I understand that green (or yellow) class lights indicate a following section. Vaguely speaking, how common were trains divided into sections? I know thats highly dependent on railroad and era and region and etc. But there's little info online about section trains and so I start to think they were very uncommon, about as uncommon as extra trains were...?
Some railroads such as PRR eliminated them in 1940s. Which makes me believe that by the time period Im modeling (late 40s, early 50s), sections were extremely rare/gone...?
Any and all info is appreciated.
Charles
Edit: removed "yellow" cause that was incorrect. See response and new question below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modeling the Santa Fe & Pennsylvania in HO
Youtube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCLb3FRqukolAtnD1khrb6lQ
Instagram (where I share projects!): https://www.instagram.com/trainman440
There's a lot to digest on running trains in sections (I've never been aware of 'yellow' flag or lamp to indicate a section following).
It seems that some railroads ran sections more frequently than others. NYC comes to mind when considering their frequent passenger operations. The Century and Commodore Vanderbilt even ran specific 'Advanced' 20th Century or Commodore Vanderbilt trains on a schedule about an hour preceeding the actual trains. Even these Advanced trains might also run in sections.
Sometimes an extra muight be run as a section. Say a troop train or a special Boy Scout or Shriners special train might run as 'Second 25' or the like. I've even heard of mail or express trains run as a 'section' of another passenger train. It was all calculated to keep the traffic moving along a particular railroad.
Signal blocks were closer together then, train density was kept on a tight running margin. I've heard first hand accounts of trains running on such short proximity that the markers of the preceeding train could be seen ahead on straight, level territory. There was 'supposed' to be a ten-minute separation between the sections but this was sometimes (maybe often) overlooked. CTC changed many of the usual operating practices.
The main reason for displaying the green flag or lights was to indicate to trains waiting in sidings and to tower operators that the 'train' has not passed until the last section, with no flags displayed, has passed.
I recall being in Seaboard Coast Line territory in the early '70s. Some Amtrak trains were being run in sections. Some of the Florida trains were still being run in close proximity back then. Sometimes the Auto-Train was run as a section of the Silver Meteor or Silver Star.
Amtrak St. Petersburg by Edmund, on Flickr
Green Flags flying.
Trainman440But there's little info online about section trains and so I start to think they were very uncommon, about as uncommon as extra trains were...?
Extra trains were quite common and in fact on some railroads ALL trains were extras.
Train Order 19_M-N-801 by Edmund, on Flickr
Orders_0028 by Edmund, on Flickr
If a scheduled train is delayed over (I believe) twelve hours it is annulled and then can be run as an extra, with orders and authority from a dispatcher.
Regards, Ed
The principal reason for 'sections' was to accommodate everyone who wanted to travel on a particular service at a particular scheduled time. One of the books on the Twentieth Century Limited (I think it was Hungerford's Flight of the Century) goes into great and interesting detail about how the NYC handled this.
As with the stillborn C&O Chessie, if you made the whole consist up as a single train, the terminal and station platforms would have to be of enormous length for the passengers to be able to board their assigned cars in 'parallel' -- or they'd have to negotiate several tedious vestibules and corridors to get there. And beyond a trainlength of a certain number of cars, even larger locomotives or doubleheading would not handle that many efficiently without, say, multiple stops as some Amtrak trains do at present, with the associated hitching and bangs involved with moving the train incrementally through the middle of the night.
If you use sections, they can be individually spotted on parallel tracks, and dispatched at different times. Interestingly the NYC ran them so that the last section always arrived at a station by the scheduled time, which leaves open the question about when passengers boarding a section 'had' to be on the platform ready to go early. PRR got around this, in part, by simply restricting boarding or alighting at critical stations -- but they used sections far less, and to far less a degree, than NYC did.
I have seen a number of references, including from Beebe and Staufer, about just how close NYC ran sections of its faster name trains. While this may be railfan exaggeration, there are many accounts from observation-platform riders who could not only see the headlight of the following train (at 85mph) but could make out the plume of steam from the locomotive feedwater-heater vent. Supposedly they got used to it!
Trainman440Vaguely speaking, how common were trains divided into sections?
