Harry Posted April 26, 2018 Share #1 Posted April 26, 2018 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Via Garibaldi 8 Posted April 26, 2018 Share #2 Posted April 26, 2018 Oh this is gonna be fun... They're already short on trains as it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jsunflyguy Posted April 26, 2018 Share #3 Posted April 26, 2018 Interesting I thought the ASC system qualified as positive train control. Is there no penalty brake for a red signal? Or is it that PTC also has to account for speeding infractions on curves and switches as well? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MNR Beacon Line Posted April 28, 2018 Share #4 Posted April 28, 2018 On 4/26/2018 at 7:58 PM, Jsunflyguy said: Interesting I thought the ASC system qualified as positive train control. Is there no penalty brake for a red signal? Or is it that PTC also has to account for speeding infractions on curves and switches as well? The current cab signaling system on MNR and LIRR is not compliant with PTC. I'm more familiar with the MNR end but I know LIRR is slightly different so I can't speak absolutely for both systems. It was only originally designed to prevent signal-related infractions. The most restrictive indication is R (15 mph) (there is no stop cab indication, only wayside) which is enforced with a full service penalty application. ASC as-is is most likely compliant in satisfying the the functional prevention of train-to-train collisions requirement as per 49 CFR 236.1005 (f). Originally the only speed limit the system enforced was the maximum allowable speed on the road. After the Spuyten Duyvil derailment to comply with FRA Emergency Order 29 they added speed enforcement to some bad curves around the system by retrofitting ASC, but some territory speed limits are still not enforced by ASC, so it does not comply with the requirement to functionally prevent overspeed derailments (49 CFR 236.1005 [a] [1] [ii]). There are additional requirements not met by ASC, for example 49 CFR 236.1005 (a) ( 1) (iii) which requires functional prevention of train incursion into work zones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jsunflyguy Posted April 29, 2018 Share #5 Posted April 29, 2018 4 hours ago, MNR Beacon Line said: The current cab signaling system on MNR and LIRR is not compliant with PTC. I'm more familiar with the MNR end but I know LIRR is slightly different so I can't speak absolutely for both systems. It was only originally designed to prevent signal-related infractions. The most restrictive indication is R (15 mph) (there is no stop cab indication, only wayside) which is enforced with a full service penalty application. ASC as-is is most likely compliant in satisfying the the functional prevention of train-to-train collisions requirement as per 49 CFR 236.1005 (f). Originally the only speed limit the system enforced was the maximum allowable speed on the road. After the Spuyten Duyvil derailment to comply with FRA Emergency Order 29 they added speed enforcement to some bad curves around the system by retrofitting ASC, but some territory speed limits are still not enforced by ASC, so it does not comply with the requirement to functionally prevent overspeed derailments (49 CFR 236.1005 [a] [1] [ii]). There are additional requirements not met by ASC, for example 49 CFR 236.1005 (a) ( 1) (iii) which requires functional prevention of train incursion into work zones. EExcellent, thenk you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.