By the way

[Cotton Belt MP104]

 

1. I am not a railroad employee

2. The following observations came while being a crew carrier

3. This information is being posted as there have been many questions asked about procedure between crew and dispatch, especially in view of the Cayce/91 accident

4. Incident A.  I took a crew from Jonesboro to Brinkley to reenact a rules violation occurring the night before.  Since this was out of their normal operating territory,  a serious rules infraction occurred and they too got fired on the spot.   At Brinkley there is a wye that goes to Memphis.   As the crew needed to turn the engine to re enact the earlier incident, they asked dispatch to enter the wye to Memphis.   They were granted access to that track, but the were only authorized to work the through track to Pine Bluff.  They were fired on the spot and I had to take them home

5. Incident B.  It just so happened that one of the crew I carried was one of the last “firemen” employed by UPRR.  Also the officials who were observing this reenactment and subsequently fired the crew were so young, when they approached this gentleman to inquire of his position in the crew ……..they did not know what a fireman was……when asked what he did……  he “motioned shoveling coal”     to the young man ….. I don’t know if the young man ever realized what a fireman was

6. Incident C.   Many people don’t realize how easy it is to get fired then reemployed by the RR.  Because of this, trainmen will buy job insurance to tide them over until employment comes after a hearing on the rules infraction allows them reemployment.  In this incident the engineer had paid a high premium and thus was getting paid better than the others who had insurance but did not buy the best.  Thus, the engineer was in no hurry to have the hearing and the others suffered.  Most people do not realize the when THE TRAIN is involved in a rule infraction the whole crew is fired.  Rules are so important/serious that when a train is operating, EACH PERSON IN THE CREW HAS TO MAINTAIN THAT ANY ACTION TAKEN BY THE TRAIN IS IN COMPLIANCE. 

7. Incident D.  In the above scenario, don’t ask me if anything happened to the dispatcher.  I doubt it, in that the crew should have realized they were not “qualified” to operate on that territory.  I don’t know who caught the error, either.  I do know we did not stay there very long and my friends had to wait out a while before they got back to work.  How could they have made the move and been legal, don’t know, I know they got fired and that was the reason.

8. Incident E.  The above dilemma might have been “fixed/allowed/correctly done” with the following “vocabulary” situation.  When a dispatcher gives AUTHORITY that is not the same as a dispatcher giving PERMISSION.  I know of a crew who was operating, and the dispatcher gave the wrong wording. Permission was granted when authority should have been said.  The crew balked and requested the dispatcher reword the instructions.  The dispatcher in the wrong got huffy about the situation but the crew did not know if they were “being tested”.

9. Incident F.  In the case of “being tested”, I observed the following.  A train must stop due to a Red signal even if there is a malfunction. The train can be given authority to AFTER STOPPING proceed past red signal indication.  Dispatch gave AUTHORITY to break a rule (if the condition of stopping is adhered to. ………..    Okay the signal is red, someone said over the radio, “…… the signal must be messed up”     another voice said     “no, it’s not”        well, guess who put a shunt on the rail to “throw up red”?    A weed weasel was waiting to see if the train given authority to pass red ……… ACTUALLY STOPPED HIS TRAIN, before proceeding.    No stop…… then restart rolling the train = no job, fired, …….you just been tested, and failed by committing a rules infraction.  It is so easy to keep easing forward with the train rolling, knowing that it will NOT BE NECESSARY TO ACTUALLY STOP  …….wrong, if caught.     Endmrw0224181616

 

[7j43k]

Very interesting, both in detail and in general.  Sort of a whole 'nother world from working construction (which I have done most of my life).

 

 

Ed

[jeffhergert]

They aren't "fired" on the spot.  They are taken out of service.  They aren't fired until the investigation* is concluded or they sign for the charge(s) against them.  That wouldn't be on the spot, but back at their tie up point.  It might take a day or two to determine what the charges will be.  

On the railroad, "fired" is more like being suspended.  Time off depends on the violation and the employee"s record.  If still on probation for previous infractions can lengthen suspension time.  Some suspension times are up to the railroad, others have Government required time periods.

*That's assuming the investigation doesn't exonerate those charged.  Very rare though it does happen.

