Paul,
Alright I am used to the way PRR did things. It is not like it did not make sense.
K.P. Harrier,
Thanks,
I do not think I had them crossed. It is just personally, the fact that the train in the photo is heading WB on the "left-side" of the mainline just did not make so much sense to me. It is going against the "current of flow" to me.
I forgot about the "unique" situation Cajon Pass has with the different grades. What seemed normal on Cajon Pass, seems abnormal to me personally.
If I were to visit Cajon Pass for the first time in my life with no previous knowledge of the route's typical operations, I would expect trains to be flowing in the manner I stated earlier. Which was really the point I was trying to make when referencing the photo.
Thanks for the info.
That goes for everyone really.
henry6 Left hand running because stations were on that side does not hit me as being right because you can build the station on either side when you plan and build. The only way that might ring true is if, as in many metropolitan situations, that the station or major building was on the inbound side of the tracks because that was where most people who bought tickets and just a minor shelter, if any, was on the outbound side. I don't know if that is the case with CNW .
Left hand running because stations were on that side does not hit me as being right because you can build the station on either side when you plan and build. The only way that might ring true is if, as in many metropolitan situations, that the station or major building was on the inbound side of the tracks because that was where most people who bought tickets and just a minor shelter, if any, was on the outbound side. I don't know if that is the case with CNW .
That's it, Henry--in the case of our line, the stations were on the north side of the single track. I'm sure the second track was added only a few years later, if that long, but the north-side track became the inbound track.
Interestingly enough, the two newest stations on our line, opened in 2006, are on the south side of the tracks. Metra built a third track to the south of the other two, and that new track is pretty much used exclusively by Metra trains.
Carl
Railroader Emeritus (practiced railroading for 46 years--and in 2010 I finally got it right!)
CAACSCOCOM--I don't want to behave improperly, so I just won't behave at all. (SM)
PNWRMNM Paul, Notice that the second named train is a scheduled train. The first named train was overtaken when it was at the last point it was possible to enter a siding and line the switch back before the second named train was scheduled to leave the last station to the rear where time is shown (in the timetable). Mac
Notice that the second named train is a scheduled train. The first named train was overtaken when it was at the last point it was possible to enter a siding and line the switch back before the second named train was scheduled to leave the last station to the rear where time is shown (in the timetable).
Mac
I don't think that's quite correct in this case. The rule requiring trains clearing superior trains in the same direction requires exactly what Mac posted, except most usually say, "unless otherwise provided for" or words to that effect. The example 4 train order would do that. Otherwise, why issue the order at all? If you can run well enough to clear the following train's leaving time at the station behind you, you don't need an order to keep going.
I pulled the book back off the shelf. The paragraph below ex.#4 reads, "The first-named train will run ahead of the second-named train from the designated point until overtaken, and then arrange for the rear train to pass promptly."
It almost sounds like when you see the smoke from the following train (it was in the 1929 book) it's time to pull into the clear. In reality, I expect the only time an order like this was used was when it was unlikely that the following train would catch up. Otherwise they would've probably used an example I didn't mention, "Extra 594 East run ahead of No 6 M to B." This order has defined limits. At B, the extra will have to clear up if it doesn't have the time to continue per what Mac posted.
Also, Example 4 doesn't relieve the leading train to provide flag protection against the following train. The following train also knows there's a train ahead of it. They'll watch out for each other to some extent. If the following train would catch up, it would most likely be due to the leading train stopping to do station work or take on fuel/water. Most likely it would be at a place where there was a siding (sidings being more prevalent in years past) and they could promptly clear up.
Jeff, who's off to the local monthly railfan slide show to watch slides of the DRGW from the 1960s/1970s.
In an order for overtaking or passing the train ahead, the order would instruct one of the trains into the siding and wait until the other train has passed unless otherwise dictated by superiority, class. In the case of a meet, it would also take into cconsideration, direction.
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
Thanks much, Jeff - I knew you'd understand the question, and thought you'd likely be able to provide some examples, one way or the other - or both ! (Maybe try them out during the next operating session on the scale model railroad ?)
Practical real-world question: In Example 4, how would the engineer of the 'leading' train - X95 W - know that the following train - No. 3 - was "overtaking" him, unless it bumped his caboose ? Said another way - how far away is "still catching up", and how close is "about to overtake us" ?
For me, that form of order is too 'fuzzy' unless it's for a country branch line on the prairie with lots of stations and sidings and long sight lines to see the other train approaching. Otherwise, it's not definitive enough - where is the 'overtake' going to occur ?
