Trains.com

Subscriber & Member Login

Login, or register today to interact in our online community, comment on articles, receive our newsletter, manage your account online and more!

Section Trains and Green Class Lights

5416 views
52 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    September 2003
  • From: Omaha, NE
  • 10,616 posts
Posted by dehusman on Thursday, July 13, 2023 1:33 PM

Overmod
If you had six sections of the Century running ten minutes apart, with the first section departing at schedule time and arriving precisely 'on the advertised'... the passengers in the last section would be nearly an hour late coming to a stop.  That seems unadvisable considering how much these passengers were paying for 18-hour or better service.

Exactly correct.  Now you understand.

Overmod
If the trains ran end-to-end, or didn't allow 'receiving passengers' at intermediate stops later in the trip, then the answer is simple -- the train is run 'that much' quicker so that the first section leaves at 'advertised' departure time, and the last section just pulls in and stops at 'advertised' arrival time. 

We will ignore the fact that in VAST majority of schedules there isn't a scheduled arrival time, only scheduled departure times.

You will have to explain how that works from a space-time standpoint.

A train, No 5, is scheduled to arrive at Bess at 3:10 pm, has a very leisurely station stop of 5 minutes and a scheduled departure of 3:15 pm.  50 miles away it has a scheduled arrival at Cloy at 3:55 pm and scheduled departure at 3:59 pm.

You say the first section departs at the scheduled departure and the last section arrives at the scheduled arrival time.  

As you pointed out in a previous comment there are 6 sections running 10 minutes apart, so the last section is an hour behind the first.

If 6th No 5 arrives Bess at 3:10 pm and 1st No 5 can't leave Bess until 3:15 pm that means that all 6 sections have to be at Bess between 3:10 and 3:15.  Plus since 1st No 5 is running an hour ahead of 6th No 5, that means that first No 5 arrived Bess at 2:10 pm and has just been sitting there twiddling it's thumbs for an hour before it leaves.

At the next stop Cloy, 1st No 5 departing Bess at 3:15 pm can't arrive Cloy until 350 pm at best.  In order to make you plan work 1st No 5 has to remain an hour ahead of 6th No 5.  Since 1st No 5 had to wait until 3:15 to depart Bess, and 6th  No 5 can't depart Bess until 4:15 (on 10 min spacing) there is no possible way to make whatever you think your plan is supposed to do work.

That's why real railroads don't waste their time coming up with those schemes.

You put the through people on the first trains and they don't make stops.  You put the people going to the last half stations on the middle trains and they are express to the middle, local the second half.  Then you put the people going to the first half stations on the last third trains and they makes all scheduled stops.

The people on the platforms at the intermediate stations don't know what train is going by they just know what train the railroad announces.  If the first 3 trains go zipping past the station without stopping carrying the long haul passengers, the guy on the platform has no idea what trains they are.  Not his.  Then the station agent annouces, now arriving track 2, No 5 the Chicagoan (or whatever).  The passenger gets on the train.  He has no idea what section he is on or how many sections there are or what stops the sections have made (or not made) in the past.  All he knows is he wants to ride No 5, the agent announced  No 5, the train stopped and he got on, and it's running a bit late.

Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com

  • Member since
    January 2013
  • 1,034 posts
Posted by PM Railfan on Thursday, July 13, 2023 4:30 PM

Railfans) You might find this interesting.....

 

Directly quoted from the "Rules of the Operating Department, PERE MARQUETTE RAILWAY COMPANY, effective September 27, 1936."

Page 24 - Rule D19. When a train is turned out against the current of traffic, green or yellow faces must be displayed to the front and side, and to the rear, a green or yellow face toward the inside and a red face to the opposite side.

Page 24 - Rule 20. All sections except last will display two green flags, and, in addition, two green lights by night in the places provided for that purpose on the front of the engine.

 

In the "Definitions" section of the same book....

Section - One or more trains running on the same schedule displaying signals or for which signals are displayed.

Extra Train - A train not authorized by a time-table schedule. It may be designated as -

Extra for any extra train, except work extra;

Work extra for work train extra.

 

 

Notice in rule D19 the use of "yellow". Never seen this in practice though 99% of the pictures you see of the PM are B&W. It would be very hard to tell.

 

PMR

 

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • 1,177 posts
Posted by mvlandsw on Thursday, July 13, 2023 6:05 PM

I believe that Rule D19 applied to rear end marker lights. Various roads used green or yellow to the side and front of marker lights with red to the rear.