Jeff 

 

[CShaveRR]

Jeff is correct...I served my share (and then some!) of suspensions, and even was dismissed once (though I had a "leniency reinstatement" in the shortest possible amount of time).  But at one investigation where I thought I was doomed for sure, the carrier witness admitted to being out of position at the time, and charges against me were dropped.

I hate the part about the entire crew being charged when the infraction is one that it's obvious that one person committed the offense and that the rest of the crew had nothing to do with it.  I had a few like that.  I would have been a better carrier witness in one of those cases, but they didn't want to have to pay me...  I guess nowadays, when the whole crew is in one place, it may make more sense to bring them all up under charges ("your responsibility in connection with...").

I think it was Mookie who came up with the truism once that the railroad pays you well, spends all kinds of money testing and training you, then looks for any possible way to fire you.

[PJS1]

A conductor on the Texas Eagle, whom I have gotten to know pretty well, told me if the engineer runs a red signal, he as well as the engineer are held accountable.  I was surprised since the conductor is not in the cab of the locomotive; he usually is in the transition sleeper or one of the cars.  

If the Eagle, as an example, runs through a stop signal, would the penalty be the same for the engineer and the conductor?

[BaltACD]

JPS1

A conductor on the Texas Eagle, whom I have gotten to know pretty well, told me if the engineer runs a red signal, he as well as the engineer are held accountable.  I was surprised since the conductor is not in the cab of the locomotive; he usually is in the transition sleeper or one of the cars.  

If the Eagle, as an example, runs through a stop signal, would the penalty be the same for the engineer and the conductor?

Can't speak for other carriers.  On CSX crews are required to call signals on the road radio channel.  Engineer being in the cab of Amtrak trains initiates the call and the Conductor responds - this will also apply to block occupancy and release in Dark territory.

Conductors are also required to be QUALIFIED on the territory over which they operate and by extension are expected to be in a position on the train where they can also observe the signals displayed for the head end.

The rules have been formulated and stated in such a way that there is always interlocking responsibility of all crew members in having proper compliance.

[n012944]

Cotton Belt MP104

1. Incident E.  The above dilemma might have been “fixed/allowed/correctly done” with the following “vocabulary” situation.  When a dispatcher gives AUTHORITY that is not the same as a dispatcher giving PERMISSION.  I know of a crew who was operating, and the dispatcher gave the wrong wording. Permission was granted when authority should have been said.  The crew balked and requested the dispatcher reword the instructions.  The dispatcher in the wrong got huffy about the situation but the crew did not know if they were “being tested”.

2. Incident F.  In the case of “being tested”, I observed the following.  A train must stop due to a Red signal even if there is a malfunction. The train can be given authority to AFTER STOPPING proceed past red signal indication.  Dispatch gave AUTHORITY to break a rule (if the condition of stopping is adhered to. 

This is way one does not take the rules from one railroad and apply them to another.  From my rule book...

 

 

 

1. 1. Properly position affected appliances and if any show as Out-of-Correspondence, Code Failure, or Low Air Activated, give instructions to the crew to hand operate or spike the appliance when issuing permission to pass the Stop signal 

   "After implementing the above procedures and issuing instructions concerning any power- operated switches, the train dispatcher will instruct the train:

2. 1. "After stopping, proceed by Stop signal at ________ (location) from track _____ to ________ track in the ____________ direction, switches in motor or hand," and

   2. When permission is given to pass a Stop signal "

[tree68]

The details escape me, but I recall an issue with an Amtrak train WB on the Chicago line, headed into Syracuse.  Several people (including some in Syracuse) that the engineer was not calling signals.

I also don't recall the resolution, aside from there was no catastrophe - the train was brought to a stop without incident.  Don't recall what happened with the engineer - might have been a medical issue.

[jeffhergert]

n012944

 

 

Cotton Belt MP104

1. Incident E.  The above dilemma might have been “fixed/allowed/correctly done” with the following “vocabulary” situation.  When a dispatcher gives AUTHORITY that is not the same as a dispatcher giving PERMISSION.  I know of a crew who was operating, and the dispatcher gave the wrong wording. Permission was granted when authority should have been said.  The crew balked and requested the dispatcher reword the instructions.  The dispatcher in the wrong got huffy about the situation but the crew did not know if they were “being tested”.

