Talk:Rail speed limits in the United States

Track Class != speed limit
As far as I can tell, and I'm happy to read any citation that says otherwise, FRA track classes only specify what a given section of track can support. It says nothing about speed limits.

If you build a lovely section of Class 9 track, with no signals, and grade crossings every 1/2 mile, you cannot say that the speed limit for that section of track is 200 mph!

Yes, it's a semantic argument, but this is supposed to be an encyclopedia. --plaws (talk) 16:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Done, you were very right, the wording seemed to imply that that track speed is always equivalent to the track's classification's maximum speed. It is a semantic argument, but a good one.Synchronism (talk) 20:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Track classification is defined by that track's highest allowable speed, not the quality of the track's construction and maintenance, although these must meet minimum standards for the track class. The presence of grade crossings can also prevent track classifications of classes 7 and above.  The example above, with grade crossings, could not occur as FRA doesn't permit any grade crossings on Class 8 or higher track.  For Class 7, any grade crossings must be full crossing barriers (covering both entrance and egress to the crossing) and must also be approved by FRA.164.64.74.44 (talk) 22:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I've had this very discussion with folks from NJ Transit and the established speed limit is agreed upon by the (rail) operating department based on (FRA) track conditions, curvature, signaling, grade crossings (if present) and passenger stations (if present). Of course, rolling stock (cars) and locomtive specifications also affect train speed limits.  In general, the FRA track classification establishes the maximum speed limit and other conditions may create speed restrictions.  For example, a section of track can be good for 80 mph (FRA Class 4), but the signaling on the section may restrict speeds to, say, 70 mph.  Curves on a section of track can create a relatively low de facto speed limit even though the track conditions--if it were tangent track--would permit much higher speeds.  And yes, grade crossings are another issue entirely since the level of protection at a given crossing is determined by train speeds and frequency.  I don't know for sure, but I doubt that there are many places, at least in the US, where trains are permitted through a grade crossing at greater than 80 mph.--Wally From Columbia (NJ) (talk) 15:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

sorry, but i find the table informative - though i'm slightly amused by a thought of a passenger train moving at 15 mph. No doubt it would get a good mileage with that speed but still. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.226.57.198 (talk) 15:49, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

ICC Docket 29543
The wording of the ICC ruling was not in the form of a speed limit. They basically said that if you ran passenger trains 80 mph or faster you had to have cab signals, ATS or ATC and you had to have block signals where passenger trains exceed 60 mph (50 mph for freight).

Of course, the RRs said, 'fine, we'll just slow the trains down' and didn't add much of either type of signaling outside of the routes where it already existed.

The ICC docket was 29543 and I'm trying to find a good citation for it. When I do, I'll see if I can fix this page. Here's one fun cite (not really good enough, though). --plaws (talk) 22:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey past self.

Hey.


 * Found ICC report about that crash in Naperville, Ill, on the Burlington. http://ntl1.specialcollection.net/scripts/ws.dll?file&fn=6&name=S%3A%5CDOT_56GB%5CRailroad%5CWEBSEARCH%5C2988.PDF This passage struck me:

Recommendation

It is recommended that the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company discontinue the operation of passenger-train cars which do not meet present standards, intermingled in trains with cars meeting such standards.

No recommendation is made at this time with respect to the method of controlling the speed of these fast trains, since this matter is receiving comprehensive consideration in our docket No. 29543.

Dated at Washington, D. C., this thirtieth day of July, 1946.


 * This says to me that Docket No 29543 was not a result of the Naperville crash because the docket was already open. So you can't really say that the "trains moving 80 mph or faster must have cab signals" rule was a result of that crash since the deliberation was ongoing. --plaws (talk) 15:25, 27 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Hey past selves, future you again!
 * Hey

Seriously, are you still at this?
 * Yeah, it's a thing. Anyway, I found a bad OCR of the ICC annual report from the year they issued Order No. 29543.  Check it out, it's at https://archive.org/stream/annualreportofin61unit/annualreportofin61unit_djvu.txt  If you grep for "29543" you'll find the passage that has the wording that railfans have misconstrued for years:


 * "We are further of the opinion that trains operated at speeds of 80 or more miles per hour should have protection in addition to that afforded by a manual block-signal system or an automatic block-signal system with wayside signals, and that such additional protection should be either continuous cab signals, automatic train stop or train control, or both cab signals and automatic train stop or train control."


 * (emphasis added) Read the whole thing. Their intent was to make sure that trains traveling at speeds of 80 or more miles per hour have better signaling, not that trains should be limited to 79 mph.  The RRs, not interested in upgrading their signals (because passenger trains were already losing money), simply set the speed limits to 79 mph (which was codified decades later) which is something the ICC themselves suggested.  Fascinating stuff.  One of you past guys should figure out how to cite that.  --plaws (talk) 20:59, 5 January 2016 (UTC)