Re: NTSB says CSX switch 'lined & locked into siding' (re Amtrak in SC)
Author: Hoghead 1
Date: 02-04-2018 - 21:13
OPRRMS Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> JOHN Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Geob Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Is this a line with no signals?
> >
> > Do they require SPAF?
>
> What is SPAF?
SPAF stands for Switch Position Awareness Form. It is an additional tool in dark (non-signaled) territory to help crews focus on making sure the switch has been restored to its proper position when they are done using it. It has been a while since I've had to use one, but I believe the basic notations that have to be filled out are time, location, employee, and position of switch as you left it when you were finished at that location. This form was developed after one too many incidents of crews leaving switches lined for other than main track, and the next train through didn't fare so well. It is not fool proof, by any means, but is designed to get the employees involved in handling the switch to think twice about being sure it is restored to its normal position before they leave.
NTSB says CSX switch 'lined & locked into siding' (re Amtrak in SC)
|
Graham Buxton |
02-04-2018 - 18:26 |
Re: NTSB says CSX switch 'lined & locked into siding' (re Amtrak in SC)
|
Geob |
02-04-2018 - 19:12 |
Re: NTSB says CSX switch 'lined & locked into siding' (re Amtrak in SC)
|
JOHN |
02-04-2018 - 19:53 |
Re: NTSB says CSX switch 'lined & locked into siding' (re Amtrak in SC)
|
OPRRMS |
02-04-2018 - 20:53 |
Re: NTSB says CSX switch 'lined & locked into siding' (re Amtrak in SC) |
Hoghead 1 |
02-04-2018 - 21:13 |
Re: NTSB says CSX switch 'lined & locked into siding' (re Amtrak in SC)
|
OPRRMS |
02-04-2018 - 21:16 |
Re: NTSB says CSX switch 'lined & locked into siding' (re Amtrak in SC)
|
RRACS |
02-06-2018 - 07:56 |
Re: NTSB says CSX switch 'lined & locked into siding' (re Amtrak in SC)
|
Hot Water |
02-06-2018 - 07:59 |
Re: NTSB says CSX switch 'lined & locked into siding' (re Amtrak in SC)
|
tundraboomer |
02-06-2018 - 08:34 |
Re: NTSB says CSX switch 'lined & locked into siding' (re Amtrak in SC)
|
OPRRMS |
02-06-2018 - 11:09 |
Re: NTSB says CSX switch 'lined & locked into siding' (re Amtrak in SC)
|
tundraboomer |
02-06-2018 - 11:27 |
Re: NTSB says CSX switch 'lined & locked into siding' (re Amtrak in SC)
|
OPRRMS |
02-06-2018 - 11:35 |
Re: NTSB says CSX switch 'lined & locked into siding' (re Amtrak in SC)
|
tundraboomer |
02-06-2018 - 11:45 |
Re: NTSB says CSX switch 'lined & locked into siding' (re Amtrak in SC)
|
OPRRMS |
02-06-2018 - 11:58 |
Re: NTSB says CSX switch 'lined & locked into siding' (re Amtrak in SC)
|
Dr Zarkoff |
02-06-2018 - 12:36 |
Re: NTSB says CSX switch 'lined & locked into siding' (re Amtrak in SC)
|
OPRRMS |
02-06-2018 - 12:51 |
Re: NTSB says CSX switch 'lined & locked into siding' (re Amtrak in SC)
|
tundraboomer |
02-06-2018 - 14:09 |
Re: Amtrak in SC-Restricted Speed?
|
BOB2 |
02-06-2018 - 14:57 |
Re: Amtrak in SC-Restricted Speed?
|
OPRRMS |
02-06-2018 - 15:45 |
Re: Amtrak in SC-Restricted Speed?
|
tundraboomer |
02-06-2018 - 16:23 |
Re: Amtrak in SC-Restricted Speed?
|
OldPoleBurner |
02-07-2018 - 12:15 |
Re: Amtrak in SC-Restricted Speed?