2. Incident F.  In the case of “being tested”, I observed the following.  A train must stop due to a Red signal even if there is a malfunction. The train can be given authority to AFTER STOPPING proceed past red signal indication.  Dispatch gave AUTHORITY to break a rule (if the condition of stopping is adhered to. 

 

 

This is way one does not take the rules from one railroad and apply them to another.  From my rule book...

 

 

 

1. 1. Properly position affected appliances and if any show as Out-of-Correspondence, Code Failure, or Low Air Activated, give instructions to the crew to hand operate or spike the appliance when issuing permission to pass the Stop signal 

   "After implementing the above procedures and issuing instructions concerning any power- operated switches, the train dispatcher will instruct the train:

2. 1. "After stopping, proceed by Stop signal at ________ (location) from track _____ to ________ track in the ____________ direction, switches in motor or hand," and

   2. When permission is given to pass a Stop signal "

 

 

This is the verbal format used by the dispacher/control operator to allow a train/engine to pass a Stop indication at a controlled signal for us.

"AFTER STOPPING, (Train ID) AT (location) HAS AUTHORITY TO PASS SIGNAL DISPLAYING STOP INDICATION." (Add: Route and Direction if more than one route is available)

I wouldn't say that it's giving the crew of the train/engine authority to break a rule.  I would say it's authorization to proceed under the rules.  

Jeff 

[BaltACD]

jeffhergert

I wouldn't say that it's giving the crew of the train/engine authority to break a rule.  I would say it's authorization to proceed under the rules.  

Jeff 

In the context of CSX rules it is Permission to pass a Stop signal, not an authority.  Authorities are 'Mandatory Directives' and must be written by both the Dispatcher and the crew.  Permission is verbal and need not be written although the permission must be repeated by the crew and ok'd by the Dispatcher to be effective.  A slight but REAL DIFFERENCE.

[zugmann]

BaltACD

In the context of CSX rules it is Permission to pass a Stop signal, not an authority. Authorities are 'Mandatory Directives' and must be written by both the Dispatcher and the crew. Permission is verbal and need not be written although the permission must be repeated by the crew and ok'd by the Dispatcher to be effective. A slight but REAL DIFFERENCE.

In other words, verbal permission is your authority?

[tree68]

Definitely from the outside looking in for me - I don't have to deal with signals thus am not conversant in any of the appropriate rules.

My impression from what's just been written is that a train may have authority to proceed on signal indication, but may need permission to pass a stop signal...

[Dakguy201]

BaltACD

Conductors are also required to be QUALIFIED on the territory over which they operate and by extension are expected to be in a position on the train where they can also observe the signals displayed for the head end.

I understand how that will work for a freight.  However, for Amtrak the conductor will be several cars removed from the engine with no forward visibility at all.  In that case, is his responsibilty met if he relies on the engineer's radio description of the signal aspect? 

[Cotton Belt MP104]

I say again, I am not a RR employee, I have received NO TRAINING in rules. I am an admirer of those who take on the dangerous job of safely operating trains for a living. Thus a curious/serious discussion of the term, AUTHORITY verses PERMISSION when spoken by a dispatcher has me feeling like I am wanting to argue/belaboring a point. And at this point I am worried that I am going to appear as a person who seems to enjoy the “sport” of belaboring points. At the end of this post I will describe WHAT I THINK I HEARD A DISPATCHER SAY THAT MIGHT be an answer to the tussle over permission/authority. Below is one blogger who actually confirmed the dispatch wording by citing the rule concerning a train to legally pass a red signal.

Jeff …..yes, “fired” might not be the correct term and suspension more appropriate. As for the issue of where they are relieved of duty, can’t argue w/that. I do know where these guys reported for work I took them to a job and they got suspended there and took them back to their “home, where they normally tied down”. Understand the clarification.

CShaveRR …. Glad that the dismissal was not end all for you ….. reminds me of a yard switcher accused of operating too fast in yard switching. The crewmember begged to be "suspended" so that he could work on his home being built. The official said it was too close to call and would not suspend the guy.

