OldPoleBurner Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> But the cold hard reality, is that the rule book
> was written in the blood of those that went before
> us.

That statement is an Old Wives Tale, and if you believe it, do you also believe that frequent masturbation will make you go blind? (Let me know if you go blind.)

> 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.

Rules compliance by employees and unsafe conditions or practices that go uncorrected by the railroad company are two entirely different things.

> 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.

Well, that's not exactly true. As required by UP's Signal Rules (found in the UP System Special Instructions), any signal that displays some sort of Diverging indication requires that the movement not exceed the prescribed speed through the turnout, as shown in the Speed Table in the timetable for that subdivision or line segment. That speed varies from location to location. Thus, the signal indication itself doesn't indicate a speed, just that there is a speed restriction at that location.

In the case of Akers that's been sited here, it looks like the track speed is 70 while the speed through the turnout is 40. Under the SP way of thinking, this speed restriction would be conveyed by a "40" mile per hour speed board located 2 miles in advance of the turnout, which would allow ample time for the movement to reduce its speed. UP, on the other hand, places its speed boards a mere 2500 feet in advance of a restriction. Ever try slowing a train from 70 to 40 in 2500 feet? Consequently, UP has to set up a signal sequence with various Diverging indications to accomplish the same result that SP achieved with a simple speed board. Seems to me that SP's system was much more cost effective.