That was a great vid and thx for sharing. Times may be a little more modern now with how things are done, but it's still rugged country out there. I rode thru it on the Canadian, but not in winter.
A couple of comments from my brief experience as a train order operator in 1974 on the CPR. The Form 31 order had disappeared long before, probably with the new rule book of 1962. But the Form 19 came in two flavours, 19Y and 19R. The latter was probably very similar to the old Form 31, since it required the train to come to a stop and at least one crew member sign the operator's copy. It was most commonly used when it was restricting trains at that station.
When issuing an order, the dispatcher would indicate which version of the Form 19 would be used, and the operator would set his signal to the appropriate indication before replying with the signal shown. Then he would start copying the order.
Normally there was no train order signal at a terminal, since all crews would have to sign in at the station and pick up train orders, waybills and any other paperwork. This is not absolute, especially where the passenger and freight terminals were separated by several miles.
Somebody asked why radio was not used earlier. In part it was because it would require a major change in operating practices. As mentioned, there were union craft issues if the train crews started doing the work formerly done by the telegraphers. When the conductor still rode in the caboose, both head-end and tail-end crews would have to separately repeat the order, tying up the dispatcher even longer. Radio technology also had to evolve. The band and signal strength meant several base towers would be needed on each subdivision. The dispatcher had to be able to select which tower to use so he didn't clutter the airwaves over hundreds of miles. In reverse, the train crew needed to also be able to put the nearest radio tower on-line when they wanted to call the dispatcher. It is relatively easy with the micro-processors and solid state integrated circuits of today. Relays and vacuum tubes posed more of a challenge to get the near 100% reliability in any weather that is required for safe efficient train operations. Just remember, touch-tone phones in our houses are a similarly modern innovation!
John
BaltACD, with the way the forum has been acting lately this is the first evening I have had a chance to get in and once again thank you for your excellent explanation of train order operation. Not only was my father an Operator, Agent, and a Dispatcher, but my uncle was an Operator as well. Your post brought back numerous memories of both of them at work, and I could recall many specific examples of the items you mentioned.
Since the original poster was from Guelph, ON, I wanted to mention a couple of more points related to the Canadian situation. Ulrich wrote:
was there a technological breakthrough in the 80s that did away with the operator and the hoop that eventually led to what we have now?
In Canada you had two tracks of development, if you will. Where demand warranted you had the deployment of CTC, starting around 1960 between Calgary and Gleichen, AB, on the mainline. But on the other hand you had TT&TO operations right up to January of 1986, with the deployment of the MBS radio/computer train control system.
CTC, in Canada, was not the bargain it might have seemed in terms of cost reductions because of the deployment and ongoing maintenance costs caused by the extreme distances and climate involved. The CPR retained a culture wherein employees passed on the knowledge their predecessors learned from the old TT&TO days. One of the most interesting examples of this appeared in Fred Frailey's January 2011 column where he discusses the SOO Line. He mentions that the 430 miles from Glenwood, MN to Portal, ND is the busiest single track corridor in the US dispatched by Track Warrant Control. A statement like this is not surprising when one considers the tonnage and frequency of trains on the Windemere, Taber, and Crowsnest Subs in Canada. These lines handle huge amounts of Coal and Potash and all are dark territories.
Where CTC was never deployed, the sequence went from TT&TO to MBS in January of 1986. Then the CROR(Canadian Rail Operating Rules) were released in 1990 and from that came the OCS (Occupancy Control System) with their TOP's (Track Occupancy Permits). According to the latest Canadian Trackside Guide I have, this is the equivalent of the US TWC system.
As far as the mainline goes, the stretch from Gleichen to Swift Current, SK didn't receive CTC until the early 1990's, after my father had retired.
Bruce
So shovel the coal, let this rattler roll.