The green or yellow would be turned to the rear on the side next to an adjacent track when in a siding or running against the current of traffic so that a train on the other track did not think that they were about to hit a train on their track.

Mark

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • From: Omaha, NE
  • 10,616 posts
Posted by dehusman on Thursday, July 13, 2023 9:57 PM

mvlandsw
I believe that Rule D19 applied to rear end marker lights. Various roads used green or yellow to the side and front of marker lights with red to the rear.

Correct, in many rule books rule 19 applies to marker lights, which are on the rear of the train, and the discussion on sections concerns classifications lights, on the front of the train and are often covered by Rule 20.  (Rule numbers may vary by railroad, for example in the B&O 1953 rules, Markers are rule 28 and class lights are rule 21.)

The other thing is that the name rule "D19" indicates it is a rule that only applies in "double track" or "current of traffic" operation (not on single track).  Those rules apply on on the current of traffic operation, which while a very common method on the prototype, is a relatively uncommon method on a model railroad.  Current of traffic is a very specific signal system with very specific rules (Rule 251 et al), not to be confused with "two main tracks" or CTC (Rule 261 et al) which is a completely different operation, signal arrangement and set of rules.

Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 21,371 posts
Posted by Overmod on Friday, July 14, 2023 11:11 AM

dehusman
As you pointed out in a previous comment there are 6 sections running 10 minutes apart, so the last section is an hour behind the first.

I didn't say that, Stix said that, and I was pointing out how that couldn't possibly work.

In order to make you plan work 1st No 5 has to remain an hour ahead of 6th No 5.  Since 1st No 5 had to wait until 3:15 to depart Bess, and 6th  No 5 can't depart Bess until 4:15 (on 10 min spacing) there is no possible way to make whatever you think your plan is supposed to do work.

The only possible way to do this if all sections are expected to stop is to make the 10-minute spacing 'flexible' in the same way CBTC blocks are flexible in distance: as each section arrives at Bess, the 10 minutes starts to decrement during braking, then dwell, then at a slower overall rate as the stopped section comes back up to speed.  (This would be the point where people on the observation platform might see trains approach 'more closely')  To me that implies a reduction to some form of restricted speed for the following section close to the station, but that then becomes incorporated into that section's braking run for station stop.
You put the through people on the first trains and they don't make stops.  You put the people going to the last half stations on the middle trains and they are express to the middle, local the second half.  Then you put the people going to the first half stations on the last third trains and they makes all scheduled stops. The people on the platforms at the intermediate stations don't know what train is going by they just know what train the railroad announces.  If the first 3 trains go zipping past the station without stopping carrying the long haul passengers, the guy on the platform has no idea what trains they are.  Not his.  Then the station agent annouces, now arriving track 2, No 5 the Chicagoan (or whatever).  The passenger gets on the train.  He has no idea what section he is on or how many sections there are or what stops the sections have made (or not made) in the past.  All he knows is he wants to ride No 5, the agent announced  No 5, the train stopped and he got on, and it's running a bit late.
That would be self-evident, and in fact the way I assumed for many years the NYC trains in sections were run.  The problem is that according to Hungerford, who would certainly be aware of the finer points here, there was no apportionment of space between sections so that the later sections became later and later as more stops were made.  Now, the idea that there is no final arrival time in a public timetable is news to me, because every one I've ever seen has one, and since "on-time" arrival of 25 and 26 was SUCH an important issue to management, it is difficult to comprehend that so many later sections would be so far delayed as to be on the same order as the 'advance' trains were timed to be ahead.

Now, it's possible, if there were limited intermediate boarding of the fastest name trains, that the "train of sections" would have the accommodations made so that boarding passengers were in one of the following sections as you indicate, but then the stops would have to follow the physics in my earlier post, with all the later sections bunching behind the earlier before it 'starts running express'.  In all cases, there either has to be extensive padding in the terminal approach or 'faster' running than the average speed over the whole distance would imply in order for that last section to pull up at the expected, scheduled, enforced time.

  • Member since
    February 2002
  • From: Mpls/St.Paul
  • 13,783 posts
Posted by wjstix on Friday, July 14, 2023 11:28 AM

Overmod

 dehusman

As you pointed out in a previous comment there are 6 sections running 10 minutes apart, so the last section is an hour behind the first.

