>Never heard of this one -- perhaps the RR in question was having problems. Where and when did it happen?

Sorry - I had to reformat the .pdf due to cut and paste the FRA letter below.

Note that it is addressed to the AAR, with a copy to ASLRA, suggesting the issue was with one or more Class 1 railroads, not shortlines. My best guess is that it may have been the SP which had capacity issues on the DRGW coal line out of Grand Jct. and modified the DTC rules to allow a second train into a DTC block to follow at restricted speed while the block was jointly occupied. My notes say that the GCOR 3rd edition actually has this modification, which means SP was doing it for at least 5 years before the FRA noticed?

I think NS or CSX also uses a form of DTC, which more closely resembles the former Manual Block System than the SP/GCOR DTC. The old Manual Block System did allow following trains, but that was in the days of flagging per rule 99.

Someone still uses DTC, since it was updated in the last GCOR. I know Alaska used it, so its probably them. It is surprising that so many shortlines insist on using TWC and pay big bucks for a computerized system, instead of DTC or ABR which can easily (and safely) dispatched without a computer's "help" and oversight.

I know the DTC restricted speed exception was gone from the 4th edition of the GCOR. The 6th edition has some interesting changes. They finally incorporated radio blocking long after the Canadians started using it. Trains can now follow each other using radio blocking in both DTC and TWC, but there is a big difference between them. In TWC, the leading train can use any identifiable point to report clear of, which allows the following train to advance to that location. In DTC, one train can follow another but they still cannot occupy the same block under radio blocking.

Notice that the railroads seem to have also given up on "After arrival of" on authority. Someone ought to go back to train orders and timetable operation just to drive the FRA crazy. Railroaders all handling explosive devices (torpedoes) - call Homeland Security and ATF!

I worked three different shortlines with the same conductor. Very eccentric, nicest guy you ever met, but he couldn't switch a giraffe out of a flock of sheep! I ended up babysitting him and working as engineer. Fun things - not only getting cars to the right place, but catching him leaving a main track switch open, accepting a warrant when we were already past the new end point (the dispatcher was trying to shorten us up out of a lap order), running us into our own cars (I did get stopped short the second time). I walked out of the third job - totally fried.

I do agree with some of the FRA's concerns in the following letter - but they ignore the fact the federal flagging rule needs to be updated to modern practices. Some of their examples why this practice is dangerous involve violations of other rules that actually caused the accident.

Did you ever consider double track authority? Without flagging, the only safe way to operate on double track is if it is in restricted limits, yard limits, has ABS or some form of dispatching - yet nothing in the GCOR states this.



Memorandum

U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Railroad Administration

Date: February 3, 2004
Reply to Attn of: OP-04-20

Subject: Part 218.37 - Flag Protection
• Circumstances Permitting Relief of Rear-End Flag Protection
• One Train Following Another at Restricted Speed
• Use of Radio Communication between Trains to Afford Relief of
Rear-End Flag Protection in Non-Signaled Territory

Original Signed By:
From: Edward W. Pritchard
Director, Office of Safety Assurance and Compliance






To: Regional Administrators

The attached letter to C.E. Dettmann of the AAR explains and clarifies FRA’s position
on several issues relating to Part 218.37, Flag Protection. It is intended to provide
specific interpretive guidance to the field concerning these issues. As always,
inspectors should continue to consider the specific circumstances of each situation in
applying this guidance.

Attachment

Attachment to OP-04-20







Mr. C. E. Dettmann July 20, 1999
Executive Vice President Safety and Operations
Association of American Railroads
50 F Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001-1564

Dear Mr. Dettmann:

It has recently come to the Federal Railroad Administration’s (FRA) attention that
several railroads are conducting operations that may be in violation of Title 49, Code of
Federal Regulations (49 CFR), Part 218.37, Flag protection. In essence, there are
operating rules and procedures currently in effect that would allow one train to follow
another train into the same limits at restricted speed without the preceding train having
to provide rear-end flag protection. Although there are slight variations in these
operating rules and procedures from road to road, FRA feels that there are common
safety issues regarding flagging that should be clarified to the industry as a whole.

As stated in the regulation, flag protection against following trains on the same track is
not required if at least one of the five conditions, as specified in Part 218.37 (a)(2),
pertains:
(I) The rear of the train is protected by at least two block signals;
(ii) The rear of the train is protected by an absolute block;
(iii) The rear of the train is within interlocking limits;
(iv) A train order specifies that flag protection is not required¹;
(v) A railroad operates only one train at any given time².

______________________
¹As stated in the original preamble to Part 218.37, the use of train orders for relief of flag protection does
not eliminate the need for the rear-end protection, it merely shifts the responsibility for providing the
protection from the train crew to the train dispatcher. Once a “no flagging” order has been issued, the
dispatcher must ensure that no other following movement is permitted to operate in a manner which may
result in a rear-end collision (see 42 FR 5062, January 27, 1977).
²This accommodation is intended for short line railroads that operate only one train at any given time
over their entire railroad (see 42 FR 38362, July 28, 1977).



Also, flag protection is not required in yard limits except in case of failure to clear the
time of a designated class train in non-signaled territory, as prescribed in Part
218.35(b)(1). Further, flag protection to the front against opposing movements, as
prescribed in Part 218.37(a)(1)(iv), would be necessary only if a railroad’s operating
rules required it.