|
Dr Zarkoff |
02-07-2018 - 13:45 |
Re: NTSB says CSX switch 'lined & locked into siding' (re Amtrak in SC)
|
Dr Zarkoff |
02-06-2018 - 16:10 |
Re: 59 mph, in unsingalled territory OMG!
|
BOB2 |
02-06-2018 - 17:14 |
Re: 59 mph, in unsingalled territory OMG!
|
tundraboomer |
02-06-2018 - 18:48 |
Re: 100 years, actually over 17 years and OMG we're still alllowing that kind of operation and these unnecessary deaths?
|
BOB2 |
02-06-2018 - 19:36 |
Re: 100 years, actually over 17 years and OMG we're still alllowing that kind of operation and these unnecessary deaths?
|
tundraboomer |
02-06-2018 - 19:42 |
Re: 100 years, actually over 175 years and OMG we're still alllowing that kind of operation and these unnecessary deaths?
|
BOB2 |
02-06-2018 - 20:39 |
Re: 100 years, actually over 175 years and OMG we're still alllowing that kind of operation and these unnecessary deaths?
|
tundraboomer |
02-07-2018 - 06:14 |
Re: My poor logic, yeah right?
|
BOB2 |
02-07-2018 - 08:35 |
Re: My poor logic, yeah right?
|
OPRRMS |
02-07-2018 - 13:12 |
Re: My poor logic, yeah right?
|
OPRRMS |
02-07-2018 - 13:32 |
Re: Yep that was in the rule book but I never saw it used....and it's still a bad practice.
|
BOB2 |
02-07-2018 - 15:34 |
Re: Yep that was in the rule book but I never saw it used....and it's still a bad practice.
|
OPRRMS |
02-07-2018 - 17:28 |
Re: Yep that was in the rule book but I never saw it used....and it's still a bad practice.
|
OPRRMS |
02-07-2018 - 18:10 |
Re: My poor logic, yeah right?
|
tundraboomer |
02-07-2018 - 17:27 |
Re: 100 years, actually over 17 years and OMG we're still alllowing that kind of operation and these unnecessary deaths?
|
OldPoleBurner |
02-07-2018 - 13:16 |
Re: 100 years, actually over 17 years and OMG we're still alllowing that kind of operation and these unnecessary deaths?
|
Dr Zarkoff |
02-07-2018 - 13:51 |
Re: NTSB says CSX switch 'lined & locked into siding' (re Amtrak in SC)
|
BOB2 |
02-04-2018 - 21:16 |
Re: NTSB says CSX switch 'lined & locked into siding' (re Amtrak in SC)
|
OPRRMS |
02-04-2018 - 20:40 |
Re: NTSB says CSX switch 'lined & locked into siding' (re Amtrak in SC)
|
WILL |
02-04-2018 - 20:59 |
Re: NTSB says CSX switch 'lined & locked into siding' (re Amtrak in SC)
|
RWS |
02-04-2018 - 21:53 |
Atk in SC
|
Nudge |
02-07-2018 - 18:21 |
Re: Atk in SC
|
OPRRMS |
02-07-2018 - 18:36 |
Re: Atk in SC
|
tundraboomer |
02-07-2018 - 19:15 |
Re: Atk in SC
|
Dr Zarkoff |
02-07-2018 - 21:38 |
Re: Atk in SC
|
Finis |
02-07-2018 - 20:46 |
Re: Atk in SC
|
Glen Icanberry |
02-09-2018 - 03:55 |
Re: Except that some of them feel it is safer to run at 59 when you turn them off, but only at restricted speed when they fail?
|
BOB2 |
02-09-2018 - 07:47 |
Re: Except that some of them feel it is safer to run at 59 when you turn them off, but only at restricted speed when they fail?
|
tundraboomer |
02-09-2018 - 08:14 |
Re: Except that some of them feel it is safer to run at 59 when you turn them off, but only at restricted speed when they fail?
|
OPRRMS |
02-09-2018 - 10:50 |