"A Train is a Place Going Somewhere" CP Rail Public Timetable
"O. S. Irricana"
. . . __ . ______
Reasoning behind the 3 miles.....Train is moving at 30 MPH +- Head end receives the orders, they have to 'unwrap' them, read them, understand them and get the train stopped at the point of restriction. If the point of restriction is less than 3 miles it would be difficult to pull the stop off with anything short of a Emergency brake application. Todays rules on my carrier state that if a train is to receive a Mandatory Directive (their wording, not mine) that restricts the train at a point 5 miles or less from the trains current location, the train must be stopped before copying that Mandatory Directive.
Paul_D_North_Jr "+1" - lots of details, filled in some gaps I didn't even know I didn't know. Especially appreciate the explanation of the difference between Form 19 and Form 31 orders - don't know why 3 miles or less to the restriction made a difference, but that's OK - it's enough to know that, for now. Thanks for your time and effort to put that together. - Paul North.
"+1" - lots of details, filled in some gaps I didn't even know I didn't know. Especially appreciate the explanation of the difference between Form 19 and Form 31 orders - don't know why 3 miles or less to the restriction made a difference, but that's OK - it's enough to know that, for now.
Thanks for your time and effort to put that together.
- Paul North.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Spectacular.
There is nothing left for me to say. Thank you.
I began my career as a Operator on a single track Main Line territory that operated under Time Table, Train Orders and has APB signaling, had 1st, 2nd and 3rd Class Schedules as well as Extras.
My first day I was instructed to listen to the Train Dispatchers wire while I wrote the Book of Rules (a practice wherein you write, word for word, the Rule Book into a work book set up for the task). Gotcha #1 if you would EVER state I never read that rule....read it, you read it and you wrote it! Listening to the TD wire was like listening to a foreign language...with the speed that the Train Dispatcher issued the orders, with the required pronouncing and spelling place names and anything with a number, as well as the copying operators repeating the orders back to the Train Dispatcher with the same pronouncing and spelling routine. The practice was something that had to be learned....your tongue doesn't naturally follow that procedure. When times were stated, even hours were not to be used...no 3 PM, 301 PM was permissible.
My carrier did operate Passenger Trains on their 1st Class Schedules and they ran fairly close to On Time - most of the time. Most of the Scheduled Freight trains ran on the 2nd Class Schedules, with that being said, the 2nd Class Schedules were just tools and were assigned to a train based upon it's calling time from the origin terminal...Train A could be operated as No. 91 if the train was called between Midnight and 3AM, if it was called between 3AM and 6AM Train A might be operated as No 93. If it was even later it might be No. 95. Needless to say the same system was applied to trains operating the opposite direction.
The 3rd Class Schedules were used for the Local Freights when they were operating in their scheduled windows. One thing, according to our Rule Book, was that Schedules only remain in effect for 12 hours. If a train running on a schedule gets into a situation where it becomes over 12 hours late at any point within the schedules territory....it loses that schedule authority, the train must then be supplied appropriate train orders for it to proceed on as a Extra Train. On the territory, Westbound Trains were superior to Eastbound trains, needless to say, 1st Class was superior to 2nd Class which was superior to 3rd Class which was superior to a Extra.
Train Dispatching in a single track territory where all trains fit the sidings is a 'strategy game'; especially when done with Timetable Schedules and Train orders. When dealing with 'non-priority' type scheduled trains the Dispatchers preferred NOT to use meet orders - as a meet order locked in the meeting point, no matter of any mechanical malfunction that may befall the trains involved. The preferred method was to issue WAIT orders to the superior trains, which let the inferior train advance as far as the revised schedule specified by the WAIT order would permit.
At the time I hired out the carrier referred to 'routine' train orders at 19's and restricted train orders as 31's. 19's could be handed up to the train on the fly. With 31's the train had to be stopped for delivery. 31 Orders were required where the point of restriction was 3 miles or less from the point of delivery. Train Orders, when issued, were sent first to the Superior train and then to the other trains in their order of superiority. A train order was not in effect until the Train Dispatcher issued the term 'Complete' and the time to the Operator after the successful repeating of the order. Operators repeated the orders in the order in which they were sent by the Train Dispatcher. Where multiple Operators were to copy the orders, as many as possible were to be addressed when the TD initially transmitted it. I was not permissible for a Operator to copy the order based upon another Operators repeat, only from the TD's transmission.