If there would be a rear-end collision, I suppose the inferior train X95 W is in the wrong - it should have 'yielded' to the superior train and taken the siding. But as a practical matter, how does the crew know when to do that efficiently at any station after the initial point B ? Why not just hold the siding there until No. 3 shows up, then follow it ?
- Paul North.
Paul_D_North_Jr henry6: [snipped] Train orders could . . . often done for oders of overtaking another train (not passing another train as passing referred to trains of opposing directions and overtaking to trains of the same direction...rules were descriptive, difinitive, and precise). My long-ago rules training (no pun intended !) and the few train orders that I saw used the term "pass" between trains in the same direction (the same as "passing" another car on a highway), whereas a "meet" was between trains in opposite directions - the term "overtake" was not used, perhaps because it had too many more letters than the simpler "pass" for the telegraph operators back in those old days . . . I'd be interested to know from those with more familiarity what terms for those operations have been used in their experience. - Paul North.
henry6: [snipped] Train orders could . . . often done for oders of overtaking another train (not passing another train as passing referred to trains of opposing directions and overtaking to trains of the same direction...rules were descriptive, difinitive, and precise).
I'd be interested to know from those with more familiarity what terms for those operations have been used in their experience.
I had to look thru a few old rule books. Here's a few examples, all under the train order form B (not the same kind of Form B track bulletin used today) section.
CNW 1929 rule book.
Example 2: No 6 pass No 4 when overtaken.
Example 4: Extra 95 West run ahead of No 3 B until overtaken.
Example 4 also appears in the Consolidated Code edition of 1945, but example 2 doesn't.
ICG 1974 rule book.
Example 1: Extra 594 East run ahead of No 6 M to B unless overtaken.
So, some railroads in some eras (rules can change over time) did use the word "overtake" or "overtaken" in train orders.
I wonder if Carpal Tunnel Syndrome was a problem for brass pounders?
Jeff
henry6 In both the Erie Book of Rules of 1908 and the DL&W's of 1935 that I could pick out quickly, I found the term "meet" only in a meet order and the term "pass" in "directing a train to pass or run around a train ahead". Nowhere in the meet order is the word pass used and nowhere anyplace is the term "overake" used. In meet orders, too, one train is directed into a "siding" but not into a passing siding. There's a lot more I've got to get into here...it looks intrigueing!
In both the Erie Book of Rules of 1908 and the DL&W's of 1935 that I could pick out quickly, I found the term "meet" only in a meet order and the term "pass" in "directing a train to pass or run around a train ahead". Nowhere in the meet order is the word pass used and nowhere anyplace is the term "overake" used. In meet orders, too, one train is directed into a "siding" but not into a passing siding. There's a lot more I've got to get into here...it looks intrigueing!
According to most rule book definitions (I'd say all, but then I or someone else will find an exception) a "siding" is a track auxilary to the main track for meeting or passing trains*. The use of passing siding in a train order would be redundant.
Some rule books instructed which train was to "hold main track at __"* instead of "take siding."
*Uniform Code of Operating Rules, Effective June 2, 1968.
First, BT CPSO 266, you started a fascinating thread ...
Second ... Your track identifications seem to be in reverse, as Main 1 is customarily used for eastbound trains, and NOT westbound trains; though your photo link correctly identified the photo's westbound train as being on Main 3.
BT CPSO 266 Now my understanding is that if you run trains EB then try and have them run on track #3 and if they are running WB then try running on track#1. Track#2 is used for which ever direction as more traffic at the time.
Now my understanding is that if you run trains EB then try and have them run on track #3 and if they are running WB then try running on track#1. Track#2 is used for which ever direction as more traffic at the time.
Some photos for direction orientation ...
A westbound on Main 2 (center track, with a green signal): Main 3 is on the left (with a flashing yellow), and Main 1 is on the right (with a red signal).
The above photo was taken not too far from your linked photo reference, BT CPSO 266.
An eastbound on Main 1 nearby, out of Blue Cut:
From the California border on the east, out of Needles, CA, trains historically were RIGHT running in Automatic Block Signal (ABS) days of double-track, with westbound trains on the northern track, whereas eastbound trains used the southern track.
At Frost, near Victorville, on the east slope of Cajon Pass, the tracks literally reverse at what is called the "natural crossover," and trains were LEFT running thereafter over Cajon Pass.
Now, under the 1972 installed Centralized Traffic Control (CTC), both those tracks are completely bidirectional, and on the west slope, the triple-track line is completely CTC bidirectional as well.
