> . . . . not one of them ever told me that they had planned their injury.

Of course they never told you they planned to get injured - Since when is the truth ever actually stated at an accident investigation anyway. And who ever admits that even to himself.

But the cold hard reality, is that the rule book was written in the blood of those that went before us. Usually only after an accident, was some hazard recognized and a rule made to try to reduce that risk. It didn't always work, at least not right away. But as time went on, more and more safety holes were plugged. But ONLY IF those rules were understood and followed by everyone.

Whether they ever admit it or not, anyone who does not take the time to know that he understands them, or who willfully skates around the "Rules", IS planning their own injury, or that of a fellow worker. And that is why I have utterly no sympathy for these scofflaws.


As to the divergence / convergence meaning of a red over whatever, UP's interpretation of the GCOR was once called "speed signaling", verses the SP's "route signaling".

The SP signals indicated only that a route was cleared; whereas the UP method indicated the safe speed band over the route. Note that the SP used multiple heads only where there were multiple paths available at that signal, usually indicating which path was aligned, but not always. Safe speed was implied by this method, but often inconsistently.

However, with the UP the safe speed band is directly and certainly conveyed by the signal. The UP signal can only imply which path is aligned, but the important info, safe speed, is very accurately conveyed.

So do we really need to quibble over whether it is a convergence or divergence, and how dumb is the UP for not understanding the difference. What difference does it make anyway, the speed conveyed is the same both directions anyway, so why shouldn't the signal be the same aspect in both directions.

Besides, I kind of take the view where a "convergence" from two tracks to one is concerned, that the geometry of such track alignments are very close to that of a crossover anyway, and require the same speed restrictions as though they were a crossover. Looked at that way, the track bending in towards the other, is in fact "diverging" from its would be straight alignment anyway. That bend requires the same speed as a crossover anyway - so who cares.