Cotton Belt MP104Why add more to the mix? It is really simple, I reported what I heard, first hand and not shanty talk. Others have confirmed that this wording is used on some railroads. Maybe those who disagree are on roads that do not use the same wording that is used elsewhere. What is so hard to accept about that? endmrw0306181946
Adding to the mix is fun.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
zugmann tree68 The UP Dispatcher Rules and the GCOR that I cited both used permission when passing a stop signal. A train has to have authority on the track beyond the signal before the dispatcher can give them permission to pass the signal. We should add out of service tracks to this mix. To go there you need permission and a copy of the authority.
tree68 The UP Dispatcher Rules and the GCOR that I cited both used permission when passing a stop signal. A train has to have authority on the track beyond the signal before the dispatcher can give them permission to pass the signal.
We should add out of service tracks to this mix. To go there you need permission and a copy of the authority.
Why add more to the mix? It is really simple, I reported what I heard, first hand and not shanty talk. Others have confirmed that this wording is used on some railroads. Maybe those who disagree are on roads that do not use the same wording that is used elsewhere. What is so hard to accept about that? endmrw0306181946
[quote user="tree68"]
Cotton Belt MP104 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.
FOUL ......come on.....you edited what clearly was plainly a post of someone who has verified my comment and it appears he is correct in that some of you active RR guys have acknowledged his being correct. You have reposted a part of my post but do not include who actually said, ,.....what you make out to appear my words ...... why? Note:...."I believe we use Authority instead of permission......" a quote of Jeff NOT ME I'm beginning to wonder if there is any recoginition of RR's west of the Mississippi? Sure there are RR on the East but the radio talk doesn't sound the same there as here. It's really a simple, reality, as some have acknowledged ,"on our road" well this is another road. Please accept that. Who knows maybe all the dispatchers I hear on the radio are saying this wrong and violating the rules. I have only repeated what I heard endmrw0306181914....
tree68The UP Dispatcher Rules and the GCOR that I cited both used permission when passing a stop signal. A train has to have authority on the track beyond the signal before the dispatcher can give them permission to pass the signal.
Cotton Belt MP104I 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.
The UP Dispatcher Rules and the GCOR that I cited both used permission when passing a stop signal. A train has to have authority on the track beyond the signal before the dispatcher can give them permission to pass the signal.
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...
[quote user="zugmann"]
For us, it's permission by a stop signal. Written in black and white in my rule books. Maybe other rule books say differently.
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.
Hope this clarifies what was observed here in UP territory endmrw0306181855
oooops meeting is hopefully Wednesday reference see below post endmrw0305182202
Questions? Anyone add to the list?
Tomorrow i hope to meet the fireman mentioned in my original post. I will ask:
a. when you guys got called to go to the job, who called you to perform the reenactment?
b. did that person realize the need for turning the engine on track that you all were not certified/qualified to run on?
c. did you feel (afterwards) that you were set up? i.e. if they knew of the non certification, were they trying to see if a violation of rules would happen
d. who actually suspended you?
e. how quickly into the move did cesation of the reenactment occur?
f. what was the reason given for suspension?
g. when at the wye, what could have been done to preclude the suspension?
h. would there have been such a thing as asking the dispatch for "permission" to make the move, knowing, conceding, the crew was not certified to operate on that block? Not "authority" to occupy the block, but instead permission to advance only to accomplish the turn around
i. as a fireman, have you ever shoveled coal into a steam engine firebox?
anyone? endmrw0305182111
Convicted One jeffhergert Just from looking at the TT, to turn an engine it seems you would need a track warrant to use a portion of the wye, one leg being the main track to Memphis. Because it is a junction point on territory they were qualified on, I'm not sure they could refuse on the grounds of not being qualified or familiar. Maybe they couldn't take a train to Memphis, or even the next siding east of Brinkley, but could turn an engine on the wye Okay, thanks!! Your reply makes the most sense out of all of this.
jeffhergert Just from looking at the TT, to turn an engine it seems you would need a track warrant to use a portion of the wye, one leg being the main track to Memphis. Because it is a junction point on territory they were qualified on, I'm not sure they could refuse on the grounds of not being qualified or familiar. Maybe they couldn't take a train to Memphis, or even the next siding east of Brinkley, but could turn an engine on the wye
Okay, thanks!! Your reply makes the most sense out of all of this.
