Re: NTSB says CSX switch 'lined & locked into siding' (re Amtrak in SC)
Author: OPRRMS
Date: 02-04-2018 - 21:16
Hoghead 1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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.
OK, I see.
I don't have any information about what CSX requires.
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 |