Train Order offices, in both signalled and non-signalled territory had a Train Order Signal (generally a semaphore), that indicated either Clear or Stop. When directed by the TD to copy a Train Order, the Operator was required to set the TO Signal to Stop and report that fact to the TD who recorded that fact in his Train Order Book, the Operator also had to display the appropriate Train Order Board - Yellow for 19's and Red for 31's. The Operator would then copy and repeat the order to the TD. To deliver the orders the Operator was required to complete a Clearance Card Form A. The Form A showed the Station, Date, Train Identification and the numbers of the Train Order(s) being delivered. At Origin points it was not uncommon to deliver 10 to 15 orders to trains, at intermediate stations it was rare to deliver more than 2 or 3. When filling out the Form A the TD had to be notified of the numbers of the orders that were being delivered. With the approach of the train, if only 19 orders were being delivered, the Operator was required to hold the TO Signal at STOP until the train acknowledged it by a horn signal, then the operator could set the signal to clear and proceed to position himself to deliver the orders.
As can be seen, just the issuing of Train Orders was a relatively complex procedure, complying with the operating nuances that the orders specified was also relatively complex. The biggest reason for the abandonment of this form of operation, believe it or not, was WW II. The War caused a large hiring bubble subsequent to the War, the late 70's and into the 80's brought the retirement of the vast majority of those people hired immediately after the War....the carriers needed to find simplified, efficient operating procedure that could be easily taught to the new hires entering Train & Engine service. The systems that are in place today, either DTC (Direct Train Control) or Track Warrants are much simpler and more direct in specifying what the TD want the trains under his control to do, additionally the decreasing price of electronics made the universal use of Radio Communication between TD's and Trains much more affordable and reliable than in preceding decades.
timz Paul_D_North_Jr: (Quoting someone else) "Train orders were of two types: "31's," which had to be signed for by a member of the train crew, and "19's," which did not. The former were employed when the dispatcher needed to know that the affected train actually had the order, while the latter were used when he did not." We could be charitable and say that gives the wrong idea, but probably just as well to say it's wrong. Dispatchers could give trains crucial orders on Form 19 without stopping them at the point of delivery. "Extra 4277 West wait at Honda until 400 PM" "No 2 meet extra 4328 West at Arlight" Does the dispatcher need to know the train has those orders? Well, yes, he needs to be able to assume it, anyway. The same order is intended go to No 2 and to Extra 4328; if one of them passes Arlight unauthorized an awkward situation will ensue.
Paul_D_North_Jr: (Quoting someone else) "Train orders were of two types: "31's," which had to be signed for by a member of the train crew, and "19's," which did not. The former were employed when the dispatcher needed to know that the affected train actually had the order, while the latter were used when he did not."
"Extra 4277 West wait at Honda until 400 PM"
"No 2 meet extra 4328 West at Arlight"
Does the dispatcher need to know the train has those orders? Well, yes, he needs to be able to assume it, anyway. The same order is intended go to No 2 and to Extra 4328; if one of them passes Arlight unauthorized an awkward situation will ensue.
"No 2 meet Extra 4328 West at Arlight"
Depending on what rules are in effect, at one time the copy to No 2 would be on a form 31, the copy to Extra 4328 West could be on a form 19.
Why? Because No 2 is being restricted at Arlight. It can't leave until Extra 4328 West arrives. So if it misses the order a collision could result. Extra 4328 West is inferior (unless being made superior by a previous order we don't know about) and will clear No 2's schedule. If it misses the order, it will still clear No 2 somewhere short of Arlight. A collision is unlikely, but big delays can be had. Especially if Arlight and the siding where the extra clears up has no means of communication.