May be important to understand it isn't a train being divided, it was more like several versions of the same train running in effect as one big train. As I understand it, each section would carry green markers which indicated there was a following section, until you got to the last section, which would not carry markers.
During WW2 Great Northern's "Empire Builder" would typically be a steam engine and around 16 heavyweight cars. Because you had so many people travelling during the war, GN sometimes ran 5-6 16 car trains as the Empire Builder. All would run on the Builder's schedule, but separated by about 10 minutes. Sometimes another train, like a mail/express train, manifest freight, or a troop train, could be run as one of the sections of the Builder.
As passenger train ridership dropped after the war, the need for running multiple sections dropped off considerably...and of course railroads began removing some trains altogether.
OvermodThe principal reason for 'sections' was to accommodate everyone who wanted to travel on a particular service at a particular scheduled time. One of the books on the Twentieth Century Limited (I think it was Hungerford's Flight of the Century) goes into great and interesting detail about how the NYC handled this.
Sorta. Yes and no.
"Sections" is a dispatching tool to add extra trains on the schedule.
Sections aren't just for passenger trains.
Let's say you have 2 scheduled freight trains per day. On a certain day you have too much traffic to fit within the limits of those trains and you need to run a third train. You have two options:
- run an "extra" train displaying white flags
- run the train as an extra section of a scheduled train
If you have a lot of additional trains in both directions, sections get to be a good choice as well as all the supeiority and meeting rules apply to sections. But opposing extras have to be specifically protected against each other.
OvermodInterestingly the NYC ran them so that the last section always arrived at a station by the scheduled time,
That can't be accurate as that's not legal. No train or section of a train can run in advance of the listed schedule. Timetable schedules are the EARLIEST a train can depart a location.
Chris van der Heide
My Algoma Central Railway Modeling Blog
Trainman440I understand that green (or yellow) class lights indicate a following section.
I have never seen a rule book that used yellow class lights for a section. Not saying there isn't, but I have never seen a rule allowing it. Maybe you are confusing marker lights, they used yellow lights.
Vaguely speaking, how common were trains divided into sections? I know thats highly dependent on railroad and era and region and etc. But there's little info online about section trains and so I start to think they were very uncommon, about as uncommon as extra trains were...?
Sections were way less common that extras.
Some railroads ran the majority of their freight business as extras. Bulk commodities (coal, grain, ores, etc) were the major traffic hauled by railroads (by tonnage) and virtually all of those trains ran as extras.
Railroads ran sections when they had more traffic for a train than would fit on one train and they wanted to preserve the priority, or they wanted an easy way to run a train without a bunch of additional orders.
Several things going on here. Sections only apply to regular schedules, schedules that were in the timetable. Railroads began running more and more of the freight business as extras because it gave them flexibility. The number of regular trains decreased. That left the only regular trains as passenger trains. As the auto became more popular the number of passenger trains decreased. If you aren't running freights as regular trains and aren't running that many passenger trains, the the need for sections goes way down.
Another factor is multiple track and signals. If you have multiple main track and signals you can run rule 251 current of traffic or CTC. In both of those systems, the signal indications supersede the superiority of trains. Sections are part of the "superiority of trains". Running a section as a section in rule 251 territory or CTC doesn't gain you much and mostly adds restrictions, so there is not much need to run train order sections
In the 1940's, sections weren't gone, it's just the need had decreased in many situations. Whether or not you need or want them depends on what the situation is on your railroad.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
Overmod Interestingly the NYC ran them so that the last section always arrived at a station by the scheduled time, which leaves open the question about when passengers boarding a section 'had' to be on the platform ready to go early. PRR got around this, in part, by simply restricting boarding or alighting at critical stations -- but they used sections far less, and to far less a degree, than NYC did.
Not sure about how that would work.
One of the fundamental rules of a schedule from the 1800's to the end of train orders in the 1980's was that a train cannot depart ahead of time. A regular train can never depart early, only on time or late. Most times in a timetable are not arrival times they are departure times. The railroad really doesn't worry that much if a train arrives early, it's the departure time that is critical. Early rule books (up until the 1890's) had rules prohibiting early arrivals, but after 1900 those rules were extremely rare, they any existed at all.
