Okay, I do not know the location in question or where the
signals were located, but ...

A major problem that surfaced in several accidents during
the past two decades has been an engineer departing a
station at which he arrived under a restrictive signal,
either having forgotten that he was under a restrictive
signal or expecting the next signal to have cleared by
the time he departed.

If the engineer cannot see a signal at the point that he
is departing a station stop, it is relatively easy, given
the attention that needs to be paid to making the station
stop, to lose track of what the last signal was. (No,
the engineer should not do so, but these things happen.)

One solution to this is to align the signals so that on
departing a station in either direction, the engineer can
always see a signal. In some cases, this may require
modification of block lengths or subdividing blocks into
shorter blocks.

The NS/NCRR line near where I live in North Carolina was
converted to CTC within the past five years -- and the
CTC is being expanded eastward.

The Rail Division of the NCDOT, which did most of the
engineering work for the signal installations Insisted
that at station locations, the signals be placed so that
the engineer could see a signal on departing.

When a train departs, the engineer calls the signal:
"Departing Durham on a clear signal at xxx [milepost]."
Or, "Departing Durham on an approach signal [etc.} at
xxx [milepost]."


Could this have been what happened? If so, there may not
have been time to react when the train arrived at the
stop signal at full speed.

Some European signal systems use what is called a
signal "immitator/repeater." This is used at locations
where the actual signal, for whatever reason, cannot be
seen from a sufficient distance. The immitator/repeater,
which is very distinct from the actual signal, conveys
no authority by itself and is not a block signal. It
simply shows the status of the next signal, which may
be around a tight curve or on the other side of a tunnel.

Yes, the engineer should still be operating based on
the indication of the previous signal, but, particularly
where it may have been necessary to stop within a block,
it is helpful to have an indication of what the next
signal is showing -- if it cannot be seen at the normal
distance.

-- Ernest

P.S.: Again, a generally good discussion. As OPB
pointed out elsewhere, automatic train stop (ATS) does
not have to be terribly technically advanced. You
have some type of transponder next to a signal, and
the engine has some type of pickup. Any type of
restrictive signal requires an acknowledgement, which
is captured on the event recorder. The system has
to have the possibility of passing a stop signal on
authority of a dispatcher, but that type of action
requires an override that more complex than simply
acknowledging a restritive signal.

I am really concerned that the FRA is going to try
to go for some type of super-advanced system that
incorporates GPS and lots of other features -- which
would not only make the system more expensive but
also more prone to problems.

Sorry this P.S. is getting so long, but one more
point: In Europe, for any engine either not having
ATS (historic steamers, for example), or having an
inoperable ATS system, due to technical problems,
there is an absolute requirement that there
be two people in the cab, calling signals to each
other.