We always here how rules are written in blood. Train orders, over the years almost defy that. As time progressed some requirements for signatures were eased. Timz is correct to say that in later years, orders that at one time would have been on a Form 31 could be issued on a Form 19. The separate forms on some roads were done away with entirely. In some cases, signatures would still be required but that became rare and were written on the order instead of a specific line.
Also, depending on rules, it was usually the conductor who signed the form 31. He was also the one who was to deliver it to the engineer. Some rules required the conductor to read it to the engineer or the engineer to read it to the conductor. I'd have to look thru some older books, but the conductor before signing may have had to read it to the operator first under some rules.
As I said, over the years the requirements changed, even on the same railroads. There seems to be a conventional wisdom (especially apparent in model railroad quarters where operations are emulated) of how things were done. In some cases practices that had long been abandoned or heavily modified were assumed to still be taking place.
Jeff
Paul_D_North_Jr(Quoting someone else) "Train orders were of two types: "31's," which had to be signed for by a member of the train crew, and "19's," which did not. The former were employed when the dispatcher needed to know that the affected train actually had the order, while the latter were used when he did not."
Getting around the the actual delivery of orders. After the operator wrote out hte order(s) on the tissue form (having set the signal before receiveing) and read back to the dispatcher, he would have to have a way to deliver them to the train crew. In early days, trains stopped. Then someone came up with a hickory stick twisted into a loop with a long handle, or hoop, and the orders tied to it with string...thus the term hooping up orders. The engineer from his cab or his fireman or head brakeman from the cab steps would hold out their right arm and snag the hoop, remove the orders and drop the hoop. The rear of the train,,,conductor or rear brakeman or other designated trainman...would also drop an arm out a vestibule door or from a lower step for the orders, remove them from the hoop and drop the hoop. The operator then had to chase down the track to retrieve his hoops as soon as he was able. Some operators taught pet dogs to retrieve the hoops others found young operator wannabees who were only too happy to be a part of railroading at such a tender age. Later, a smart man, decided running after hoops was not only exhaustive, but also time wasting. He developed the fork, a simple "Y" shaped stick with notches at the tips and a spring clamp at the base, Train orders, clearance cards, messages, etc. would be tied into a string loop which was place on the fork, held up to the train crew who snatched the string and orders rather than the whole fork. The operator no longer had to trek up to a mile to find his hoops and the train crews could make string balls while waiting for a meet. At some busier locations permanent forks were installed alongside the tower or station so that they could be loaded at the operators "liesure" and he be able to man his position when the train came by...also trains could now pick up orders at a higher speed and the operator was further than 18 inches from a speeding train. Orders, of course, can be picked up by train crews at the operator's or dispatcher's desk before leaving a terminal or station, too. At least until about 5 years ago, LIRR crews on the eastern ends at Greenport and Montauk, could receive train orders via fax machine before leaving terminals for westbound moves and even traincrews were allowed to copy and read back train orders via radio...but so few places use train orders today, that is not common practice. The important part was that conductors and engineers on all trains and operators at all stations and points who would be involved in the matters and directiives of the train order receive the order and read back the order at the same time so that all can hear and be sure all have the same wording and understanding.
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.
Wow...what a film.
Brent, thanks for the link. That was absolutely a brilliant piece.
Ed
From Cotton Belt Engineer Chapter 5: “You take like during the War when we were running so many trains. I’ve gone out of here when I’d meet a train nearly every sidetrack between here and Texarkana. And you’d have a handful of orders that, oh, my gosh, it was a sight on earth! And maybe get down to Sulphur Springs, and they’d hand you up some more. Well, you just had it to do–that’s all. You and the fireman and every member of the crew has to stay on the ball. If you don’t, you’ll wind up in a head-on collision, and somebody gets killed.” Said Red Standefer.
See note 3 C. W. Standefer interview with Dr. Joe Fred Cox transcript p20.
Red Standefer worked for the Cotton Belt in engine service from 1917 to 1967.