thanks guys for your interest and insight of the situation i observed......next Wednesday I hope to see the "fireman" involved in the situation. I will certainly ask several questions of him. btw scared me when i saw TT until i realized it was timetable and not the symbol for turntable. i thought dang, i didn't think they had a turntable there.....more update later endmrw0304181340
jeffhergertJust from looking at the TT, to turn an engine it seems you would need a track warrant to use a portion of the wye, one leg being the main track to Memphis. Because it is a junction point on territory they were qualified on, I'm not sure they could refuse on the grounds of not being qualified or familiar. Maybe they couldn't take a train to Memphis, or even the next siding east of Brinkley, but could turn an engine on the wye
Convicted One Cotton Belt MP104 NO, the rule was for the unauthorized running of a train on a block of territory, they only needed a hundred feet of that block, BUT that has been my WHOLE point of the post .........rules are rules, they didn't think about it before making the move, of course they should have .. Okay so what would have been the right thing for this crew to have done? Refuse to turn the train around and force the railroad to send out a qualified crew to negotiate the wye? I'm sure that would have impressed the officials orchestrating the re-enactment.
Cotton Belt MP104 NO, the rule was for the unauthorized running of a train on a block of territory, they only needed a hundred feet of that block, BUT that has been my WHOLE point of the post .........rules are rules, they didn't think about it before making the move, of course they should have ..
Okay so what would have been the right thing for this crew to have done? Refuse to turn the train around and force the railroad to send out a qualified crew to negotiate the wye?
I'm sure that would have impressed the officials orchestrating the re-enactment.
That happens more often than you would think. CMS calls a crew, giving minimal if not outright wrong information. Crew shows up and realizes they aren't qualified for the route intendend for the job. Notify the dispatcher or local on-duty management. Usually this happens when something out of the ordinary trains or jobs are run, especially if boards are depleted.
I looked at the timetable for that area. The main route through Brinkley (exSSW) is CTC. The line from Brinkley to Memphis (exRI) is ABS/TWC. Just from looking at the TT, to turn an engine it seems you would need a track warrant to use a portion of the wye, one leg being the main track to Memphis. Because it is a junction point on territory they were qualified on, I'm not sure they could refuse on the grounds of not being qualified or familiar. Maybe they couldn't take a train to Memphis, or even the next siding east of Brinkley, but could turn an engine on the wye. That's why one carries timetables and subdivision general orders for all lines, even auxilary ones, to the territory you normally run. So you can check what authorizations you may need.
Jeff
The Canadian rules (CROR) use "authority" when referring to written instructions issued by the RTC (dispatcher).
To muddy the waters futher, while in the U.S. dark territory is called "Track Warrant Control" in Canada it is called the "Occupancy Control System", abbreviated to "OCS" (not to be confused with "On Company Service...). In OCS trains operate with Clearances, not Track Warrants.
In Canada a Track Warrant is a written authority in CTC (work block, pass stop signal, etc).
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
Cotton Belt MP104NO, the rule was for the unauthorized running of a train on a block of territory, they only needed a hundred feet of that block, BUT that has been my WHOLE point of the post .........rules are rules, they didn't think about it before making the move, of course they should have ..
n012944I completely agree that GCOR uses authority,
And, according to the GCOR and UP excerpts I quoted, they use permission.
I would assert that authority connotes a form of ownership. The track is mine, all mine, within any constraints that may exist (ie, my authority may include travel in a south direction only - I can't roam around at will, etc).
Permission connotes something temporary - I may pass that specific stop signal, this time and this time only, and (as specifically cited in the UP DS and GCOR rules) only if I have the authority to be on the track beyond that stop signal.
That's not to say that folks might not conflate the two terms, but the definitions are pretty specific.
Cotton Belt MP104 n012944 Both myself and Balt have quoted the script from a railroad's rulebook on talking a train by a red. The word authority is never used, permission is. 1. My original post was an attempt to cast light on some day to day RR things. Why? It seemed that other folks making posts, due to their questions, were missing day to day things I had seen. 2. That said, I do not argue with what happens elsewhere.
n012944 Both myself and Balt have quoted the script from a railroad's rulebook on talking a train by a red. The word authority is never used, permission is.
Both myself and Balt have quoted the script from a railroad's rulebook on talking a train by a red. The word authority is never used, permission is.
