posted
I realize that this is an Amtrak forum, but I mention the Southwest Chief in this post, so it's OK.
Last Saturday I drove down to Bernalillo and rode the Rail Runner to Belen and back. Id never been to Belen before, so it was fun. We were delayed by a broken BNSF engine ("sparks and pops coming out of the computer," said the voice on my scanner.) and I saw some sandhills cranes in the fields along the tracks.
We left Albuquerque on the way back on Main 2 track, the right-hand track going toward Bernalillo. The line is two tracks to Hahn where it goes back to one. There's a crossover at Hahn and as we approached, the brakes came on and we slowed down. We were in pusher mode and the engineer was in the remote cab. I was sitting just outside the cab. The Main 2 switch was set to switch us to Main 1 track. The signals must have changed just as we got there, because the engineer said a word that would probably be automatically deleted by the bulletin board, and braked hard.
I think the wheels locked up and we slid onto the crosstrack and stopped about halfway to the Main 1 track.
Well, the Main 1 switch was set for straight through, because the westbound Southwest Chief was on the way. We backed up onto Main 2 and in a minute or so I saw the light of the Chief coming our way.
It would have been a slow-speed derail, but it would have tied the track up for a long time.
It was a fun ride, though. I even got a Rail Runner one-year anniversary ID lanyard that I'm sending to my friend in New Zealand who collects train stuff.
The Rail Runner extension is going great guns in the median of I-25 south of Santa Fe. They're already stacking rail in the median and they're storing half a zillion concrete ties in a field not too far from my office.
-------------------- Kiernan Posts: 155 | From: Santa Fe, New Mexico | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
My "scary" Rail Runner/Chief story starts when I was at ABQ waiting for #4 to arrive. #4 comes in on track 2, not the closest track to the station. ABQ is a long stop and passengers are encouraged to detrain and shop.
With the new Rail Runner this is now an accident waiting to happen. As it works out, a Rail Runner comes through (on track one) during the Chief's scheduled layover. And The Chief is usually good with on time performance into ABQ. So what happens is there are many passengers getting off the Chief to stretch, shop, and do whatever. To do so though they must cross track one to get to the platform and station, a dangerous undertaking when no trains are scheduled. But now they have to look out for the Rail Runner blasting through. It is so dangerous. I saw an elderly man almost get squished.
I'm all for the new commuter rail, but before something happens I hope they work on the safety issue at ABQ when #4 comes in.
BTW, #3 is okay since it comes in on track one.
-------------------- Matt Visit gallery for photos of our train layouts Posts: 579 | From: San Bernardino Subdivison | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kiernan: The Main 2 switch was set to switch us to Main 1 track. The signals must have changed just as we got there, because the engineer said a word that would probably be automatically deleted by the bulletin board, and braked hard.
I think the wheels locked up and we slid onto the crosstrack and stopped about halfway to the Main 1 track.
Well, the Main 1 switch was set for straight through, because the westbound Southwest Chief was on the way.
We backed up onto Main 2 and in a minute or so I saw the light of the Chief coming our way.
There are two things wrong with this situation: firstly, a main-to-main crossover is usually paired, such that both ends are controlled from the same switch/lever/control. Secondly, even if the dispatcher put the signal back and set the route for the Chief instead, there should be a timeout before he's able to do the latter - anything from 2 to 4 minutes typically. I can't imagine the signalling is so substandard as to not have these basic safety features... surely?
quote:Originally posted by Kiernan: It would have been a slow-speed derail, but it would have tied the track up for a long time.
More likely to have damaged the trailing switch than derailed the train, unless it was a clamplock switch.
Geoff M.
-------------------- Geoff M. Posts: 2426 | From: Apple Valley, CA | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
It makes sense that the switches would be paired, Geoff, but I could see the switch on the other track and it wasn't set for us. I don't know that the signals changed--it's possible that the engineer missed the signal. He might not have been paying attention. As we left Albuquerque they got two track warrants, one to Bernalillo and one back.
Anyway, I'm glad nothing happened. It would have required the National Transportation Safety Board to show up and that would have been a mess.
-------------------- Kiernan Posts: 155 | From: Santa Fe, New Mexico | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
From Google Earth I can see that there is a main-to-main crossover about 3.5 miles north of Albuquerque (from main 2 to main 1 northbound), followed by the singling of the track about a mile further on. It is this former crossover to which you're referring, right? If so, mighty strange if each end is controlled seperately.
I don't know about signal blocks in that area, but a known factor in some train accidents is what we delightfully call a SOYSPAD - nothing to do with the sauce - Starting On Yellow Signal Passed At Danger. Basically, driver stops at a station, gets the order to proceed, forgets that the signal is showing a single yellow, and ends up going too fast for the red signal that follows it. This was a factor in the Silver Spring, MD crash of 1996.
