Ten90 Solutions LLC

I received an inquiry.  The inquirer could not understand why/how I could: (1) have argued for the installation of a forced 30 mph code on the curve at DV in 2005 (2) can argue today that MNR is not liable to the locomotive engineer of train 8808 for damages, pain and suffering, when he operated the train through the curve at a speed some 50 mph greater than the authorized speed.

That's a fair question, and I'll give it better than a fair answer.  At least I hope I will.

First and foremost, we have to make a distinction between unsafe conditions and  unsafe actions.   An unsafe condition is a condition that will affect every train, or the great majority of trains, operating through or in the unsafe condition. 

For example, wide-gage represents an unsafe condition because every train operating through the improper gage is at risk of derailing even when being operated in compliance with all the rules of the railroad.   

For another example, operating a train with insufficient braking power to meet the signal design distance represents an unsafe condition because every train with such inadequate braking power is at risk for overrunning a stop signal, even when the speed conforms to the special instructions and signal indications provided in advance of the stop signal.   

The curve at DV did not present an unsafe condition on the railroad. The curve was properly identified, and a proper speed restriction was assigned to trains operating in the curve. 

Now ATC does not protect against unsafe conditions.  It cannot.  Contrary to the beliefs of some, the cab signal indications and speed requirements are not driven by track conditions. Gage, super-elevation, curvature do not transmit any signal, or create any condition that can automatically signal a requirement for reduced speed. 

There is only one "track condition" that can initiate such a requirement and that occurs only when the track circuit has been disrupted, broken,  through a break in the rail itself.  That break is a loss of electrical power and continuity and is indistinguishable from occupancy by another train. 

Cab signals are a signal system, and signal systems are driven by conditions of occupancy, of the distance to the train ahead.  Signal systems are designed to maintain the safe separation of trains, not to communicate information about the track.

In the eastern US, we like to say,  "all signals are speed signals." In the west, they say something else, but sooner or later they'll see the light.

Speed control is an enforcement system designed to enforce a specific speed attached to the cab signal indication. 

Clearly, cab signal/automatic speed control systems are designed to protect the railroad from unsafe actions, the human errors of train and engine crews who might violate that safe separation of trains.   

Now certainly speed control can be adapted to enforce "civil speed restrictions" (restrictions required by curvature, alignment, etc.).  I thought it was a good idea then, and I think so now, but the decision to not so adapt the system does not and did not create an unsafe condition. 

Not all trains operating without ATC enforcement at DV curve will derail in the curve.  As a matter of fact, between 2005 and 2013, some 200,000 southward trains operated around the curve without ATC enforcement.  None derailed.  

All trains operating at 82 mph, in violation of the advertised speed restriction will derail in DV curve. 

Why did I support the implementation of an automatically enforced restriction then? Not because there was an unsafe condition.  I believed that MNR owed it to its passengers to protect them from the 1 in X number of trips unsafe action of a locomotive engineer. 

The automatic enforcement of civil speed restrictions was never mandated by the regulator until the RSIA of 2008, and now takes effect sometime before December 31, 2020.

Meanwhile the responsibility for complying with such restrictions is the responsibility of the train and engine crews, as it was in 2005 and as it was in 2013.   They are obligated to control  the speed of the train in accordance with such restrictions as a condition of employment.

That's what the jobs are: delivery of service in accordance with the rules.  If the employee fails to do that, it is the obligation of the railroad to terminate that employment, not pay a penalty to the employee. 

David Schanoes

May 13, 2019

My name is Bill and I'm a head case

                                --The Who