However, dispatchers tend to CONSISTENTLY have certain direction trains use certain tracks, which phenomena I call biases. Main 1 is eastbound biased, and Mains 2 and 3 are westbound biased; both of 2.2% gradient. Short and fast eastbound trains tend to be biased toward climbing the steep 3% Main 3.
It is hoped the above gives those unfamiliar with Cajon Pass a better comprehension of this thread.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- K.P.’s absolute “theorem” from early, early childhood that he has seen over and over and over again: Those that CAUSE a problem in the first place will act the most violently if questioned or exposed.
There you go ! Thanks to both of you for confirming/ clarifying that.
I've seen the rule books of many different carriers in the days when trains were operated by timetable and train orders. Uniformly, you MEET another train in the opposite direction. You PASS (or may be PASSED by) a train in the same direction as your own.
henry6 [snipped] Train orders could . . . often done for oders of overtaking another train (not passing another train as passing referred to trains of opposing directions and overtaking to trains of the same direction...rules were descriptive, difinitive, and precise).
BT CPSO 266 I thought tracks were numbered south-north?
henry6 A "default" program! How amusing to see such a term applied to such an ancient art/science. Of coure, first is the fact that in American we have always driven on the right in the direction we are going. This going back to Colonial times in defiance of the King and his Country!. CNW, some say, picked the opposite or left hand running because they had attracted or wanted to attract, huge sums of English money. But so did other roads and they didn't go left. So who knows.
A "default" program! How amusing to see such a term applied to such an ancient art/science. Of coure, first is the fact that in American we have always driven on the right in the direction we are going. This going back to Colonial times in defiance of the King and his Country!. CNW, some say, picked the opposite or left hand running because they had attracted or wanted to attract, huge sums of English money. But so did other roads and they didn't go left. So who knows.
We do! It's been mentioned often enough, and in the right places. The original reason for left-handed operation on CNW was a practical one, due to the side of the track on which the stations were placed.
Here's a practical example: We have a local freight between Proviso and West Chicago (it's home assignment to the two remaining CNW Dash 9s). In order to move with the accepted current of traffic, the westbound would have to cross over all of the tracks upon leaving Proviso to get to Track 3. Then, when it gets to West Chicago, it would have to cross everything again to get to Track 1 by the time it had to go into West Chicago's yard. Often, if possible, the train would be sent out on Track 2 just to avoid the extra crossover moves...but that won't work if there is a train (and often there is) staging at Finley Road--track 2 is the staging track because the scoots use the outer tracks. But there is one hour, around noon, when there is no eastbound scoot scheduled. If the local were delayed enough in its departure to get out on the line after, say, 11:15, it has happened that it will shoot right up Track 1 and not have to make any crossover moves. That will work, as long as there are no eastbound freights that have to use Track 1 because Track 2 is plugged.
All of this will become academic after the new crossovers are put in at Lombard and Wheaton, just because there will no longer be a 15-mile stretch of track with no way to move from one track to another. You still have the same line of thinking, but you can do it in stages, not having to block the whole railroad at one point with a crossover move. And the crossover moves, on good, 50-m.p.h. crossovers, will no longer slow down the freights.
As for track numbering, at least on UP, tracks are numbered from north to south, and from west to east. This is easy enough for me to remember... used to work for the Chicago and North Western. But on the CNW, the tracks had been numbered the opposite way. I used to say that October 1, 1995 (when UP operating rules went into effect and the meltdown began), was the day that UP turned us upside down. That had a lot of figurative connotations, but in the case of track numbers it was very, sometimes painfully, literal.
The Cajon Pass was probably not the best example now that I think about it. I forgot about the grade difference.
I tried to find a particular video on youtube about what I am talking about, but I can not find it at the moment.
I thought tracks were numbered south-north?
Multiple track, signaled in both directions railroad segments did not spring full formed day 1 in their history. For the most part they started as single track, unsignaled line segments. As traffic grew they became unsignalled double track segments - to ease the blocking for trains, under normal circumstance trains proceeded in one direction on one of the tracks and in the opposite direction on the other track...since industries would grow up along the line, the spurs to service these industries would open as necessary considering the normal flow of traffic on the Main track the industry was served from.
The next step in the growth of the line segment would be the addition of signals, the most cost effective at the time electric signalling was invented was for signalling in one direction on a track and thousands of miles of double track on virtually all properties had installed 'Current of Traffic' signalling in One Direction on their double track line segments. Predominately West on Track #1 and East on Track #2 (North-South and CNW may vary).
