In Jerry Dziedzic's column in the Sept 2018 MR, he asked the question :
Would a regular train ever run between the sections of another regular train?
Jerry said it would create confusion. Not really. It works perfectly fine.
Trains are superior by right, class or direction. For purposes of this question, class and direction are the important ones. A train is either superior to another train or its not. The inferior train waits the superior train runs.
He gave the example of First 1, No 3 and Second 1 running in that order. If the trains are all of the same class then there is no problem with that situation. It won't matter if I can't identify whether the second train is 2nd 1 or No 3.
If I am inferior to them, I have to clear the schedules of both trains, that is for both No 1 and No 3 to meet me. Two trains have to go by me without signals, one for each schedule. One train goes by displaying green signals (1st 1). I still have to wait for two trains without signals. A train goes by without signals (No 3). It doesn't matter whether that was 2nd 1 or No 3, I still have to wait for another train. A second train goes by me without signals, I can go.
If I am superior to both No 1 an No 3 then if its my time to leave, THEY have to clear for me.
Either way, not a problem.
The only time its a problem is if I am superior to one of those trains and inferior to the other (for example No 1 is a first class train, No 3 is a 3rd class train and I am a second class train). Then it gets dicey and the dispatcher has to intervene.
As far as extras running between sections, that's more complicated. If I am a regular train then the extra has to clear my schedule, the only way he could be running against me is if I can't leave due to my schedule, or I have to have a train order where the extra is given right over me. If I am another extra then I would have to have a train order instructing me how to proceed with respect to the opposing extra. If there is an extra going by me then there is a 2 out of 3 chance that train orders will have to be involved.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
I think the issue, at least as far as the accident he talked about, was that the train wasn't two sections. It was one train where the crew had decided to split it up, so the lead engine had part of the train and a helper the other. When the first part of the train arrived, it was incumbent on their crew to be sure the crew of the train waiting to leave was informed that the train that they just brought in was really only part of the train they were waiting for, and that they needed to continue to wait. The train hadn't been set up by the dispatcher to be two sections, so there were no orders informing the waiting train that they needed to wait for two sections.
wjstix I think the issue, at least as far as the accident he talked about, was that the train wasn't two sections. It was one train where the crew had decided to split it up, so the lead engine had part of the train and a helper the other. When the first part of the train arrived, it was incumbent on their crew to be sure the crew of the train waiting to leave was informed that the train that they just brought in was really only part of the train they were waiting for, and that they needed to continue to wait. The train hadn't been set up by the dispatcher to be two sections, so there were no orders informing the waiting train that they needed to wait for two sections.
If the crew "decided to split it up" (create two sections out of a previous single one), seems to me they should have had green on the first section.
Ed
7j43kIf the crew "decided to split it up" (create two sections out of a previous single one), seems to me they should have had green on the first section.
That might have helped prevent this accident but it is not the crew that decides whether they are this or that section of a scheduled train (or what class train they are, or if they are an extra or a scheduled train for that matter). The dispatcher and/or the timetable determines those things. This crew "went rogue" and evidently had the habit of doing so.
Dave Nelson
So I see. I poked around in my 1959 CCOR, and in that book, it's Rule 95 ("A train must not display signals for a following section without train order authority...").
The accident in question was on the Ma&Pa back in 1920. The rules were obviously either ignored or misinterpreted. This was a "standard" practice on the road at the time and even later. Personnel failures can occur whether rules are outlined or not. In the case of the Ma&Pa they chose a more efficient way of getting a train over the road and also switching their customers. Roll the dice and take your chances!
oldline1
wjstixThe train hadn't been set up by the dispatcher to be two sections, so there were no orders informing the waiting train that they needed to wait for two sections.
Opposing trains do not get copies of orders creating sections, only the sections do. If the dispatcher had created sections, the opposing train would not have gotten a copy of the order. The signals displayed tell opposing trains that there is a following section.
In this case the opposing train, No 11, would not have waited for the following section in any case. No 11 was a first class train and No 22 (the train that split) was a second class train so No 22 was inferior.
