jeffhergertSometime in the early or mid 1970s, Rock Island ETTs in their rule revision section, show UCOR Rule S-88 being revised to Read: "Unless otherwise provided by train order form S-C, at meeting points prescibed by form S-A Train Order between Extra Trains, the train order must specify which train will hold the main track."
And if you find that type of thing it was common towards the end of TT&TO days, post 1970's.
For example the 1980 CCOR has similar wording to the CRIP rules.
S-88 : Except where rule 261 is in effect, extra trains will be governed by train orders with regard to opposing extra trains. At meeting points established by Form S-A Train Order, the train order must specify which train will take the siding.
(Rule 261 is CTC).
However that was not universal, for example that was not how the MP UCOR 1968 and UP 1972 rules read and prior to the 1970's the requirement to state which train cleared or held the main was the exception rather than the rule.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
dehusman Ewen Although it has been almost forty years since I have put out a train order, the statement in December's On Operation column in Model Railroader Magazine that extra trains in the inferior direction take siding is not supported by any rules I am familiar with. It is supported by every one of the 60+ rule books I have dating from the 1800's to the end of train orders. Here are a few excerpts: UCOR 1968 : Rule S-88. Meeting points Extra Trains - Unless otherwise provided, at meeting points prescribed by Form S-A train order between extra trains, the train in the inferior timetable direction must take the siding.
Ewen Although it has been almost forty years since I have put out a train order, the statement in December's On Operation column in Model Railroader Magazine that extra trains in the inferior direction take siding is not supported by any rules I am familiar with.
It is supported by every one of the 60+ rule books I have dating from the 1800's to the end of train orders.
Here are a few excerpts:
UCOR 1968 : Rule S-88. Meeting points Extra Trains - Unless otherwise provided, at meeting points prescribed by Form S-A train order between extra trains, the train in the inferior timetable direction must take the siding.
Sometime in the early or mid 1970s, Rock Island ETTs in their rule revision section, show UCOR Rule S-88 being revised to Read: "Unless otherwise provided by train order form S-C, at meeting points prescibed by form S-A Train Order between Extra Trains, the train order must specify which train will hold the main track."
Jeff
NHTXSuperiority was determined in the timetable and, pecking order by the last letter of the symbol, in this case, an A or F meant you owned the railroad.
This isn't "superiority", its "priority". Priority is a management function. The hottest train on the railroad is whatever the chief dispatcher says it is. That is priority. Superiority is based on the timetable. Priority can overide superiority by using train orders.
Also on the SP, by the 1980's most of the main routes were CTC.
CTC signals supersede the superiority of trains by definition.
SP Rules 1976: Rule 760 - CTC limits will be designated in timetable. Within these limits movements may be made without requiring train-order authority, and trains will be governed by block signals whose indications supersede the supriority of trains.
SP Definition CTC : Centralized Traffic Control (CTC). A method of operation by means of which the movement of trains over routes and through blocks on a designated section of track or tracks is directed by signals controlled from a designated point without requirement of train order authority and without regard to superiority of trains.
On the Sunset Route, which was CTC, talking about superiority doesn't matter becasue superiority of trains was superseded. All there was was priority and that was decided by the whim of the the dispatcher and management.
NHTXNo, I don't have any examples of that type of train order, but I do want to inform Mr. D that extras can be of any class.
NO. No, no, no, no.
Unless you are using some hybrid rule book that was written post 1985, extras do not have class by definition.
Superiority of Trains.
S-71 . A train is superior to another train by right class or direction.
Right is conferred by train order; class and direction by timetable.
Definition: Extra train - A train not authorized by a time-table schedule.
The only way a train has a "class" is if it is operating on a time-table schedule. An extra train doesn't have a time-table schedule, therefore it CANNOT have a class.
Period. Fundamental concept of timetable and train order operation. Superiority of trains is the underlying foundation of every rule book prior to the 1980's.