I respect Mookies comment however, provided it is not a weed weasel w/an agenda against SOMEONE, why not suspend someone when rules are broken? This is how people get killed, rules infraction.

BaltACD …. The rules have been formulated and stated in such a way that there is always interlocking responsibility of all crew members in having proper compliance.

Thanks for clarification …..i recall a T-bone wreck that took out a roadway overpass, UPRR into midtrain BNSF …… engineer passed flash yellow, yellow, red ……no throttle action or braking….. NTSB interview w/conductor in the cab, …. He was busy w/paperwork and did not notice …… ok … go figure

Now I am confused, ………..“In the context of CSX rules it is Permission to pass a Stop signal, not an authority. ........Edit MP104 We can’t have it both ways ….. if dispatch says verbally over the radio, “you have authority” okay the train can have permission to pass red, but why are we trying to dismiss that the dispatcher said, “YOU HAVE AUTHORITY” end edit ........Authorities are 'Mandatory Directives' and must be written by both the Dispatcher and the crew. Permission is verbal and need not be written although the permission must be repeated by the crew and ok'd by the Dispatcher to be effective. A slight but REAL DIFFERENCE.

I agree that there is a REAL DIFFERENCE, and as such it is more than a slight difference when speaking/giving instructions for proper operations. I heard an engineer refuse to accept verbal instructions from a dispatcher who mis worded a radio instruction to the crew. He would not obey until authority was substituted for permission. I DON’T KNOW WHAT I AM TALkING ABOUT. But I observed and respected the crew member and remember the dispatch being upset on being called out.

n012944 ……. “This is way one does not take the rules from one railroad and apply them to another. From my rule book... “ ……reply MP104: I guess you can say that again, and I will add that I am NOT a railroad employee and only share what I saw/heard ….. I will admit that I held my breath and tried to carefully word my observations when the terms “authority and permission” were used to make sure I didn’t have the meaning backwards. I do know this: on the UPRR at that time they were not interchangable. '

n012044……”This is the verbal format used by the dispacher/control operator to allow a train/engine to pass a Stop indication at a controlled signal for us. "AFTER STOPPING, (Train ID) AT (location) HAS AUTHORITY TO PASS SIGNAL DISPLAYING STOP INDICATION." (Add: Route and Direction if more than one route is available) I wouldn't say that it's giving the crew of the train/engine authority to break a rule. I would say it's authorization to proceed under the rules. Jeff

…….……. reply MP104: I understand the “distasteful” phrase of “breaking the rules” and your preference of terminology, but ghee whizzzzzz, thanks you did confirm what the dispatcher said, thanks for that confirmation, as I was worried that I got the two terms backwards (see above)

tree68 ……”The details escape me, but I recall an issue with an Amtrak train WB on the Chicago line, headed into Syracuse. Several people (including some in Syracuse) that the engineer was not calling signals. I also don't recall the resolution, aside from there was no catastrophe - the train was brought to a stop without incident. Don't recall what happened with the engineer - might have been a medical issue. ……

reply MP104: wow when was the train stopped between division crew change? enroute?

My impression from what's just been written is that a train may have authority to proceed on signal indication, but may need permission to pass a stop signal... ……

reply MP104: okay but then why is there such a reluctance for anyone to accept that the dispatch said YOU HAVE AUTHORITY to pass red signal …..he DID NOT SAY you have PERMISSION to pass stop signal

Zugmann ……. .. “In other words, verbal permission is your authority? ……. Interesting question……. Yes, I guess…… but all those that are wanting to avoid terms like “fired” and “authority” incorrectly are missing the point ///// check out my disclaimer at the first of this post    endmrw0225182309

[tree68]

Expanding on what I wrote earlier - permission.  Something permissive - you "may."

Authority - absolute.  In railroading, the track is all yours.

To put the signal thing in another context - you're driving down the road and you come up on a red light.  Under normal circumstances, you're required to stop.  However, there is a police officer standing in the intersection and he waves you through.  That's permission to pass a stop signal.

As for the Amtrak incident I cited - what I wrote was all I know.  The train did have to pass through Dewitt yard, and the folks at the yard were amongst those who noted that they should have been hearing signals called and weren't.  Syracuse is a station stop, and may be a crew change as well.