1. My original post was an attempt to cast light on some day to day RR things. Why? It seemed that other folks making posts, due to their questions, were missing day to day things I had seen.
2. That said, I do not argue with what happens elsewhere.
You did, and that is what I took exception to. When you started arguing what happens outside of railroading, ie when you stated an emergancy vehicle has authority not permission to disregard a red light, you drew a line in the sand. As pointed out by others, that line is not there.
I completely agree that GCOR uses authority, however CSX, and according to Zugman the railroad with little ponies on the side of their locomotive uses permission. One thing about railroad rule books, they all might all use different words, but they pretty much say the same thing.
An "expensive model collector"
oltmannd 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 believe it still exists, but is electric. Trainline wires and a buzzer in the head end.
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 believe it still exists, but is electric. Trainline wires and a buzzer in the head end.
The Communicating Signals used to be in the operating rule books. GCOR doesn't have them. I'll have to check if the earliest versions did. Some of the signals sent by the conductor required the engineer to answer with the whistle.
DeggestyIs 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.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
tree68 OK, I'm not under GCOR, but it wasn't hard to find the rules for UP and GCOR governing passing a stop signal. Other references not cited here indicate that a foreman can give permission through his work area. Observation: He cannot give authority, since there can generally only be one entity with authority and he holds it, but he can give permission through the area he holds the authority for. I have done this. UP Dispatcher Rules: 23.13: Stop Signal / ABS Territory Reference: GCOR 9.12.4 On single main track, before granting permission for movement to pass Stop in ABS territory the train dispatcher must: 1. Ensure that train has authority to occupy track beyond the Stop indication. 2. Ascertain no conflict of authority exists. Use verbal format: “AFTER STOPPING (engine/direction) AT (location) HAS PERMISSION TO PASS SIGNAL DISPLAYING STOP INDICATION.” GCOR Rule 9.12.4: 9.12.4 ABS Territory At a signal displaying a Stop indication outside interlocking limits, the train will be governed as follows: A. Main Track On a main track, after stopping, a train authorized beyond the signal must comply with one of the following procedures: If authority beyond the signal is joint with other trains or employees, proceed at restricted speed.or Proceed at restricted speed when a crew member has contacted the train dispatcher and obtained permission to pass the Stop indication. However, if the train dispatcher cannot be contacted, move 100 feet past the signal, wait 5 minutes, then proceed at restricted speed. B. Siding or Other Track If the signal governs movements from a siding or other track to the main track, comply with Rule 9.17 (Entering Main Track at Hand-Operated or Spring Switch). There is clearly a difference between authority and permission.
OK, I'm not under GCOR, but it wasn't hard to find the rules for UP and GCOR governing passing a stop signal. Other references not cited here indicate that a foreman can give permission through his work area.
Observation: He cannot give authority, since there can generally only be one entity with authority and he holds it, but he can give permission through the area he holds the authority for. I have done this.
UP Dispatcher Rules:
23.13: Stop Signal / ABS Territory Reference: GCOR 9.12.4 On single main track, before granting permission for movement to pass Stop in ABS territory the train dispatcher must: 1. Ensure that train has authority to occupy track beyond the Stop indication. 2. Ascertain no conflict of authority exists. Use verbal format: “AFTER STOPPING (engine/direction) AT (location) HAS PERMISSION TO PASS SIGNAL DISPLAYING STOP INDICATION.”
Reference: GCOR 9.12.4
On single main track, before granting permission for movement to pass Stop in ABS territory the train dispatcher must:
1. Ensure that train has authority to occupy track beyond the Stop indication.
2. Ascertain no conflict of authority exists.
Use verbal format: “AFTER STOPPING (engine/direction) AT (location) HAS PERMISSION TO PASS SIGNAL DISPLAYING STOP INDICATION.”
GCOR Rule 9.12.4:
9.12.4 ABS Territory At a signal displaying a Stop indication outside interlocking limits, the train will be governed as follows: A. Main Track On a main track, after stopping, a train authorized beyond the signal must comply with one of the following procedures: If authority beyond the signal is joint with other trains or employees, proceed at restricted speed.or Proceed at restricted speed when a crew member has contacted the train dispatcher and obtained permission to pass the Stop indication. However, if the train dispatcher cannot be contacted, move 100 feet past the signal, wait 5 minutes, then proceed at restricted speed. B. Siding or Other Track If the signal governs movements from a siding or other track to the main track, comply with Rule 9.17 (Entering Main Track at Hand-Operated or Spring Switch).
