Three more segments to be converted to 562

Amtrak posted three more BSAP requests to regulations.gov last month, all requesting elimination of wayside signals and upgrade segments to Rule 562 territory:

'Bush' to 'Wood': https://beta.regulations.gov/document/F ... -0090-0001
'Landover' to 'CP Avenue' https://beta.regulations.gov/document/F ... -0091-0001
'County' to 'Union' https://beta.regulations.gov/document/F ... -0097-0001

Any thoughts?

Bush to Grace looks to be the closest to completion. All the “c” lights are in place (just turned away) awaiting cutover.

For the layman , does this mean conversion to in cab signals only?

Yes, the specifics are in the FRA regs referenced above.

Also for the layman, does this result in lower maintenance costs due to reduced infrastructure and track circuitry to support?

codasd wrote: ↑Thu Jan 07, 2021 3:53 pm Also for the layman, does this result in lower maintenance costs due to reduced infrastructure and track circuitry to support?

Yes.

David Benton wrote:For the layman , does this mean conversion to in cab signals only?

de402 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 06, 2021 10:43 pm
Yes, the specifics are in the FRA regs referenced above.

This doesn't seem right. On the CSX Berkshire Subdivision, wayside signals remain at control points with a "C" signal added. It's the intermediate signals that disappeared.

Conversion to cab signals does not necessarily require removing all wayside signals. The typical practice is to retain the physical signals at interlockings and controlled points but remove the intermediate automatic block signal lights and masts. That doesn't seem to be a hard requirement though - on the Northeast Corridor in Massachusetts, for example, there are still some physical intermediate automatic block signals remaining, even though the territory has long been governed by cab signals and upgraded to the ACSES system when Acela service began operating at speeds up to 150mph. Those block signals may be redundant, but redundancy is not all bad at a buck fifty...

jwhite07 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 08, 2021 6:46 am but redundancy is not all bad at a buck fifty...

Only the word "redundancy" has a somewhat different implication in railroad industry, especially when signalling or other fail-safe mechanism is involved. To minimize safety risks, when a wayside signal fails and does not conform to cab signal, the more restrictive signal (wayside signal in this case) will govern. With wayside signals, failure of either wayside or cab signal may cause a service delay.

Fair point, signal nonconformity is a bad thing too.

My take on the above documents is that they're yanking out way-old equipment that is too costly to maintain... and not putting in any replacements.

This means when you have signal system failure, it'll be the 15 MPH Restrict per block movement all the way down between interlocks! What fun.

jwhite07 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 08, 2021 6:46 am Conversion to cab signals does not necessarily require removing all wayside signals. The typical practice is to retain the physical signals at interlockings and controlled points but remove the intermediate automatic block signal lights and masts. That doesn't seem to be a hard requirement though - on the Northeast Corridor in Massachusetts, for example, there are still some physical intermediate automatic block signals remaining, even though the territory has long been governed by cab signals and upgraded to the ACSES system when Acela service began operating at speeds up to 150mph. Those block signals may be redundant, but redundancy is not all bad at a buck fifty...

But without cab signals that 150mph train has to drop to 79mph (NORAC 556). So the only benefit to keeping intermediate wayside signals is capacity, not speed. C-Lights still allow for 79mph operation (NORAC 562c and 280a), you just can't follow another train within the same block and have to approach every interlocking prepared to stop unless NORAC 280b applies. Both the intermediate signals and the C-Lights count as a "block signal system" in terms of cab signal failure regulations in 49 CFR 236.567(c)(3)

STrRedWolf wrote: ↑Fri Jan 08, 2021 7:49 pm My take on the above documents is that they're yanking out way-old equipment that is too costly to maintain... and not putting in any replacements.

This means when you have signal system failure, it'll be the 15 MPH Restrict per block movement all the way down between interlocks! What fun.

According to all the regulations, removing a wayside signal system and replacing it with a cab signaling system that includes automatic train control is an upgrade. It adds additional speed enforcement of the signal indications. As I described in my previous response, failure rules still allow the same operating speeds up to 79mph.

Trinnau wrote: ↑Sat Jan 09, 2021 8:51 am

jwhite07 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 08, 2021 6:46 am Conversion to cab signals does not necessarily require removing all wayside signals. The typical practice is to retain the physical signals at interlockings and controlled points but remove the intermediate automatic block signal lights and masts. That doesn't seem to be a hard requirement though - on the Northeast Corridor in Massachusetts, for example, there are still some physical intermediate automatic block signals remaining, even though the territory has long been governed by cab signals and upgraded to the ACSES system when Acela service began operating at speeds up to 150mph. Those block signals may be redundant, but redundancy is not all bad at a buck fifty...

But without cab signals that 150mph train has to drop to 79mph (NORAC 556). So the only benefit to keeping intermediate wayside signals is capacity, not speed. C-Lights still allow for 79mph operation (NORAC 562c and 280a), you just can't follow another train within the same block and have to approach every interlocking prepared to stop unless NORAC 280b applies. Both the intermediate signals and the C-Lights count as a "block signal system" in terms of cab signal failure regulations in 49 CFR 236.567(c)(3)

What he said - you're not doing restricted speed from signal to signal. The dispatcher authorizes the rules and you're good to go at a reduced speed.

I apologize for the newbie question, but am I correct in inferring that Amtrak will be dismantling any signal bridges wherever there is Rule 562 in place?

As was mentioned upthread, the someone mentioned that a benefit of wayside signaling is for capacity. Weren't Amtrak and MARC planning on increasing capacity and eventually rebuilding the third track in stretches of the NEC in Maryland?
EDIT: Hit enter too soon.