The dispatcher would have had to issue specific train orders for both sections to meet No 11 or giving one or both sections right over No 11.
Really the rules failures didn't have anything to do with "sections", since there weren't really any "sections", it was mostly a failure to properly protect No 22 with flags. Let's assume that the dispatcher had issued a train order to create sections, the accident would have still happened.
No 11 was superior to both First 22 and Second 22. He would expect them to be in the clear for him. When First 22 met No 11, No 11 would still think that Second 22 would be in the clear for him. No 11 could depart on its time.
The primary failure (other than the whole thing being a hokey way to run a railroad) was the head brakeman not flagging No 11 at the meeting point an holding No 11 there. Most rulebooks have a provision that when a train is split, the head end portion must not allow trains to run between the portions. There is technically nothing that prevents splitting a train into two portions. That's what trains do when they double a hill. Obviously the Ma & Pa was stretching things to the limits.
Any way you cut it, as a standard practice it was wrong and any way you cut it, the duty fell to the head brakeman to flag for the rear portion of the train.
7j43kSo I see. I poked around in my 1959 CCOR, and in that book, it's Rule 95 ("A train must not display signals for a following section without train order authority...").
As far as I can tell from the narrative, the head portion of the train was in full compliance with that rule. The narrative never says that the head portion displayed green signals. Note the rule doesn't say you can't break the train into two parts, it says you can't display signals. As long as the head portion didn't display signals, it was in full compliance with that rule.
That's kind of the nice thing about Model Railroading vs. 1:1 Scale... If somebody breaks the rules and an accident happens we can call in the mighty 0-5-0 switcher to get things fixed really fast.That is also the bad thing... nothing like operating as an invited guest to a nice layout, to break the rules only to watch the layout owner's expensive model train set tumble to the floor... Fortunately that has never happened to me, although I have witnessed a few times on a layout I go to a few opperators running red signals and causing collisions or derailments.
I haven't seen the narrative, but presumably the first portion did not have markers at the rear which should have indicate that more of the train was to still to come. That of course could easily be overlooked by another train making assumptions.
The only thing at the rear of the train that could indicate more of the train was to follow would have been a brakeman leaping about like a banshee and repeatedly pointing back down the track.
I'm sure it worked, on occasion.
cx500 I haven't seen the narrative, but presumably the first portion did not have markers at the rear which should have indicate that more of the train was to still to come. That of course could easily be overlooked by another train making assumptions.
I haven't seen the narrative either, but I was wondering if somebody would bring the markers up. Back in the day that was a big deal in rules classes - he's not by you until you see the markers. They're not just a decoration. They denote the end of the train.
dehusman As long as the head portion didn't display signals, it was in full compliance with that rule.
Be that as it may I would hate to be in that crew's boots when they stood before the man to give account since their actions lead to a wreck.
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
BRAKIEBe that as it may I would hate to be in that crew's boots when they stood before the man to give account since their actions lead to a wreck.
Not saying they weren't at fault, the hardest part of being a presiding officer at that investigation would deciding which of the plethora of rules they broke would be the ones they were charged with.
While everybody is saying how negligent the Ma&Pa was, think about this.
How many times on these forums has somebody given the example of a local with an engine on both ends or with two units splitting the engines apart and operating two portions of the local separately to avoid having a run around, etc. While the Ma & Pa example is especially terrible, the splitting the power idea is the first step along that road. All it takes is somebody deciding that "Hey we have to do this at the next station, lets operate as two portions over there and put it together after we've done the switching there." And they are off to the races.
dehusmanHow many times on these forums has somebody given the example of a local with an engine on both ends or with two units splitting the engines apart and operating two portions of the local separately to avoid having a run around, etc.
The idea if locals having a engine on both ends is fully sanction by the rules of operation under stiff guide lines. This is to save time because there is no caboose with rear brakeman to do the needed work.
On the PRR a engine could be found in the middle of a local with cabins on both ends which was fully sanction by the rules of operation .