 

I didn't say that, Stix said that, and I was pointing out how that couldn't possibly work.

 

And yet during World War 2, it happened all the time. Given how hard it was to get a seat - let alone a Pullman berth - during the war, having to wait a half hour or more for your train to leave wouldn't be seen as a big deal. 

Stix
  • Member since
    October 2008
  • From: Canada
  • 1,819 posts
Posted by cv_acr on Friday, July 14, 2023 2:22 PM

Overmod
dehusman
As you pointed out in a previous comment there are 6 sections running 10 minutes apart, so the last section is an hour behind the first.

 

I didn't say that, Stix said that, and I was pointing out how that couldn't possibly work.

And why not?

  • Member since
    October 2008
  • From: Canada
  • 1,819 posts
Posted by cv_acr on Friday, July 14, 2023 2:26 PM

Overmod

  In all cases, there either has to be extensive padding in the terminal approach or 'faster' running than the average speed over the whole distance would imply in order for that last section to pull up at the expected, scheduled, enforced time.

You realize "expected, scheduled, enforced time" is not a thing, right?

Trains can't run AHEAD of the operating schedule. The only rule about running late is that their schedule is valid for 12 HOURS. (And if the late train has superiority, the inferior train(s) wait... and wait.. and wait... or, you know, the dispatcher gets involved and issues train orders to modify the situation. If CTC, superiority rules don't apply, and trains run via signal indication.)

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 21,371 posts
Posted by Overmod on Friday, July 14, 2023 3:48 PM

cv_acr
You realize "expected, scheduled, enforced time" is not a thing, right?

Try telling that to contemporary NYC upper management, who insisted on a report of precisely this every day the Century ran, even when they were overseas or on vacation.  You certainly wouldn't work for that railroad very long after that.

Dan will know the specific NYC rules in detail, but I don't think NYC ran CTC until the early '50s, in the Perlman era, long after the heyday of multiple sections of the more prestigious trains.  The rules applying to their version of four-track operation would apply, and I think we've already agreed that the only way this could work at 85mph speed would be to run relative to block signal indication or ATS activation followed by forestalling.

  • Member since
    October 2008
  • From: Canada
  • 1,819 posts
Posted by cv_acr on Friday, July 14, 2023 5:04 PM

We're not talking about management reports about "on time performance". We're talking about how the operating rules for sections work.

And if they're running 6 sections (so the last one can't be running less than 1-2 hours "late") then the performance metric they're using would account for that. It wouldn't necessarily be based on the operating timetable.

Not remotely the same topics.

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • From: Omaha, NE
  • 10,616 posts
Posted by dehusman on Friday, July 14, 2023 7:19 PM

Overmod
I didn't say that, Stix said that, and I was pointing out how that couldn't possibly work.

And yet, that's how it actually worked from the 1800's up until the 1980's.  Clarification, the 10" rule was generally for single track, especially non-block signal territory.  In block signal territory the block signals clearing determined the spaceing which could be shorter than 10 minutes.  It depended on the signal system, speed and signal spacing.  In any case, there would be some minimum spacing between trainswhatever the trains were, sections or otherwise.

Overmod
The only possible way to do this if all sections are expected to stop is to make the 10-minute spacing 'flexible' in the same way CBTC blocks are flexible in distance: as each section arrives at Bess, the 10 minutes starts to decrement during braking, then dwell, then at a slower overall rate as the stopped section comes back up to speed. 

Lovely but that's not the way signals work in the vast majority of locations and it certainly wouldn't be the way signals worked back in the day when they ran multiple sections of regular trains.

Overmod
Now, the idea that there is no final arrival time in a public timetable is news to me, because every one I've ever seen has one, and since "on-time" arrival of 25 and 26 was SUCH an important issue to management,

I never said there wasn't a final arrival time.  I said in most case there is no arrival time at intermediate stations.  On a timetable schedule, the last station in the schedule is always an arrival by default.

Overmod
it is difficult to comprehend that so many later sections would be so far delayed as to be on the same order as the 'advance' trains were timed to be ahead.

Sections could be run hours later.  It's called a form E Time order, as in:

No 1 run 50 min late A to G.

For a section that could be written:

Third No 1 Eng 1234 run 2 hours late A to G

Third No 1 would run 2 hours late and could not make up any time, it had to always be at least 2 hours late departing every station.  