I'm not suggesting that this was the situation here, however.
Geoff M.
-------------------- Geoff M. Posts: 2426 | From: Apple Valley, CA | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The arrangement, prior to Rail Runner, was track 2 had a single switch at Hahn, not a crossover with two switches. A train on track 2 would simply merge on to track 1 when authorized, by signal indication and/or train order. I believe it was a spring switch which allowed track 1 to be entered from track 2 without stopping, while a move from 1 to 2 would require the switch to be opened. All of this was tied into the signal system so that a train on either track would have a signal indication that another train was close by, how close was by the color of the signal, in earlier days it was a upper quadrant semiphore.
Posts: 467 | From: Prescott, AZ USA | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is the ATS still in operation? I have a 2002 ETT, and it says "ATS in effect between Lamy and Hahn and on both tracks between Hahn and Albuquerque." If still in effect, that should have set the brakes for him if the engineer had failed to do so.
Given the nature of ABS signals, I do not see how the engineer could have gotten anything but a stop facing an oncoming train. Likewise, usually the normal US system does lock out any possibility of moving a power switch when a train is on the approach circuit. If you need to throw it, there is usually a time delay feature.
Geoff: It may have been one of your "SOYSPAD - nothing to do with the sauce - Starting On Yellow Signal Passed At Danger" but, I just don't see how unless something went wrong in the system. (Love some of these British acronyms.) No clamp locks, here or anywhere else in the US, except possibly on some of the high speed German fabricated turnouts found in a few places. In fact, this was a 30 mph spring switch at end of double track and not a crossover at all in 2002. Not power operated at all at that time.
George
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by George Harris: Is the ATS still in operation?...George
As far as I know it's out. The passenger speed limit definitely has been reduced to 79 versus 90. So it makes sense that the ATS sections are also out. There used to be an ATS inductor near the old Bernalillo semaphore. Last time I went by (this summer) I didn't see either.
That's progress for you
Also I find it hard to believe the Rail Runner would not have a restricting signal of some sort well in advance of the Chief. And what troubles me more...assuming #3 was close to on time (which it usually is) shouldn't the Rail Runner engineer know to look out for or at least anticipate the only non Rail Runner train he really needs to be looking out for? Freight traffic is really sparse nowadays.
-------------------- Matt Visit gallery for photos of our train layouts Posts: 579 | From: San Bernardino Subdivison | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Given the megabucks being spent to build a direct line into Santa Fe, you would think the state would want to keep the ATS, and even apply it to the new line into Santa Fe so they could get the extra speed it permits. With the ATS, it would not have to be kept to 90 mph. Track conditions permitting, the limit could just as well be 110 mph.
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rumours suggested the ATS was too expensive to maintain for just a couple of trains a day, which, if true, would explain why it's non-operational.
The spring switch or historical anomaly makes sense, albeit still consisting of somewhat substandard flank protection.
Geoff M.
-------------------- Geoff M. Posts: 2426 | From: Apple Valley, CA | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Geoff: I would suspect that by now the old Santa Fe ATS components are all museum pieces. On the other hand, it is alive and well most of the way west of Albuquerque to about Barstow. My thinking was not in keeping it alive for the Southwest Chief, but in this section for the Albuquerque to Santa Fe Railrunners.
Spring switches are also alive and well in much of the US in non-CTC tracks. The higher maintenance inherent in a switch that is trailed through and reset by a spring is less than that of a switch motor and saves both fuel and time for the trains.
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Southwest Chief: Interesting Rail Runner/Chief story.
My "scary" Rail Runner/Chief story starts when I was at ABQ waiting for #4 to arrive. #4 comes in on track 2, not the closest track to the station. ABQ is a long stop and passengers are encouraged to detrain and shop.
With the new Rail Runner this is now an accident waiting to happen. As it works out, a Rail Runner comes through (on track one) during the Chief's scheduled layover. And The Chief is usually good with on time performance into ABQ. So what happens is there are many passengers getting off the Chief to stretch, shop, and do whatever. To do so though they must cross track one to get to the platform and station, a dangerous undertaking when no trains are scheduled. But now they have to look out for the Rail Runner blasting through.....
This was the case when I was on #4 two weeks ago. While the "runner" was traveling slow - I wonder how many Amtrak passengers are even aware of it's existance. There was no cautionary announcement - merely the usual "do not wander too far and be prepared to reboard at ...(time)" I feel this is not a case of will there be an accident but when will it happen.
Dee
Posts: 460 | From: North Central CT | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Would those of you who think it's an accident waiting to happen please phone Amtrak HQ and tell them so? If you use the tollfree they can connect you to customer service or whatever it's called. You can also try to phone ABQ station if at all possible. Thanks so much!
Posts: 2642 | From: upstate New York | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