Post 1980's when they abandoned the superirity of trains, maybe, but under "classic" pre-1980's, pre-track warrant rule books extra trains do NOT have a "class" with regard to the superiority of trains.
You can take any train and make it an extra, but a train can't be both a regular train and an extra, it has to be one or the other. You can run any train on any schedule or you can run any scheduled train as an extra. Once you run a train as an extra, it loses all superiority by timetable direction, it loses superiority by class and direction.
You can run Amtrak as an extra, it's still a passenger train, but it is no longer a "first class" train because its now an extra.
Depends on the railroad. Rule 88 or S-88 in every rule book (from about 1910 to the 1970's) says that the extra in the inferior direction takes the siding. In some rule books or in the dispatcher's rules, the require that the train taking the siding be stated, in some it's an option but not required. In Rule 88 the phrase " unless otherwise provided" means that the train order or other instructions might over ride Rule 88.
For example in the 1968 UCOR the only time the train taking the siding has to be mentioned according to Dispatcher Rules is when a meeting point is changed to the point at which the train order is issued.
I don't have an example of train order in front of me, but I know in the dispatch offices I worked specifying which train was to clear in the meet order was rare.
EwenAlthough it has been almost forty years since I have put out a train order, the statement in December's On Operation column in Model Railroader Magazine that extra trains in the inferior direction take siding is not supported by any rules I am familiar with.
It is supported by every one of the 60+ rule books I have dating from the 1800's to the 1970's.
B&O 1948: Rule 88. (2nd para) At meeting points between etra trains, the train in the inferior time-table direction must take the siding unles otherwise provided.
UP 1972: Rule S-88. At meeting points between etra trains, the train in the inferior time-table direction must take the siding unles otherwise provided.
RDG 1922: Rule 88. (2nd para) At meeting points between etra trains, the train in the inferior time-table direction must take the siding unles otherwise provided.
CCOR 1959 : Rule S-88. Extra trains will be governed by train orders with respect to opposing extra trains. At meeting points between etra trains, the train in the inferior time-table direction must take the siding unles otherwise provided.
No, I don't have any examples of that type of train order, but I do want to inform Mr. D that extras can be of any class. Usually passenger, M&E, and a very few hot, scheduled freights that run as extras, are first class extras, and you worked backward from there. In the 1980s, everything on the Sunset Route of the Southern Pacific, other than Amtrak 1 and 2, ran as extras.
Superiority was determined in the timetable and, pecking order by the last letter of the symbol, in this case, an A or F meant you owned the railroad.
Moved.
https://tstage9.wixsite.com/nyc-modeling
Time...It marches on...without ever turning around to see if anyone is even keeping in step.
Welcome to the Forum. Your question would probably get more replies if it was posted in the "Prototype Information for the Modeller" section.
Joe
Although it has been almost forty years since I have put out a train order, the statement in December's On Operation column in Model Railroader Magazine that extra trains in the inferior direction take siding is not supported by any rules I am familiar with.In checking a number of employee time tables, superiority of trains by direction applied only to those of the same class. As there is no extra class, this type of superiority does not apply.In looking over some old train orders, all those specifying meeting points between extras stated which train took siding. I did see a meet order on a model railroad once that failed to state which extra took siding, and one presumes the model dispatcher thought the superior direction applied to extras as well. Of course, on the model one can make up your own rule book, but Mr. Dziedzic seems to imply this was a prototype practice.Does anyone have a prototype train order showing a meet between two extras where one of the trains is not designated to take siding?
Also in Jerry's discussion of meets between first class trains on the Great Northern, the GN required that "train order meeting points must be established between passenger trains except for mixed trains." Thus, the speculation voiced by Mr. Dziedzic that No. 4 would have been given right over No. 3 to make Vista would never have happened as a train order meeting point would have been used. No doubt train order meets between passenger trains were required on other roads as well for an added element of safety. Does anyone have another example?