FRA Allows Amtrak To Remove Derails at the Spuyten Duyvil Bridge

[Thirdrail7]

Amtrak submitted a petition seeking to remove the split rail derails approaching the Spuyten Duyvil moveable bridge to the FRA last summer.

Here are some of the reasons they listed:

Amtrak would like to remove the derails as they have been rendered obsolete by advanced technologies which ensure that trains stop rather than derail. They have been a source of considerable delay to time-sensitive passenger trains. Amtrak desires to remove these derails from the main tracks to eliminate maintenance and operation of obsolete hardware that is no longer needed, and to reduce delays caused by failures of the derails. Each of the interlocking home signals protecting these derails and the associated movable bridge are equipped with 100Hz coded cab signal system with speed control. The interlockings have also been equipped with both Advanced Civil Speed Enforcement System and Positive Train Stop.

Recently, the FRA issued a decision allowing Amtrak to remove the derails that protect the bridge

Please allow a brief fair use quote from the decision, with added emphasis:

Amtrak is removing these derails from the main track to eliminate maintenance and operation of
obsolete hardware that is no longer needed, and to reduce delays caused by failures of the derails.
Each of the interlocking home signals protecting these derails and the associated movable bridge
are equipped with 1OOHz coded cab signal system with speed control. The interlockings have
also been equipped with the Advanced Civil Speed Enforcement System (ACSES). Any
unequipped equipment or non A TC & ACSES functioning trains will be protected by operating
rule.
FRA's Railroad Safety Board (Board) carefully reviewed the BSAP, FRA's field investigation
findings, and FRA's technical staff findings. The Board concluded that granting approval ofthe
BSAP would be in the public interest and consistent with railroad safety. As a result, FRA has
granted approval to the BSAP .

Frankly, I find it interesting the FRA allowed this. Surely, they know that cab signals aren't the end all be all, ACSES can fail and operating rules haven't necessarily been helpful as of late. Additionally, I believe a split rail derail was quite helpful at a moveable bridge last year.

Very interesting, indeed.

 

[TinCan782]

Is this the same type of derail as at Steilacoom/Chambers Bay in Washington state where Amtrak "derailed" last year?

IIRC the signal was "missed".

 

[wdscott]

Amtrak submitted a petition seeking to remove the split rail derails approaching the Spuyten Duyvil moveable bridge to the FRA last summer.

Here are some of the reasons they listed:

Amtrak would like to remove the derails as they have been rendered obsolete by advanced technologies which ensure that trains stop rather than derail. They have been a source of considerable delay to time-sensitive passenger trains. Amtrak desires to remove these derails from the main tracks to eliminate maintenance and operation of obsolete hardware that is no longer needed, and to reduce delays caused by failures of the derails. Each of the interlocking home signals protecting these derails and the associated movable bridge are equipped with 100Hz coded cab signal system with speed control. The interlockings have also been equipped with both Advanced Civil Speed Enforcement System and Positive Train Stop.

Recently, the FRA issued a decision allowing Amtrak to remove the derails that protect the bridge

Please allow a brief fair use quote from the decision, with added emphasis:

Amtrak is removing these derails from the main track to eliminate maintenance and operation of

obsolete hardware that is no longer needed, and to reduce delays caused by failures of the derails.

Each of the interlocking home signals protecting these derails and the associated movable bridge

are equipped with 1OOHz coded cab signal system with speed control. The interlockings have

also been equipped with the Advanced Civil Speed Enforcement System (ACSES). Any

unequipped equipment or non A TC & ACSES functioning trains will be protected by operating

rule.

FRA's Railroad Safety Board (Board) carefully reviewed the BSAP, FRA's field investigation

findings, and FRA's technical staff findings. The Board concluded that granting approval ofthe

BSAP would be in the public interest and consistent with railroad safety. As a result, FRA has

granted approval to the BSAP .

Frankly, I find it interesting the FRA allowed this. Surely, they know that cab signals aren't the end all be all, ACSES can fail and operating rules haven't necessarily been helpful as of late. Additionally, I believe a split rail derail was quite helpful at a moveable bridge last year.

Very interesting, indeed.

Is there any such thing as “unequipped equipment”?

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum

 

[Ryan]

Yes, a driving cab not outfitted with ACSES would be "unequipped equipment".

 

[wdscott]

Ha!

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum

 

[Devil's Advocate]

 

[Acela150]

Ha!

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum

He actually wasn't kidding. ACSES is Amtrak's PTC within the NEC. Their are plenty of units that aren't equipped with ACSES. P42's come to mind. Many of them aren't ACSES equipped. To the point where the Philadelphia Harrisburg Main Line became ACSES activated ACS-64's would lead the Pennsylvanian trains to Harrisburg and they would remove the ACS-64. Even though the bulletins stated that P42's without ACSES equipment could lead a train in ACSES territory.

 

[wdscott]

I was acutely aware of that. The comment neglected smileys that would have made the silliness obvious.

“Unequipped equipment” is sort of like “present absence” and other fun oxymorons any of us could dream up.

Are we all cool?

—Bill

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum

 

[Thirdrail7]

Is this the same type of derail as at Steilacoom/Chambers Bay in Washington state where Amtrak "derailed" last year?

IIRC the signal was "missed".

That was kind of my point. It seems the FRA is allowing convenience and "high hopes of rules compliance" to override an emergency, last resort safety system.

It once again supports my position that the rubber stamp FRA is not a proactive agency....it is a reactive agency. The industry has seen a lot of high profile, major incidents in the last 7 years. If they were really interested in safety, you would think they wouldn't allow ANY sort of existing safety system to be removed.

 

[Just-Thinking-51]

It once again supports my position that the rubber stamp FRA is not a proactive agency....it is a reactive agency.

Most government agencies are reactive and not proactive. The sinking of the EL Faro http://gcaptain.com/coast-guard-issues-final-action-memo-el-faro-investigation/ the USCG blames its poor inspection system as a cause. The USCG came down hard on the twin ship EL YUNQUE and it was pulled out of service and is getting scraped.

With our political system a government agency with a proactive view will get nasty letters from politicians and sued by those who disagree.

If Amtrak was ask how many units (power, cab or MOW) are not equipped with the PTC then I am sure FRA would rule otherwise.

 

[west point]

Could it have been the derails were old and instead of replacing them with new derails Amtrak had excuse of old ones not reliable as excuse to eliminate them ?

 

[Acela150]

I was acutely aware of that. The comment neglected smileys that would have made the silliness obvious.

“Unequipped equipment” is sort of like “present absence” and other fun oxymorons any of us could dream up.

Are we all cool?

—Bill

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum

It's alright.

Hope that my reply gave you some insight as well.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

The idea of tempting fate at a crossing aptly named Spuyten Duyvil (Dutch: In spite of the Devil) draws pause.

 

[KnightRail]

Whats being asked for is already standard on the five NEC Connecticut moveable bridges. Derails have been long removed.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Does that make it the correct choice?