Since the schedule applied to all sections, and regular trains can't depart early, if the trains are running as true train order sections, the best the first section can be is on time and by definition every following section will be running late by 10 min or whatever the signal spacing was.
Passengers get to the station before the departure time. Doesn't matter what the arrival time was.
cv_acr That can't be accurate as that's not legal. No train or section of a train can run in advance of the listed schedule. Timetable schedules are the EARLIEST a train can depart a location.
A train can arrive early. It cannot leave early.
.
When I was a youngster, I asked my dad, who had worked as a locomotive fireman in his wild and dissolute youth, if a train could arrive early. His answer was "No". The explanation (simplified at the time to account for my age). Under Timetable and Train Order Operation, inferior trains have to get in the clear a specified amount of time (10 minutes?) before the SCHEDULED (based on Employee's Timetable or Train Orders) arrival time of a superior train. So you have the engineer and conductor of the division way freight Extra 2200 South working Jonesville a quarter of an hour before Number 1 is scheduled. They think they have time to spot one last car before getting into the passing siding. But the varnish is running way early and the result is a cornfield meet.
Re the New York Central, note that the "Advance Commodore Vanderbilt" was a scheduled / named train, that appeared in printed schedules and advertising etc.
The Commodore Vanderbilt/Advance Commodore Vanderbilt - May, 1948 - Streamliner Schedules
dehusmanNot sure about how that would work.
Chris, take it up with the New York Central historians, not me. One stated concern at the time was that people would be less satisfied with being stuck on 'following' sections if they got into Chicago or New York "later" than the leading sections. How would you get around that issue?
And on NYC the 'Advance' trains were completely different name trains, sharing only the cachet of a famous reputation. They were for people interested in getting there 'that much' earlier... if I remember correctly from the reference I read, sometimes making fewer stops or running a bit more 'accelerated' than the later name train itself.
Interesting MN train order, Ed.
Back then, the [former New Haven] Danbury branch was manual block, with block-limit signals.
There was no operator at Danbury by then, so this order was given over the radio (or possibly phone) by the operator at South Norwalk (Walk), and copied by the brakeman on the job (which was probably "CT-2" which takes hoppers with stone from New Haven to a customer in Danbury). It will probably be coming up later tonight.
Seems to me that Mr. Santangelo (the brakeman) came over to Amtrak later on, a name I recall.
Also recall that particular dispatcher, Freddy Payne who worked nights. He could get a bit ornery at times but never gave me any trouble...!
OldEnginemanInteresting MN train order, Ed.
Glad it brought back memories, OEM!
Have another...
Train Order 19_M-N-802 by Edmund, on Flickr
Train Order 19_M-N-803 by Edmund, on Flickr
Train Order 19_M-N by Edmund, on Flickr
Cheers, Ed
Thanks for all the replies guys! It sounds like NYC really liked their section lights, and, honestly the reason I posted about this in the first place was to see if adding green section lights to my NYC hudson was worth it. Sounds like it is.
For those railroads who did end up running most of their freight trains as extras (one response mentioned how PRR got rid of class lights in 1940 because freight trains were basically all extras), they didnt have white flags be placed on all engines then right? Instead you would just assume that all freights were extras?
Thanks,
OvermodY'all are confusing printed timetable time with train-order time.
I was qualified on real TT&TO rules and I have NYC rule books so I assure you I am not confused on how it works. You may be confused on what you are calling a section.
I assure you that Number 25/26 would have the railroad 'reserved' for whatever clock time the sections would be 'by' a particular point or stop. Or someone would hear about it from upper management the next day
Still doesn't matter. NYCS 1956 rules : Rule 92. Unless otherwise provided, a train must not leave a station in advance of its schedule leaving time.
Trains cannot leave early. That leaves only two alternatives, on time or late.
Chris, take it up with the New York Central historians, not me. One stated concern at the time was that people would be less satisfied with being stuck on 'following' sections if they got into Chicago or New York "later" than the leading sections. How would you get around that issue? And on NYC the 'Advance' trains were completely different name trains, sharing only the cachet of a famous reputation.
You have answered your own question.
The "advance" sections weren't actually sections at all in the rulebook definition of sections. They were "extras" or other train schedules that might have been called a name like the other train, but they weren't actual sections.