Once Centralized Traffic Control (CTC) was invented, various forms of it were installed on the properties as time and finances marched on. Many double track line segments were reduced to single track CTC installations, in concert with the traffic requirements of the line. Other double track line segments had bi-directional signalling installed under the implementation of CTC.
From a signalling perspective, it makes no difference which direction a train operates on the double track - from a operational perspective it is a whole different story. Remember back at the start of this epistle, I mentioned industries! The industries still exist and the tracks serving them still exist - as a practical matter, the track serving these industries are 'trailing point' switches for the direction of traffic on the track from the days of Current of Traffic signalling ie. industries accessed from #1 Main Track will have their spur set so that a Westbound Local Freight can cut the industry cars from their train on #1 Main and back them into the industry through the industries main track switch; leave the cars and upon closing the switch return to their train, couple up and proceed West to the next industry. Now this is where it gets interesting, when operating a Eastbound train on #1 Main track - there are virtually no tracks available for the Eastbound to set out any bad order that may develop in the train without assistance from another train.....for this reason, the SMART Train Dispatcher will attempt to operate most trains with the 'Current of Traffic' that was created in bygone days. Real time considerations will have trains operating against the 'Current of Traffic' from time to time...but only to operate around a situation that occupies the 'preferred' track.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
When everything was human control--timetables, train orders, dispatchers, agents and operators--it made sense to be uniform. There were--and are--instances where ascending grades for the bulk of the traffic makes sense for seperate rights of way or at least transposed running. Train orders could, of course, allow for the running against the current of traffic, as was often done, and often done for oders of overtaking another train (not passing another train as passing referred to trains of opposing directions and overtaking to trains of the same direction...rules were descriptive, difinitive, and precise). Sometimes one or more tracks in a double or more track line could be signaled for reverse running usually between two specific control points (interlocking stations or towers) and were electrically changed by interlocking sequences under the direction of the train dispatcher. With higher taxes for plant, railroads found reverse signaling cheaper than maintaining two or more tracks. As control points became more and more centralized (fewer towers and stations to just one dispatcher) the more prvelant reverse operations have become. It certainly allows for a lot more flexibility on any multiple track line.
oltmannd A quick thought. It might be because the railroad was set up for right hand running in "ABS" days. Things like access to and from the receiving/departure/forwarding yards of major terminals and set up of intermediate work locations, crew change locations and mainline fueling might favor one track over another. For example, departing and arriving the west end of Selkirk favors right hand running.
A quick thought. It might be because the railroad was set up for right hand running in "ABS" days. Things like access to and from the receiving/departure/forwarding yards of major terminals and set up of intermediate work locations, crew change locations and mainline fueling might favor one track over another.
For example, departing and arriving the west end of Selkirk favors right hand running.
On the lefty CNW, most sidings and house tracks were at one time double ended. Over the years, the facing point switches were removed for trains running with the current of traffic. New single ended spurs were also set up to be switched by trains running with the current.
Now that CTC has been added, trains can and do run on either track. However a train needing to work a spur/set out a bad order car has to be running left handed most places. If you're running on the right hand side, for the most part you won't see a trailing point switch between the intermediate terminals. (Over the years, even spots for setouts with what was the current of traffic have been removed. Setting out a defective car can be problematic at times.)
When the UP rebuilt the second track between Denison and Missouri Valley, they added double ended set out tracks on both sides at a few locations. IMO they need to do this at other locations where CTC was installed, too. Of course then when you need to use them, there locked out because MOW has tied up equipment on them.
Don and Mac:That is just what I thought. There is usually a "default" setting in life.
In our garage, my wife parks on the right and I am on the left. It has nothing to do with "she is always right" but certainly could be.
ed
Ed,
On some territories, as Don cited, there may be an engineering reason to prefer one arrangement over another.
My personal opinion, based on no data, starts from the proposition that there has to be a "default" or "normal" condition. Imagine the train delay that would be generated if each dispatcher chose his own default condition and spent his first hour or two imposing it on the railroad.
If you were to ask working dispatchers today I suspect the vast majority would give you some variation of "just because" as to why they dispatch a specific territory on a right hand running basis. True, it may be a carryover from the double track days, and is consistent with double track operation, but I suspect few working dispatchers give the issue of why they tend to run right handed a lot of thought.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
That's an excellent, comprehensive answer. As Mac said, the heavy and less-powered trains would have preference for the lower grade track; the light and higher-powered trains or empties can more easily cope with the steeper grades on other tracks. Almost any train can use a downgrade track.
Another reason may be that a 'pass' is occurring, and one train or the other would have to use the main that is typically mostly in the other direction.