I only just got around to looking at this thread. Thank you Paul for the invitation to participate. I don't know how to quote from multiple posts at once so I have laid this thread out side by side and I will go down and cut and paste questions and answered as they come up. I am going to try to keep the personal recollections to a minimum or I could end retyping most of the posts I have ever written. So here goes.
Ulrich wrote:
My understanding is that a dispatcher located at a railroad's dispatch center contacted a railroad operator via telephone or teletype, and the operator in turn wrote down the order and passed it on to the headend train crew via a hoop. Is that how it worked?
What information would a typical train order contain?
Before the telephone there was telegraph, hence the job category "Telegraph Operators". Normally they were typed. And a second set was hooped up to the Caboose. For form and content of the order a good resource is the Canadian Pacific Historical Association at cptracks.ca In the Documents Library (registration is free) look up "Uniform Code of Operating Rules"(UCOR)
What led to changes in issuing train orders that did away with the hoop?
A combination of radio and computer technology and the ever present drive to lower staffing numbers.
Paul wrote:
Signing for them. Form 31's - which restricted or took away some or all of a train's operating rights - had to be signed for, for precisely that reason and the one you mention. Form 19's, which granted or added to the train's operating rights, did not have to be signed for, and so could be handed up "on the fly" - if the crew forgot about or ignored them, no harm done.
From 19's didn't have to be signed for, but failure to deliver one generally led to the episode that decided whether an Operator wanted to be a railroader or not. I can still remember the sequence. The dispatcher's phone would ring, my Dad would answer, and then he would reach up and lower the appropriate semaphore arm and swing 90° to pick up the pad of Form 19 blanks and sheets of carbon paper. He would then type the Dispatcher's instructions and repeat them back. If this wasn't done before the train arrived and the train had to stop because of the displayed signal, or there was a problem with the hooping process, also necessitating a stop, this would lead to what would be described as a career defining moment. I never saw one of these, but I gues the intensity level was off the chart.
These was some differences in the allowed content of From 31's and 19's, but the UCOR would show you that. All normal activities such as meets could be dealt with on From 19's.
BATMAN directed you to what for my money is the best video explanation of railroad activities to the layman I have ever seen. It drives "rivet counter's" crazy, but it was never intended to be a technical video. One important note: the Operator in the film writes the order out on a lined pad of paper. This was done because From 19's were Serialized (sequentially numbered) and the Railway didn't want this messed with for "Hollywood foolishness", and they didn't want an actual Form 19 shown for security and safety reasons.
This film, made in 1958 has a scene of a diesel passing an old steam era water tank. This is the time of my first memory of growing up around a railroad. I can recall all of the sights, sounds, touch and smell of what is shown in that film.
I could go on but that is enough for this evening.
timz Paul_D_North_Jr: Form 19's, which granted or added to the train's operating rights, did not have to be signed for, and so could be handed up "on the fly" - if the crew forgot about or ignored them, no harm done. On most RRs form 19s were not ignorable-- meet orders ("Train 1 meet train 2 at Oceano") could be on a Form 19, along with most other orders restricting a train. Form 31 might be needed if the train was restricted at the point of delivery.
Paul_D_North_Jr: Form 19's, which granted or added to the train's operating rights, did not have to be signed for, and so could be handed up "on the fly" - if the crew forgot about or ignored them, no harm done.
"Ignored" wasn't the best choice of words, but the concept or principal of if the order 'liberalized' that train's rights or schedule, then it was not as critical for the DS to know that the crew had received it, is still valid. From the "Train Orders" article linked above, under the heading "Different shapes, sizes, and colors":
"Train orders were of two types: "31's," which had to be signed for by a member of the train crew, and "19's," which did not. The former were employed when the dispatcher needed to know that the affected train actually had the order, while the latter were used when he did not."
- PDN.
timz Ulrich: What led to changes in issuing train orders that did away with the hoop? That's how I recall it was done until the mid 80s...yet radios had been in use long before that...was there a technological breakthrough in the 80s that did away with the operator and the hoop that eventually led to what we have now? An excellent question. I've never seen a good answer; there was no tech breakthrough, but they must just have eventually decided radios were reliable enough?