If you go back in time pre-1890's it was common to also have a rule that a train could not arrive earlier than scheduled.  But that rule pretty much was gone by 1900.  That means in the 20th Century a train can arrive early but has to depart on time or late.

Overmod
In all cases, there either has to be extensive padding in the terminal approach or 'faster' running than the average speed over the whole distance would imply in order for that last section to pull up at the expected, scheduled, enforced time.

There is no requirement or expectation of the last section arriving on time.  Train performance was measured off the first section.  If the first section departed on time the schedule departed on time, if the first section arrived on time the schedule arrived on time.  The following sections were measured relatie to where they started.  If the third section departed origin 2 hours late, then it was expected to arrive at the final destination 2 hours late (or better).  Unless a train had a Form E train order they could make up time to the scheduled time.

Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • From: Omaha, NE
  • 10,616 posts
Posted by dehusman on Friday, July 14, 2023 7:22 PM

Overmod
The rules applying to their version of four-track operation would apply, and I think we've already agreed that the only way this could work at 85mph speed would be to run relative to block signal indication or ATS activation followed by forestalling.

We've already quoted the rules that applied to their railroad.

And they didn't have "forestalling", just regular old ABS/APB, current of traffic.

Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 21,371 posts
Posted by Overmod on Friday, July 14, 2023 8:13 PM

dehusman
And they didn't have "forestalling", just regular old ABS/APB, current of traffic.

I assure you they had forestalling on the ATS.

  • Member since
    August 2003
  • From: Collinwood, Ohio, USA
  • 16,239 posts
Posted by gmpullman on Friday, July 14, 2023 9:18 PM

Overmod
I assure you they had forestalling on the ATS.

The forestall lever also refered to as the 'Acknowledging Contactor' on a typical NYC steam locomotive. If a penalty application occurrs the engine has to be stopped as the reset contactor can only be accessed from the ground.

 NYC_ATS by Edmund, on Flickr

The forestaller (vertical lever) on an EMD E7 (NYC DPA-1a):

 NYC_ATS_EMD by Edmund, on Flickr

With anything less than a clear signal the ATS inductor would activate the primary relay and a whistle would blow in the cab. The engineer had six seconds to acknowledge the more restrictive signal and react. If not a full service application would be initiated and the train brought to a stop.

Regards, Ed

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • From: Omaha, NE
  • 10,616 posts
Posted by dehusman on Friday, July 14, 2023 10:11 PM

Overmod
I assure you they had forestalling on the ATS.

I stand corrected, I misunderstood what "Forestalling" was.  

Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com

  • Member since
    August 2003
  • From: Collinwood, Ohio, USA
  • 16,239 posts
Posted by gmpullman on Sunday, July 16, 2023 8:53 PM

I well recall conversations at some gatherings of New York Central operating men at various functions around the Cleveland area. These were some of the last 'old school' NYC people who would have been familiar with how the sections of the Century and some of the other premiere trains would be run. Sadly these fellows all went to their final destination some years ago. I do recall pointed conversations about trains running 'on the markers' where traffic density kept the trains in close proximity.

Signal blocks were much shorter then. I remember one of the men saying he watched the signals go from medium to clear just as his train was approaching — without slowing. On straight sections (the Air-Line just west of Toledo for one) the markers could be seen of the train ahead.

Dave H, Stix and others have certainly correctly stated their case and I believe Mr. Hungerford was well known for his efforts as being just a bit of company propagandist. I think NYC management at the time certainly didn't want the traveling public to think that if they were on any 'section' of the Century that their level of service would be anything less than de-luxe.

There's a popular NYC photo taken at La Salle St. Station in December of 1924 of five sections of the Century ready to depart. In a caption of this photo contained in the book 20th Century Limited by Karl R. Zimmerman (2002) he states:

  "On a snowy, misty December day in 1924, five K3 Pacifics wait to charge east from Chicago's La Salle Street Station with a multiplicity of sections that was unusual even for the Century. Typically, only one section would make all stops, with intermediate passengers assigned to its cars. That section also carried the Railway Post Office car. Since they might well run early, the first sections of the Century would technically operate as multiple sections of the last-departing train, rather than as sections of No. 25 and 26, which would have required them to wait for the carded time at each station stop."

Thus you have the gist of how those 'early' sections were run from the 'operations' point of view.

Come to think of it I have seen publicity photos of celebrities boarding the Century and I noticed that the car designation number seen in the window of the Pullman did not indicate a '25' or a '26' as part of the number showing that the particular train was running under another train's authority.