[Cotton Belt MP104]

tree68

Expanding on what I wrote earlier - permission.  Something permissive - you "may."

Authority - absolute.  In railroading, the track is all yours.

To put the signal thing in another context - you're driving down the road and you come up on a red light.  Under normal circumstances, you're required to stop.  However, there is a police officer standing in the intersection and he waves you through.  That's permission to pass a stop signal.

As for the Amtrak incident I cited - what I wrote was all I know.  The train did have to pass through Dewitt yard, and the folks at the yard were amongst those who noted that they should have been hearing signals called and weren't.  Syracuse is a station stop, and may be a crew change as well.

 

.....exactly..... and the red light/police example was one i thought about to mention    to those who don't like my choice of words ...  break the rules ...  let's take the red stop light one more step       ya don't need a policeman to give permission if it is an ambulance  ..... he has  AUTHORITY  to disregard (break) the rules .... and that is what a crew wants to hear from the dispatcher  AUTHORITY   not permission      thanks for reply     i will not use the quick reply again and sacrifice the intent of ....spacing a lengthy reply ...... tree68 appreciate your endurance in reading the lengthy last post   endmrw0226180814 

[PJS1]

Dakguy201

 I understand how that will work for a freight.  However, for Amtrak the conductor will be several cars removed from the engine with no forward visibility at all.  In that case, is his responsibilty met if he relies on the engineer's radio description of the signal aspect?  

My chats with the Eagles conductor take place in the lounge car or in my sleeping compartment.  He does not ride in the locomotive.

Based on what I have been told, the Amtrak conductor is required to know the route as well as the engineer, and he is expected to know where the train is at all times.  If the conductor does not hear the engineer acknowledge a signal, he is supposed to confirm the engineer is aware of the signal.  If the engineer runs through a stop signal, as I have observed, the conductor cannot do anything about it.  

[CMStPnP]

Dakguy201

I understand how that will work for a freight.  However, for Amtrak the conductor will be several cars removed from the engine with no forward visibility at all.  In that case, is his responsibilty met if he relies on the engineer's radio description of the signal aspect? 

I don't think that is a problem....

I've seen Amtrak conductors on the Texas Eagle several times at night and during the day....... just open the full Superliner door on the lower level to peek out and look ahead or behind while the train is moving, they have to do that to see the brake indicator lights or wait for a curve in the track also if the engineer sees trespassers they sometimes do it to yell at them.   They even do it in full winter and it happened once when I was in the restroom downstairs at 2:00 a.m.(very cold!).    They also do it as they are approaching major stops and it's one reason they do not want passengers down in the vestibule waiting for the train to reach it's next stop OR they ask them to stand well back from the open door.

Also, have observed them confirm defect detectors over the radio while the train is rolling, interrupting conversations with passengers to do so (saw that repeatedly on the Chicago-Milwaukee Trains on CP).

The Amtrak conductors are fairly active in train operation.

[CMStPnP]

JPS1

If the engineer runs through a stop signal, as I have observed, the conductor cannot do anything about it.  

He can't even pull the emergency brake that is in each car?

[PJS1]

CMStPnP

JPS1 If the engineer runs through a stop signal, as I have observed, the conductor cannot do anything about it.  

He can't even pull the emergency brake that is in each car? 

I don't know. 

I am under the impression, perhaps wrongly, that pulling the emergency brake cord in one of the cars would not stop the train; rather it tells the engineer to stop it.  

[Overmod]

JPS1

I am under the impression, perhaps wrongly, that pulling the emergency brake cord in one of the cars would not stop the train; rather it tells the engineer to stop it.

I think you are confusing two things.

Passenger trains have a system to signal the engineer from the cars - this blows a little whistle in the cab (which is that little 'peep-peep' that tells the engineer that the conductor is ready for the train to leave a station).

Each car also, by law, has a hanging cord attached to a brake valve.  Pulling any of those cords will put the train in emergency, directly, with no little 'peep' signal required (although the engineer and perhaps some bruised people in the cars may make worse noises).

These are completely different systems aside from the fact they employ compressed air for some of their operation.