If the schedule in question was No 93, the "Podunk Express", then the advance train might be called the "Advance Podunk" but it was a separate schedule, such as No 193. You could run "sections" of No 93 ahead, and might call them "an advance section of No 93" but in reality they were actually Extra 2345 West, a passenger extra and would display white signals, NOT green signals. They might call the advance trains sections but in reality, they weren't.
Railroads have two sets of schedules, service schedules and timetable schedules. They both use the same language. Both have regular trains, both have extras, both have sections. But they are completely different. Service schedules are only for traffic and management purposes, timetable schedules authorize movement on the main track. Service schedules don't authorize anything. I worked for a real railroad and managed those types of schedules on a daily basis for half my career.
To this day railroads have regular trains, extras and sections, but they are sevice schedules and just deal with the management standards for the trains, and do NOT authorize movement.
Trainman440For those railroads who did end up running most of their freight trains as extras (one response mentioned how PRR got rid of class lights in 1940 because freight trains were basically all extras), they didnt have white flags be placed on all engines then right? Instead you would just assume that all freights were extras?
You would do what the rules told you to do and not "assume" anything.
You would not display class lights (neither white nor green) because the rule book didn' require you to display class lights. You weren't "assuming" anything. Class lights weren't even in the rule book.
Trainman440Thanks for all the replies guys! It sounds like NYC really liked their section lights, and, honestly the reason I posted about this in the first place was to see if adding green section lights to my NYC hudson was worth it. Sounds like it is.
It almost seemed that prior to 1938 the Central liked to promote the idea that many of their premiere trains ran in sections, as if to say 'see how popular our trains are'.
NYC_25-Ani_0004 by Edmund, on Flickr
A great deal of the promotional photos and artwork of the day seemed to have the green flags or markers displayed.
NYC_25-Ani-5-6 by Edmund, on Flickr
Now when the 1938 streaml;ined Hudsons came along* I can't recall ever seeing flags or classification lights displayed on those?
Century_life1 by Edmund, on Flickr
Rarely did I see flags or class lights displayed on any of the E7s or other passenger power in the diesel era, either, except for the occasional passenger extra with white flags.
* Today would have been the 121st anniversary of the first run of the Century and the 85th anniversary of the new streamlined equipment.
Trainman440It sounds like NYC really liked their section lights, and, honestly the reason I posted about this in the first place was to see if adding green section lights to my NYC hudson was worth it.
It isn't a New York Central thing, it's a railroad thing. Most (all?) railroads followed the same procedures regarding classification flags / lights.
Similarly, freight trains were mostly extras on all railroads. There were scheduled, regular freight trains (like mainline "fast freights") but most freight trains were extras. Any extra train would need white flags / lights indicating it was an extra.
I guess to me the bottom line would be to ask yourself how you're going to use the engine? If your Hudson is going to be running on a large club layout that routinely uses multiple sections of say the 20th Century Ltd., then having the ability to have green lights would be a plus. If not, on a home model railroad, more likely the engine will run with no lights (scheduled passenger or express train) or white lights (extra passenger, express or fast freight).
Towards the end of the time table and train order era, freight train schedules in the time table did not necessarily reflect the actual train. The dispatcher could run a different train symbol under a time table schedule at his convenience. Sections of a schedule could also be run with trains of another symbol.
A time table schedule may not even correspond to an actual freight symbol. I recall in the article on dispatching on the Katy (about 1986) where they had just transitioned to a new rule book. (It would've been from the Uniform Code to the new General Code.) There was no longer a provision for authorizing sections of a schedule, nor the displaying of green signals. Because of this, their employee time table on one busy subdivision had a dummy schedule for the dispatchers to use. They could run any train symbol on it, or annul it has they saw fit.
I have a link to a RI train sheet from Oct 25 1975. At that time, the ett had 3 westward schedules: 55, 59 and 57. And 2 eastward schedules 44 and 56 on subdivision 4.
You'll notice that on the westward side, train 43 was run on 55's schedule. 57 and 59's schedules were used by their symbol trains. On the eastward side, train 44 used 56's schedule and 56 was run as an extra. 44's schedule that day was annulled.
crip-fourth-ninth-tenth-sub-10-25-1975.jpg (26592×5553) (wordpress.com) You may have to enlarge and/or scroll around to read the entries.