Ulrich: What led to changes in issuing train orders that did away with the hoop? That's how I recall it was done until the mid 80s...yet radios had been in use long before that...was there a technological breakthrough in the 80s that did away with the operator and the hoop that eventually led to what we have now?
"The train order . . . has been rendered obsolete by the radio, the computer, and amended work rules. . . . The train order's ultimate demise was sealed in 1986 by a national agreement between the railroads and the Transportation Communication Employees Union giving dispatchers the right to issue movement instructions directly to train crews, bypassing operators, in what is called Direct Train Control (DTC) territory. Up to that time the TCEU (previously the Order of Railroad Telegraphers) had jealously guarded its right to such work, and exclusive work rules had for years prohibited the adoption of a more modern system."
At first, all train orders required a train to be stopped for delivery. As time progressed only trains that had their rights restricted required it to be stopped. Later, both trains might not need to be stopped, but if there was an open train order office at the meeting or waiting point, it might be required to copy the order on a Form 31 and stop the first of either train(s) for signatures. (That's a middle order) Later still, the middle order was no longer required. Sometimes it depended if a line had some kind of block system whether a Form 31 was required.
Some railroads did away with the Form 31 train order form (had a place for signatures) and just used a Form 19 for everything. Some railroads did away with both the Form 19 and Form 31 and just used a generic train order form.
It all depends on the rules in effect on a railroad at the time. A Standard Code of Operating rules was developed. Individual railroads, or sometimes a few together, would pattern their rules after the Standard code. While there was a sameness, there were differences. We have had "discussions" on this before and probably will again. Still the differences are often negligible, really only becoming apparent when we talk of the Union Pacific did this in 1972, while the Pennsylvania did this in 1935 and so on.
Train orders disappeared for a few reasons. As CTC was added to main lines, most train orders were no longer needed. Radios became more reliable, while operator's wages kept rising. Train orders weren't really devised for direct dispatcher to train use. Rather, they were designed for relaying thru the train order operators (telegraph and telephone). As the radios became better and direct dispr to train became possible train orders were often sent by radio. At first, still relayed by on-line operators.
Track Warrants (or other preprinted forms that need only be filled out going by various names) and Direct Traffic Control replaced the train orders that covered movement authorites. By this I mean the orders that authorized extras, set up meets, passes and waits for other trains, etc.
Track Bulletins replaced train orders that covered track conditions like temporary speed restrictions, tracks blocked or out of service, etc.
The rules covering Track Warrants, DTC, Track Bulletins, etc are much easier to learn. You no longer have to figure if all superior trains have arrived or passed. Whether I can make the next siding and clear by 5 minutes a superior opposing train or if I have to take the siding here. In plain language, it's cheaper. You don't need to pay operators, and you don't need a few years of experience to grasp them. If we still used train orders, you couldn't take someone off the street and make them a conductor in a few months.
I must disclose that while I have had the chance to copy and repeat (by telephone) train orders and to even hand up train orders to a train on a siding, this was years ago and long before I went to work for the railroad. It is what really got me serious on becoming a railroader. The only place I use train orders now (has Paul alluded to on another thread) is in my basement. Sometimes I kind of wish we still used them. But then I remember some of the other guys I work with and the thought of train order operation scares the you know what out of me. A few of them are definitely better off following the instructions of a Track Warrant or signal indications.
To the best of my knowledge, if a crew missed a hoop, they had to come back and get it.
I recall seeing the station agent at Rantoul (IC/ICG) putting orders up on the crane or hooping them up with a forked stick many times.
The terms "Timetable" and "Train order" were often used together, as it was a system.
In simple terms, the railroad ran on the timetable. If something caused a problem with the timetable (delayed train, etc), train orders were issued to get traffic over the line.