[Deggesty]

Is that signal system still used on "modern" pasenger equipment? I had the impression that with the advent of almost universal radio communicatoin between the train crew and engine crew it is no longer built in. I do not recall seeing any such valve in the entry of Superliner equipment. I do know that, especially after a "smoke stop," the engineer will answer the conductor's signal with two shorts of the horn to warn those who have been polluting the air that if they do not get back on quickly they will have a loong smoke break (possibly until the next day).

Incidentally, the one time that I was riding an engine on a train that made a passenger stop between the point at which I boarded the engine and the point at which I went back to a coach (it was dinner time, and the engine crew had not offered to share anything they had to eat with me), the whistle in the the cab swelled, faded, and swelled again because the trainman barely closed his valve before opening it again; since I was expecting two distinct sounds, the engineer had to prompt me to answer the trainman.

Incidentally, the radio communication makes it possible for a passenger train to make a long backup move, such as when backing into Denver, for the conductor can keep the engineer apprised of the line of sight distence as the train negotiates curves. This also appplies when #5 comes into Salt Lake City after crossing Wyoming and when #6 leaves Salt Lake City before crossing Wyoming. In Salt Lake City, the UP conductor tells the UP engineer the signal aspects as the train is backed.

[tree68]

Cotton Belt MP104

if it is an ambulance  ..... he has  AUTHORITY  to disregard (break) the rules ....

Actually, no.  

If I am driving an emergency vehicle RLAS, the law gives me permission (privilege) to disregard established V&T laws, with due regard.  I have no authority (right) to do so.  If something bad happens, it's my fault.

This is why you don't see ambulances enroute to the hospital running RLAS much any more.

This is also why you often see emergency vehicles running hot come to a full stop at busy intersections, even if they have the green light.

I've been in emergency services (fire and EMS) for over 40 years.

So, back to the original premise - A train may have the authority to proceed on signal indication.

But they will need the permission of the dispatcher to pass a red absolute signal, if f'rinstance, the signal for some reason will not be changing to a less restrictive aspect but the way is clear for them to proceed.

There is a difference.

[zugmann]

Cotton Belt MP104

.....exactly..... and the red light/police example was one i thought about to mention to those who don't like my choice of words ... break the rules ... let's take the red stop light one more step ya don't need a policeman to give permission if it is an ambulance ..... he has AUTHORITY to disregard (break) the rules .... and that is what a crew wants to hear from the dispatcher AUTHORITY not permission thanks for reply i will not use the quick reply again and sacrifice the intent of ....spacing a lengthy reply ...... tree68 appreciate your endurance in reading the lengthy last post endmrw0226180814

For us, it's permission by a stop signal.  Written in black and white in my rule books. Maybe other rule books say differently. 

[ChuckCobleigh]

tree68

This is also why you often see emergency vehicles running hot come to a full stop at busy intersections, even if they have the green light.

We don't have many collisions, or at least not lately, of emergency vehicles running code, but it seems that the majority involve them coming through an intersection on the green and getting smacked, and not intersections with the interrupter sensor, either.  The medics are pretty paranoid about crossing intersections in any event.

[BaltACD]

zugmann

 

Cotton Belt MP104

.....exactly..... and the red light/police example was one i thought about to mention to those who don't like my choice of words ... break the rules ... let's take the red stop light one more step ya don't need a policeman to give permission if it is an ambulance ..... he has AUTHORITY to disregard (break) the rules .... and that is what a crew wants to hear from the dispatcher AUTHORITY not permission thanks for reply i will not use the quick reply again and sacrifice the intent of ....spacing a lengthy reply ...... tree68 appreciate your endurance in reading the lengthy last post endmrw0226180814 

For us, it's permission by a stop signal.  Written in black and white in my rule books. Maybe other rule books say differently. 

For CSX it is PERMISSION.

Additionally there are some steps the Dispatcher has to take with the CADS to insure the permission at the field location.

CADS is the Computer Aided Dispatch System that is used to issue formal authorities and to operate switches and signals.

[Convicted One]

Cotton Belt MP104

I took a crew from Jonesboro to Brinkley to reenact a rules violation occurring the night before.  Since this was out of their normal operating territory,  a serious rules infraction occurred and they too got fired on the spot.   At Brinkley there is a wye that goes to Memphis.   As the crew needed to turn the engine to re enact the earlier incident, they asked dispatch to enter the wye to Memphis.   They were granted access to that track, but the were only authorized to work the through track to Pine Bluff.  They were fired on the spot

 

I sincerely appreciate your effort in sharing all this in such detail.  You do leave me with one question.