I have the train sheet from Oct 31, 1975. On that day 57 was run in three sections, only one train actually being train 57. The bottom line is if it's easier for the dispatcher to run any train on any available schedule, they'll do it that way.
Jeff
The schedule having no relation to the train being run was arround for a long time before the Sixties. Somewhere I have my copy of Frank Ellison on Model Railroading, which collects articles he wrote for MR in the Late Forties/Early Fifties. He pointed out, humorously, that if a gas-electric motorcar on the Santa Fe departed Chicago on the schedule of Number 17, it WAS the Super Chief in terms of train operations and dispatching, despite the thoughts of the doubtless stunned passengers.
No, you are.
PUBLIC passenger timetables have nothing to do whatsoever with operating rules questions, so no one but you is talking about them. We are all talking about the employees operating timetable, which is the only timetable that is relevant to running a train over the line. And if a train is running on a timetable schedule, it cannot depart any station ahead of the printed times. Ever.
cv_acrNo, you are.
The passenger concern with sections, according to him, was that the 'last' section that arrived in Chicago had to stop at no more than the passenger, published timetable time.
Any passenger boarding at an intermediate station might expect "their" train to be leaving no earlier than the scheduled departure time for that station, which led to the question whether one of the sections, presumably the last, was 'reserved' for the intermediate boardings, with the others running ahead of the published timetable time. This was one of the questions I had about operating multiple sections of NYC trains.
Equally obviously, any train would not leave ahead of its employee timetable time (except perhaps with appropriate dispatch permission). But employee timetable time is not what passengers care about, or choose a train over. On the other hand, if the employee timetable does not ensure that the train performs to the expectation of the public timetable, and the paying passengers, it's pointless in this context, isn't it?
OvermodIf I am, then so was Hungerford.
Then you have company.
OvermodEqually obviously, any train would not leave ahead of its employee timetable time (except perhaps with appropriate dispatch permission).
There is no "appropriate dispatch permission". The ONLY way to depart a train ahead of it's scheduled time is to run it as some other train (extra or other schedule that departs early) in which case it is no longer the original train or a section of that train.
Overmod Any passenger boarding at an intermediate station might expect "their" train to be leaving no earlier than the scheduled departure time for that station, which led to the question whether one of the sections, presumably the last, was 'reserved' for the intermediate boardings, with the others running ahead of the published timetable time. This was one of the questions I had about operating multiple sections of NYC trains.
Again, you DO NOT run any section ahead of the scheduled time.
The only way to do that is to run a different schedule/train number, which is NOT the same thing as "displaying green signals and running extra sections" which the thread is about.
Those extra sections can only follow the schedule.
The only way to run "advance sections" is to run an entirely different train. Your source is probably talking about that and describing it as an "advance section" in a colloquial sense, and you're confusing it with the train order rules on running "sections".
Because otherwise what you're describing is not allowed under any timetable/train order rules.
Overmod Equally obviously, any train would not leave ahead of its employee timetable time (except perhaps with appropriate dispatch permission). But employee timetable time is not what passengers care about, or choose a train over. On the other hand, if the employee timetable does not ensure that the train performs to the expectation of the public timetable, and the paying passengers, it's pointless in this context, isn't it?
Wrong. The question is about displaying green signals and running in multiple sections. That's an EMPLOYEE timetable question.
The PUBLIC timetable is what is irrelevant and pointless to "running sections" of a schedule under train order rules, and has nothing to do with operating authority.
cv_acrYour source is probably talking about that and describing it as an "advance section" in a colloquial sense, and you're confusing it with the train order rules on running "sections".
The question is about displaying green signals and running in multiple sections. That's an EMPLOYEE timetable question.
Incidentally, I'm still waiting for one of you rules mavens to show me the section of a relevant NYC employee timetable that authorizes sections to run so closely together that passengers on an observation platform could clearly make out not only the headlight but the feedwater-vent plume of the following section's locomotive.
OvermodIncidentally, I'm still waiting for one of you rules mavens to show me the section of a relevant NYC employee timetable that authorizes sections to run so closely together that passengers on an observation platform could clearly make out not only the headlight but the feedwater-vent plume of the following section's locomotive.
