On Friday, August 29, 2014 2:42:09 PM UTC-4, Stephen Sprunk wrote:   
      
   > Was this truly "obvious", or were strange orders common and the TO had   
   > learned not to question them?   
      
   Movements like this aren't common, but do happen from time to time.   
      
      
   > If that line was unsignaled, wouldn't he have been limited to Restricted   
   > speed by rule?   
      
   Reports indicate he was operating at restricted speed (10 mph).   
      
      
   > > That southbound would not have had a stop and stay, as there are no   
   > > switches between 34th St and Canal on the express track.   
      
   > Wouldn't the southbound train have gotten a "Stop and Proceed"   
   > indication, which means moving at Restricted speed by rule?   
      
   Yes, or a stop and stay.   
      
      
   > This scenario is one of the reasons that Restricted speed means being   
   > able to stop within half of the sight distance: if two trains are moving   
   > toward each other at Restricted speed, they can stop in time to prevent   
   > a collision.   
      
   which is why, based on reports, he was operating at such a speed.   
      
   --- SoupGate/W32 v1.03   
    * Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)