Regards, Ed

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • From: Omaha, NE
  • 10,616 posts
Posted by dehusman on Sunday, July 16, 2023 10:03 PM

gmpullman
Typically, only one section would make all stops, with intermediate passengers assigned to its cars. That section also carried the Railway Post Office car. Since they might well run early, the first sections of the Century would technically operate as multiple sections of the last-departing train, rather than as sections of No. 25 and 26, which would have required them to wait for the carded time at each station stop."

Exactly what we have been saying.  They would segregate the business and if you wanted to run the train early you would run it on a different schedule, the actual schedule had to adhere to the departure times of the schedule.

The "advance sections" might be running as sections, but of ANOTHER schedule.

Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com

  • Member since
    February 2002
  • From: Mpls/St.Paul
  • 13,783 posts
Posted by wjstix on Monday, July 17, 2023 3:53 PM

Yes! In 1929, due to the popularity of the Twentieth Century Ltd, New York Central added a new train, the Advance Twentieth Century Ltd. These were trains 37-38, and were scheduled to leave 3 hours before the Twentieth Century Ltd. So a section of the Twentieth Century could leave before the scheduled time of the Twentieth Century, but only under train orders classifying it as an extra section of the Advance Twentieth Century. No section of the Twentieth Century could leave until the scheduled time for it (Train 25-26) to leave.

Stix
  • Member since
    August 2003
  • From: Collinwood, Ohio, USA
  • 16,239 posts
Posted by gmpullman on Monday, July 17, 2023 6:02 PM

There was an Advance Empire State Express and Advance Commodore Vanderbilt, too. No shortage of trains to carry the green flags of Century sections then. Here is a condensed timetable from 1933:

 NYC_Form101_1-29-33 by Edmund, on Flickr

Note the departure of the Westbound Commodore (No. 67) is but five minutes following the Century.

In the same book quoted above, author Zimmerman offers data that shows the Century operated in 2,261 sections in 1927. Slightly less in 1928 at 2,151 — just for the Century!

Keep in mind that prior to 1928 the task of powering these trains was up to the K class Pacifics which limited most train consists to about nine cars. After delivery of the first booster-equipped J-1 Hudson in Feb. of 1927, dynamometer test runs were made with up to 26 heavyweight passenger cars. Thus the Century and other first class trains could be run with as many as fourteen cars, mainly limited to platform length and station trackage limitations. This alone probably contributed to reducing necessity of multiple sections. 

Beebe also states that the multiple sections of the Century ran ahead of the actual, carded train but he makes no mention of exactly what train number these sections were operated under.

Regards, Ed

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 21,371 posts
Posted by Overmod on Monday, July 17, 2023 7:54 PM

I trust Karl R. Zimmermann implicitly.  If he says it, it's likely so.

DrW
  • Member since
    January 2008
  • From: Lubbock, TX
  • 365 posts
Posted by DrW on Tuesday, July 18, 2023 11:31 AM

Not to side-track the very interesting conversation, but an observation. As I lived in Rochester for some time, I checked the schedule for the Albany-Buffalo connections. In Ed's time table from 1933 the faster trains needed about 5 1/2 hours. In 2023, Amtrak's Maple Leaf needs 5 hours 22 minutes.

  • Member since
    January 2013
  • 1,034 posts
Posted by PM Railfan on Wednesday, July 19, 2023 1:32 AM

DrW) thats not an observation, thats a can of worms! Cuz now Im thinking transpose the trains. Newer train then, older train now. What would the outcomes be?

Could they better their rivals time? Beat it maybe? Embarrassingly lose? Flip a coin? Or to the suprise of those who would indulge in such.... 'observations', would their be no disernable difference?

Sorry to stray off the beaten path folks, but I thought that was a good post.

 

Clear Ahead!

PMR

 

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • From: Omaha, NE
  • 10,616 posts
Posted by dehusman on Wednesday, July 19, 2023 9:18 AM

Checking the 1928 and 1893 Official Railway Guides Albany to Buffalo rangd between 5'30" and 6' depending on the train.

Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com

Subscriber & Member Login

Login, or register today to interact in our online community, comment on articles, receive our newsletter, manage your account online and more!

Users Online

There are no community member online

Search the Community

ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Model Railroader Newsletter See all
Sign up for our FREE e-newsletter and get model railroad news in your inbox!