Misread and ignored train orders were directly responsible for a great many railroad mishaps.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
Paul_D_North_Jr Form 19's, which granted or added to the train's operating rights, did not have to be signed for, and so could be handed up "on the fly" - if the crew forgot about or ignored them, no harm done.
UlrichWhat led to changes in issuing train orders that did away with the hoop? That's how I recall it was done until the mid 80s...yet radios had been in use long before that...was there a technological breakthrough in the 80s that did away with the operator and the hoop that eventually led to what we have now?
On my railroad if the delivery of 19 orders was not effected, the train had to STOP
and wait to receive them.
Train orders was a science dictated by the Book of Rules and an art designed by dispatchers and interpreted by train crews. A lot of good books have been cited for you to read and I urge you to read them. But also look for virtually and railroad's Book Of Rules of the Operating Deparment for a first hand look at the catachism. Delve into old Rairoad Magazines (pre Railfan'n'Railroad) for some great commentaries and discussions on them. Check railroad shows, flea markets, and other railfans for copies of original copies of flimsies, especially from your favorite railroad or station--tower--location.
I really enjoyed towers, train orders, and the methods used to dispatch trains. Since, I missed steam, towers, were the "old technology" that I could relate to.
My office contains a number of framed photos taken in the 70's of trains "hooping" orders.
Ulrich, just as your industry has evolved to Skybitz, Qualcom and others allowing instant information and communication, the railroading industry has made great strides. I will let the real railroaders to describe it, as they know all the bells and whistles.
Today, instead of going to a local tower (they still exist, but I dont attempt to enter), I listen on my scanner.
Basically it seems the dispatcher does the same thing as years ago....controls a section of railroad and controls/plans the movements. The tools are a bit different, but the job seems the same.
From the Railroad Gazette:
November 1893
7th, on South Chicago & Southern (a short branch or loop line of the Pittburgh, Fort Wayne & Chicago, operated by the Pennsylvania Company), near Colehour, Ill., butting collision between eastbound passenger train No. 12 and westbound passenger train No. 49, making a very bad wreck. Eleven passengers and 1 tramp were killed, and 7 passengers and 3 trainmen were injured. The smoking car of train No. 12 was practically demolished, and most of the fatal injuries were in this car. The train dispatcher at Fort Wayne had to make a meeting point for these trains every morning, but on this occasion he sent the order to train 160 instead of train 12. This order was useless, and on his attention being called to the fact by the conductor of train 49 he altered the order (or issued a new one) for train 49, but postponed the duty of altering the order which had been issued for the eastbound train. This was the fatal error, as the eastbound was the ruling train; and No. 12 passed Colehour on time without orders.
In this video they show how train orders are done.
http://www.nfb.ca/film/railroaders
Brent
"All of the world's problems are the result of the difference between how we think and how the world works."
Big subject. For a good start, see the 3 articles linked below in the Trains "Railroad Reference - ABC's of Railroading" series here, as well as the articles in past issues that I also reference below. If you're lucky, we'll also get posts from Railway Man, BaltACD, jeffhergert, and Agent Kid, among others who know the subject way better than I do. Nevertheless, I also answered a couple of your questions directly below.
"Train Orders", By William L. Gwyer -
"Railroads' Traffic Control Systems" by Frank W. Byan
"Railroad Signals" By Frank W. Bryan & Robert S. McGonigal
Ulrich [snipped] . . . or teletype, . . . via a hoop . . .
Ulrich Was there any mechanism whereby train crews would acknowledge receipt of hooped up messages? What if a train order was ignored and the crew later claimed they never received it?
[Edited to shorten URLs]
What information would a typical train order contain? I assume such orders were in addition to any direction train crews received via lineside signal aspects. Was there any mechanism whereby train crews would acknowledge receipt of hooped up messages? What if a train order was ignored and the crew later claimed they never received it?
What led to changes in issuing train orders that did away with the hoop? That's how I recall it was done until the mid 80s...yet radios had been in use long before that...was there a technological breakthrough in the 80s that did away with the operator and the hoop that eventually led to what we have now?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.