SSW (Cotton Belt)

[NP Eddie]

ALL:

Why didn't the SSW use train numbers or "X" (extra) in locomotive number boards?

They were owned by the SP and used the SP paint and number schemes.

Ed Burns

Happily retired NP-BN-BNSF from Minneapolis, MN

[efftenxrfe]

There was a time  when SP marched to a different drummer (rulebook) than the Cotton Belt.

The Cotten Belt used a rulebook shared with the Rock, the MOP and a gaggle of other 'roads, and I apologize that I don't remember its name, but its rules did not provide for indicators, the name for the train identifier number display.

SP rulebooks required the train's ID be displayed in the indicators, until the General Code of Operating Rules (GCOR) was adopted by almost every mid- and western 'road. (1980's ?)

In the 60's, at least 7 railroads on the North American Continent required indicators....(?)

That midwest Cotten Belt rulebook may have been called the Standard Code...memory flare-up.

And a question about the display for sections (individual trains running under the authority of one timetable schedule) if anyone wants it, later.

[efftenxrfe]

NP Eddie

SP and the Cotton Belt used different rule books and the SSw's didn't provide for using "train indicators," our term for what you're talkin' about.

In the indicator the trains designation in clearances and train orders was displayed, in a code prescribed in the rules.

A schedule by its number.

A section of a schedule by its schedule number preceded by its section number separated by a dash.

An extra train by the identifying engine's number preceded by an X.

SSW operations were ruled by the Standard Code of Operating Rules, no provision but the engine number for train identification.

More than 6 RR's used Train Indicators....a trivial question?

A question about displaying the number of the last section of a schedule...got one if anyone wants it.
 

[efftenxrfe]

NP Eddie,

Twice I replied to your question and neither were posted. Each reply got the answer about needing clearance (in effect) and they did not later appear.

SP employes know the answer.

Inquire of them.....my 42 years of SP engine service diminishes the signifigance of my answers.

[efftenxrfe]

This is the third time, NP Eddie, that I've tried to reply to your request about the SSW's difference between SP and SSW displays...none of the others got published...

I worked there on SP and as an official, the SSW. D'ya knew what was going on?

My respnces?

ya

[efftenxrfe]

I'll try one more time....I've responded with an, if not the, answer....but Einstein's def. of insanity comes to mind....this is the fourth try, NP Eddie.

Prior to '65, what was required by the SP rules, train indicators where number boards live, was not part of the rules' requirement in the book of rules a small gang of midwest 'roads used.

SP rules and a half dozen or so other 'roads running between near the Arctic Circle  and to Mexico, D.F. used train indicators which gave, codified, the Timetable/Train Order identity of the train thus:

scheduled train; train number

section of a scheduled train; Section number, dash, then train number. an exception exists, but it is logical and obvious.

extra train: X, then designated  identifying locomotive number, the locomotive had to be in the engine consist but not necessarily the lead unit.

SP rule book and a half a dozen others....SSW ran with the Standard Code of operating rule which effectively said Dispr in train orders provide the engine number in the train orders thus:

scheduled train: train number, then Eng (number)

section; section placement (like First Second, train number, then Eng (number)

Extra train; in the train order the word Extra followed by the lead unit's engine number.

I'll reveal the answers to what other train indicator users were there, and the exception to the indicator display of section numbers should anybody want them.

SP Vets know the answers....join in.

[SSW9389]

Cotton Belt's paint scheme was not identical with Southern Pacific's until the first quarter of  1966. That date coincides with the last yellow handrails for Cotton Belt. The Cotton Belt's numbering system was    merged with the Espees in the 1965 system renumbering. By the mid 1960s you had over 30 years of Espee control of the Cotton Belt, but the road was allowed operational independence up to that time. After the mid 1960s you would see more and more Espee control of Cotton Belt to include operations.

[daveklepper]

The independence of the Cotton Belt, despite control by SP, had economic reasons.  The merger of the CP into the SP included the agree ment that the SP would continue the CP's practicw of routing northern Califonriia freight over the UP direct to the east.  But Cotton Belt freigiht salesman could operate in Calafornia to sollicite routing via their railroad.  Thus, the Cotton Belt was not direclty merged into the SP.

[NP Eddie]

Retired SP Road Foreman of Engines:

The NP, GN, SPS, MILW, SOO, and Oregon and Washington Divisions of the UP used the Consolidated Code of Operating Rules as those roads used each others trackage.

I don't know when the BN, etc. adopted the GCOR. One conductor at Northtown was on the GCOR committee and made frequent trips to Fort Worth to work on drafts and the final copy.

I had 38 years on the NP-BN-BNSF, retiring in 2004. My least favorite job was calling crews, as the NP (and other Hill roads) were not hiring before the 1970 merger so that they would not have protected employees. One Saturday night, I had a conductor for a freight to Brainerd, MN, but no brakemen. The trainmaster called two x-brakemen from Labor Relations for that job.

One story that sticks out in my mind involves NP Conductor Clayton Brown. The Northtown crews went from Northtown to Staples and return.  His train was coming east near Sartell, MN (about the halfway point) when the train started to derail. The car ahead of the caboose stopped!  Needless he won't forget that trip.

Ed Burns

[Deggesty]

This is in response to another post that I received via email, and it is not in my Classic Trains forum when I bring it up. efftenxrfe mentions the rulebook used by the Cotton Belt; I ahve a copy of the May 1, 1950 Rock Island Uniform Code of Operating Rules , which was used by total of sixteen different roads; the St. Louis Southwestern Railway Lines is one of them. 2123 hr--I created a new thread (Cotton Belt Rulebook) because efftenxrfe's post about the rule book was missing from my Forum--and it is still missing.

[SSW9389]

I found numerous references to the Uniform Code of Operating Rules in Cotton Belt Special Instructions dating back to the mid 1930s. That's as far back as I go with those documents. A 1929 Cotton Belt ETT states current book of rules. But it seems likely that Cotton Belt that had trackage rights over both Missouri Pacific and Rock Island would use the same or similar rule book. Cotton Belt was controlled by the Gould family from its inception in 1891 to 1925. The Goulds also controlled the Missouri Pacific at the same time.

Ed in Kentucky

[efftenxrfe]

Gentlemen'

Mea culpa, mea culpa.

When I came up with "Standard Code" I wrote that it was a "mind" explosion. I went with it cuz,' well, it seemed right.

"Uniform Code" rings all the bells in my belfry; Confidence about "Standard Code" was about 75 per cent. Confidence about "Uniform Code" is 99.99 per cent....

I stand confidently with the other information I gave in those comments.

I made a "Standard" mistake (misplaced over confidence.)

I'm making a "Uniform"..ly earnest apology.