 

What about the officials who ordered, organized, and implemented this "re-enactment"?  Shouldn't they have some accountability here as well, for selecting crew members not properly qualified to perform the duties required by the re-enactment?

[jeffhergert]

I believe we use Authority instead of permission because our rules for CTC (and applies also to manual interlockings) is that to be able to proceed, you have to be authorized either by signal indication or verbally.  Your authorization to proceed ends at the red signal.  If the signal won't come in, then they verbally authorize you to proceed.

There are times disatchers give permission.  One is to pass a Stop signal in ABS/TWC territory where you have a track warrant in effect to proceed beyond the signal.  In this case they give permission to pass because your track warrant is your authority.  Other times permission is used is to change directions in a control point or make back up moves.  In these cases you already have authority to occupy a main or controlled track, but are being permitted to do something within that authority.

I think Dave H could do a better job of explaining this than I could.  He's more on the model railroad side now, but maybe he'll see this and jump in.

Jeff 

[Cotton Belt MP104]

jeffhergert

I believe we use Authority instead of permission because our rules for CTC (and applies also to manual interlockings) is that to be able to proceed, you have to be authorized either by signal indication or verbally. 

mrw: finally what i have been saying is confirmed    i.e. if you were only being given "permission" the dispatcher would have said that

Your authorization to proceed ends at the red signal. 

mrw:  key point, however if next is green train is operating on signal indication an all is well     IF GIVEN AUTHORITY to get past the red signal

If the signal won't come in, then they verbally authorize you to proceed.

There are times disatchers give permission.  One is to pass a Stop signal in ABS/TWC territory where you have a track warrant in effect to proceed beyond the signal.  In this case they give permission to pass because your track warrant is your authority.  Other times permission is used is to change directions in a control point or make back up moves. 

mrw:  in my original post i mentioned a "problem that got a crew suspended".  some have asked how could this been avoided?  i wonder if the crew knowing they were not qualified on that block, they could have asked for "permission" to enter only for purposes to use the wye? obviously they would not have asked for authority and that would not be possible due to their not being qualified 

 In these cases you already have authority to occupy a main or controlled track, but are being permitted to do something within that authority.

I think Dave H could do a better job of explaining this than I could.  He's more on the model railroad side now, but maybe he'll see this and jump in.

Jeff 

 

you have done an excellent job  thanks   endmrw0217181734

[Cotton Belt MP104]

 

Convicted One

 

 

Cotton Belt MP104

I took a crew from Jonesboro to Brinkley to reenact a rules violation occurring the night before.  Since this was out of their normal operating territory,  a serious rules infraction occurred and they too got fired on the spot.   At Brinkley there is a wye that goes to Memphis.   As the crew needed to turn the engine to re enact the earlier incident, they asked dispatch to enter the wye to Memphis.   They were granted access to that track, but the were only authorized to work the through track to Pine Bluff.  They were fired on the spot

 

 

 

I sincerely appreciate your effort in sharing all this in such detail.  You do leave me with one question.

 

What about the officials who ordered, organized, and implemented this "re-enactment"?  Shouldn't they have some accountability here as well, for selecting crew members not properly qualified to perform the duties required by the re-enactment?

 

two things here

1. Can officials be held responsible for???? .......  well i started to say nothing, but that would be sarcastic. Yes, you make a good point.  And I guess "their out" would be the crew did have qualification to run the north south main line of the wye. The wye pointed East.  Probably they would blame the crew for not getting permission.  answer = above my pay grade to answer   ........ I will say at first, I blamed the dispatcher for allowing them on the wye.......no, he does not have to know where they are qualified to operate  ....... thus everyone on the crew HAS to know and comply w/rules, safety demands it

2. The other situation where the crew refused to accept "permission" in instructions ..... they were qualified and leaving one main to another subdivision main and qualified there also ..... they insisted on hearing the dispatcher instruct that they had AUTHORITY to enter the new subdivision   endmrw0227181838