Spacing between trains isn't specific to running sections. This applies to ALL trains.
IF THERE IS NO BLOCK SIGNAL SYSTEM, a specified time interval (20 minutes in my Canadian UCOR rulebook found under Rule 91, YMMV, most rulebooks should be similar) between following trains is to be maintained between trains passing *at open train order offices*. Train order signals will be set to stop by the operator to maintain this spacing at train order offices.
If there are block signals, trains will be operating on signal indication and can be closer together.
Your story also doesn't indicate how straight of a line the trains are operating on. You can potentially see a following train at quite a distance across flat open terrain.
cv_acrSpacing between trains isn't specific to running sections. This applies to ALL trains.
IF THERE IS NO BLOCK SIGNAL SYSTEM...
All the reports I have of the following distance are more or less hearsay from third parties. I think I have seen photos or even newsreel-type footage that shows the actual "effect", and from those it might be possible to deduce whether the trains were in fact on a relatively long straight or gently-curved stretch (of which there are certainly many on the Water Level Route).
One thing that might be causing confusion is that if a train was running in three sections, the first two sections would have green flags to indicate it was a scheduled (i.e. not an extra) train with a section following. The last section would not have a flag. Perhaps that is why people are thinking the 'actual' train is the last one and the sections are running 'in advance' of it?
Important to remember that all three sections together would constitute one train; it's not three separate trains. On a dispatcher's sheet, the train would not be considered to have passed the station or tower until all three sections had gone by for example.
As noted, a scheduled train couldn't leave before it's scheduled departure time, so the first section would only be able to leave at earliest at the scheduled departure time. Each section would then follow. On New York Central, they would be on 10 min. intervals, so stories of one section's engine being right behind the other's observation car are probably just a story...although since NYC had quite a bit of four-track mainlines, it's possible two trains could have been running very close to each other but on separate tracks?
Locomotive classification lights | Trains Magazine
wjstixOn New York Central, they would be on 10 min. intervals, so stories of one section's engine being right behind the other's observation car are probably just a story...
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. That's a relatively high increase in overall speed over what the 'carded time' would indicate average locomotive or consist speed would be.
If there are intermediate stops, then the 10-minute 'padding' becomes more important as each section has to run 'slower enough' than the one ahead of it that the entire braking, dwell, and acceleration delay can be accommodated. Conversely, if all the sections stop when the first one does, and then proceed hitching and starting as each subsequent one does, it seems to me that you're likely to get very unhappy Pullman passengers, of much the kind you hear about regarding switching at Buffalo in media noctem.
Note that these are essentially all customer-service issues, not train-operation rules. They could be readily handled if the 'last' train could arrive 10-minutes-times-the-number-of-sections later. But we'd then hear just what I recall Hungerford mentioning -- a terrible clamor among passengers to be on as 'early' a section as possible, or to receive a discounted rate if on the last ones.
OvermodBut that's not what I have been discussing, which is how the EMPLOYEE timetable would have had to be written to account for the issues with the PUBLIC timetable.
It wouldn't. The timetable has ONE schedule for each train symbol. No 93 has one and only one schedule. If it has no sections it has that one schedule. If it is run in twenty sections it has that one schedule. Doesn't matter. One schedule.
OvermodThe 'relevance' to "running sections" of a schedule under train order rules, and to operating authority, is that anything employees were told to do would be subservient to what the railroad could tell its passengers to expect.
No. It doesn' matter what the public schedule says. The crews and dispatchers will be operating to the timetable schedule. For the operation of the trains, the public timetable is irrelevant. The public timetable is written to correspond to the employee timetable, it holds precedence. If the public time table says the train departs at 305 pm and the employee timetable says the train departs at 310pm, the train departs at 310 pm.
That's because there isn't. And they didn't run sections that way. Sections may be hours apart. There is no requirement for sections to be run nose to tail. That is your model railroader sensibilities taking over.
The first section departs on time, ALL, repeat ALL following sections that are actually sections depart late. There is no attempt in the employee or public time table to pad station dwell times to allow for sections as you suggest. NONE.