Consequently, a railroad whose operating rules and methodologies are such that they
fall wholly within parameters provided in Parts 218.35(b)(1) and 218.37(a)(2), and who
do not otherwise have an operating rule requiring flag protection to the front against
opposing movements, would be relieved of the flagging requirements of Part 218.37.
Adjacent track protection and flag protection imposed by railroad operating rules for
conditions other than those specifically prescribed in Parts 218.35 and 218.37, are
additional requirements and are therefore outside the scope of this regulation.

In addition, FRA takes no exception in situations where joint work and time limits, joint
track and time limits, or yard limits exist, as these are circumstances that are also
outside the scope of the Federal rear-end flagging regulation. In joint work and time
and joint track and time limits, the limits are relatively short, all crews know the limits
are jointly occupied, and all movements are made at restricted speed. In yard limits,
the limits are well-defined, crews are aware that they very likely will encounter other
trains on a consistent basis, and except in signaled territory when governed by block
signal indications more favorable than “approach”, all movements must be at restricted
speed. These conditions are not necessarily so for trains following other trains into
occupied limits many miles in length, whose crews may not even be aware that the
following trains share their limits.

In signaled territory, Part 218.37(a)(2)(i) provides that a train may enter, at restricted
speed, a block that may be occupied by a preceding train, predicated on the
requirement of at least two block signals to the rear. This is based on the rationale
that the presence of both signals will provide reliable train separation and ensure that a
following train movement will be operating under restrictive conditions prepared to stop
short of a train ahead (see 42 FR 5063, January 27, 1977).

However, in non-signaled territory, the current practice of allowing one train to follow
another train in the same direction into the same limits at restricted speed, is in literal
noncompliance with 49 CFR, Part 218.37, and contravenes the purpose of the
regulation. Although the preceding train may not reverse direction, and the following
train is operating at restricted speed, there is no provision in the regulation for relief of
rear-end flag protection by the preceding train under these circumstances.

In addition to the regulatory noncompliance, FRA has several safety concerns
involving this practice:
• The preceding train may not necessarily be aware that it is being
followed by another train. This may create the illusion by the preceding
crew that they have exclusive occupancy of the limits. While they may
not reverse direction, FRA has investigated accidents caused by
unauthorized reverse movements.
• While the following train is required to move at restricted speed, it may
not have any knowledge of the preceding train’s specific location, and
due to the extended limits, a tendency may exist to exceed restricted
speed if, for instance, the following train is relying on a radio transmission
that is overheard indicating that the preceding train is several miles
ahead, or visibility on tangent track is good, etc. FRA’s train accident
files contain many instances of accidents caused by failure to operate at
restricted speed.

While FRA appreciates the industry’s belief in the theoretical certainty that restricted
speed operation, if observed, will prevent a collision, as mentioned above, our files
contain many reports documenting serious accidents resulting from failure to comply
with restricted speed. The concerns FRA has in this type of operation are based on a
long history of rail accident investigations. We do not desire to restrict the ability of
your member railroads from operating in the most efficient manner possible, consistent
with Federal and railroad operating and safety rules. In this instance, our concern is
based upon regulatory requirements and the need for compliance, as well as a desire
for consistency among all railroads with similar operations:

FRA is aware that a practice currently exists on some railroads which essentially
allows the use of radio communications to provide relief from rear-end flag protection
against following trains on the same track in non-signaled territory. As we understand
it, two or more trains may be authorized to proceed in the same direction, within the
same limits, providing certain requirements are met. FRA takes no exception to this
practice provided that a railroad has operating rules placed permanently in effect which
meet the following conditions:
(1) a preceding train must have entirely passed an exact point as
provided for in the railroad’s operating rules pertaining to train movement
authority, i.e., a physical location clearly identifiable to a locomotive
engineer or other person operating a train;
(2) when a preceding train notifies a following train by radio that it has
entirely passed such an exact, clearly identifiable point, which
information must be recorded in writing by the following train before
being acted upon in accordance with the applicable provisions of Part
220.61, the following train is then authorized to that point; this
information may only be relayed by the train dispatcher;
(3) a following train must be restricted on its movement authority that it
may not pass or run ahead of a preceding train, which must be identified
by engine number³;

__________________________________
³Current practice on some railroads is to include language in the movement authorities that requires the
following train to “protect” against the preceding train, or for both trains to “protect” against each other.
The term “protect” as used in traditional railroad parlance has always had a rather precise meaning, i.e.,
flag protection. Because the term intimates providing flag protection in accordance with Part 218.37, and
since it is the proper establishment and observance of an absolute block that actually keeps the trains
separated, FRA discourages the use of the term “protect” in order to avoid misunderstanding.
(4) if radio communication fails, the following train shall make no
movement beyond the exact, clearly identifiable point which was last
confirmed.




As previously stated, flag protection against following trains on the same track is not
required if the rear of the train is protected by an absolute block. Since the regulation
does not prescribe how an absolute block may be established, FRA would not take
exception to an absolute block established in the manner prescribed above provided
the railroad has in effect operating rules which meet the conditions stated.

FRA respects the partnership that it has forged with the regulated community. In
keeping with this partnership, FRA expect there will be full compliance with the present
flagging rule’s requirement of specific actions regarding protection of trains as
delineated in Part 218.37, excluding, of course, situations that are specifically
excepted or permitted as discussed herein.

Please share this information with member roads in your organization. If there is need
for further clarification, please feel free to contact Dennis Yachechak of my staff,
202-493-6260.

Signed by Edward R. English, Director, Office of Safety Assurance and Compliance

cc: American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association
American Public Transit Association