For the Cajon Pass instance, you may be interested in obtaining a copy of this issue of Trains, which had a really good many-page article on it:
The article included a 'side-bar' article captioned as "Clairvoyance on Cajon", which was an extensive explanation and examples of many kinds of signal combinations and how they would indicate these kinds of maneuvers.
Also this one, which explains more of the theory and options with the ifferent grades and the resulting distances and speeds, etc.:
Let me ask a related question that has sort of intrigued me for awhile.
Let's assume there is a double main track, and I understand the significance of that (signalled for movement in both directions). Further let's say this double main is in the heartland of America with no significant grades and that the tracks are adjacent to one another, with in a few yards. In other words a typical (if there is such a thing) double main track. Sidings are established as are crossovers based on efficient movement. Perhaps there are some industrial sidings and also some junctions.
Why does a railroad seem to run the majority of their trains on the right hand track? We all know that other than CNW, most original double tracks were established for right hand running (signals). However, with the conversion of many of those mainlines to CTC and reverse signalling, it really should make no difference which track the train operates.
Yet, in observations it seems that operations seem to follow the old tradition, unless there is maintennace work or passing a slower train.
Is the railroad somehow "set up" for this type of operation, with better crossover capabilities? I would think not. In listening to both CSX and NS operate their double mains, the majority of trains operated run on the right hand main.
Is it tradition? Or is there more to it?Ed
266
I am having a hard time figuring out what your question is.
Lets start with a basic definition. "double track" is two tracks each with a current of traffic in one direction. In most basic case there is NO reverse direction signaling. Here the general practice is that traffic runs on the right hand main, except on former CNW near Chicago where was left hand running.
By definition, "two main tracks" are signaled for movement in both directions and there is no current of traffic. To the best of my knowledge these installations are controlled by CTC wherein an indication better than stop at an absolute signal conveys authority to move to the next absolute signal. This means the dispatcher can run any train on any track as necessary to keep everybody moving as best he can. One track is no more appropriate than the other.
The west side of Cajon pass on the BNSF is different in that track #3 has a 3% ruling grade. This track is the original main track and in the early days trains used it in both directions. The next step was to add a second track, on a separate alignment. By this time the ATSF had an operating cash flow and the ability to spend the additional money to get a 2.2% grade line. After this line was built, I suspect the operation was double track, up the new 2.2% line and down the 3% line. The reason for this is that tonnage ratings for any given power were about 40% higher on the 2.2% than on the 3%.
Now there are three tracks, #1 and #2 with 2.2% ruling grades, and #3 still at 3%. You do not say if this segment is operated under double track or multiple track rules. I suspect all three tracks are signaled for movement in either direction. If so, the ususal practice would still be up the 2.2% and down the 3%. I would expect most westbounds to be on the 3% and few, if any eastbounds on track #3. An eastbound on track three needs more power to get up it than is necessary on the other tracks. An overpowered trailer train could run up track #3, but anything powered to just above minimum continuous speed of DC traction motors needs to be on track one or two.
In short if operation is two or three main tracks, trains in either direction can run on any track at any time for reasons that will not be immediately apparent to a bystander. If the tracks have different ruling grades the track with the lesser grade will get most, if not all, of the uphill trains and the one with the greater will get the downhill trains.
CP took their westbound ruling grades to 1% by building new lines on 1% grades in several segments that were originally 2.2%. The westbounds, which tend to be heavy with coal, potash, and sulfur take the 1% lines which have twice the tonnage ratings as the 2.2% lines between the same end points. I do not know if CP spent the extra money to make these segments two main track as opposed to double track. If I was running CP I would set them up as double track and expect to find that there was no reason to spend extra money to give myself the flexibility to do something I do not need.
A concept that has often bothered me is the reason why triple-tracked (or even doubled-tracked) main continually will operate trains on a track that is typically used for one direction vs. running a train on a track that is more appropriate for the direction it is going.
Ex.
OK, say on Cajon Pass we witness this BNSF intermodal train. Now my understanding is that if you run trains EB then try and have them run on track #3 and if they are running WB then try running on track#1. Track#2 is used for which ever direction as more traffic at the time.
Now I know Track#1 was not opened yet at the time of the photo, but it seems the operation being conducted in the photo (A WB on Track#3) is very common on the mountain pass. Now my understanding is that the BNSF is triple-tracked the entire way from Summit, through the Alameda Corridor.
Even when all the tracks are in service (even on double-tracked mains) I see this practice done, which really seems confusing. I am hoping someone may be able to explain this concept further. I no railroad operations are different, but how far do they stray from the "stay on the right side" concept?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.