point would cause us to block road crossings while we wait for the opposing traffic.

I will agree with my brother engineers on what the companies expect in terms of train handling. Dynamic braking rules the day in most cases. They will nominally teach stretch braking to engineer trainees, just so they know how in case they lose dynamic brakes en-route. There are instances when stretch braking would make more sense in a given situation, but is not allowed. Makes for more broken knuckles, but management would rather roll the bones that the chances of that happening and costing more in damaged equipment, cargo, overtime, re-crews, etc. will be less in the long-run than fuel and brake shoes.

One thing you do learn as an engineer is how to keep moving, but hang back anticipating a better signal. Often several trains moving in the same direction can all keep moving on good signals just by hanging back. Often you can tell by listening to the radio what is going on, and the best strategy for good train-handling. Another reason I really like requiring crews to call signals. Management will officially tell you they don't want that, don't second guess the dispatcher - if they want you stopped at a given place, it's for traffic reasons. Possibly true, it's situational, and an experienced engineer can usually tell when that is true.

Note that some of my initial impressions on this topic came from articles like the recent Trains piece about suburban mu's missing the platform because of leaves.

Thanks for all the great replies.

It is permissable to stretch trains to a stop on CSX. That is my preferred method of braking into a stop signal. Set minimum a sufficient distance out, and as I would be at a point to ready to stop, get 2-3 more. That way, if the signal does clear, I can kick em off (before they get to 10) and get on about my buisness.

As for signaling, every engineer knows his territory or should and should also be trained to acknowledge an approach type signal. I have had MANY signals drop in my face. I have also known of 2 signal failures within 50 miles of my house in the last 2 years. Bad times.

-Joe