At a signal displaying a Stop indication outside interlocking limits, the train will be governed as follows:
A. Main Track
On a main track, after stopping, a train authorized beyond the signal must comply with one of the following procedures:
If the signal governs movements from a siding or other track to the main track, comply with Rule 9.17 (Entering Main Track at Hand-Operated or Spring Switch).
There is clearly a difference between authority and permission.
I was going to give examples of the difference, but I think edited it out.
In ABS single track, the signal system is usually setup in the manner of Absolute-Permissve Block. http://broadway.pennsyrr.com/Rail/Signal/Apb/ The head blocks at sidings are non-controlled absolute signals. The dispatcher has no control over them. Trains are not authorized by signal indication but other means like track warrants. In the case of a Stop signal when the train has a track warrant beyond the signal, the authority beyond is the track warrant. The dispatcher can only gives permission past it. Note that if the dispatcher can't be contacted there is a way to pass the signal without direct permission. (I've used both methods before.) With permission, the stop beyond the signal and 5 minute wait aren't required.
Oh, I guess I did already mention it. I probably should've said it has to do with Main Track Authorizations, which in CTC can include controlled sidings.
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.
jeffhergert On the UP, and I would think on the other GCOR roads, the word is AUTHORITY when being talked by an absolute in CTC or at a manual interlocking. Example: "After stopping, UP1234 at CP A123 has authority to pass signal displaying Stop indication main one to main one westward." To enter CTC at a hand throw switch: "UP1234 at Bess has authority to enter main track and proceed west." When our track warrant and track bulletins print out, there is a couple of pages of fill in the blank scripts for the proper wording for the above plus other mandatory directives. The wording has to be in the right order or the dispatcher won't (can't by the rules) accept the repeat. They started giving us these scripts because a few were either too obtuse or deliberately not repeating instructions correctly. One dispatcher once, after about 5 tries on the repeat, asked if there was another crew member who could repeat the instructions. Jeff
Example: "After stopping, UP1234 at CP A123 has authority to pass signal displaying Stop indication main one to main one westward."
To enter CTC at a hand throw switch: "UP1234 at Bess has authority to enter main track and proceed west."
When our track warrant and track bulletins print out, there is a couple of pages of fill in the blank scripts for the proper wording for the above plus other mandatory directives. The wording has to be in the right order or the dispatcher won't (can't by the rules) accept the repeat. They started giving us these scripts because a few were either too obtuse or deliberately not repeating instructions correctly. One dispatcher once, after about 5 tries on the repeat, asked if there was another crew member who could repeat the instructions.
thanks Jeff, to add to your last comment....once monitoring I heard a young signal man who got bad ordered thus trying to become a dispatcher. On the other end of the radio was a bridge foreman who must have hired out during the civil war. Oh it was pitiful and so sad. I don't know how many times they tried and tried and tried at correct read back before it occured.
What do you think the crew i mentioned should have done? When making the move onto the wye ...... ask permission to make the turn around move and not use the block? endmrw0302180308
n012944 Cotton Belt MP104 This little back and forth about permission/authority and suspension/fired I guess the subject is getting worn out. But one last stab at the verbal order given via radio to a train stopped for red signal. As one poster cited, the actual words used by the dispatcher “ train…. has authority” ……..okay okay okay okay……… I realize this MEANS the train has permission, but this is NOT what the dispatcher says. end0301182055 Both myself and Balt have quoted the script from a railroad's rulebook on talking a train by a red. The word authority is never used, permission is.
Cotton Belt MP104 This little back and forth about permission/authority and suspension/fired I guess the subject is getting worn out. But one last stab at the verbal order given via radio to a train stopped for red signal. As one poster cited, the actual words used by the dispatcher “ train…. has authority” ……..okay okay okay okay……… I realize this MEANS the train has permission, but this is NOT what the dispatcher says. end0301182055
On the UP, and I would think on the other GCOR roads, the word is AUTHORITY when being talked by an absolute in CTC or at a manual interlocking.
Convicted One And, the same disclaimers you used...I am not a railroad employee etc etc, so to those who are railroad employees the following will probably sound dumb...but.... ............mrw: You said a mouthful there, i have been blown away by the comments, since I was only posting observations and hoping for corrections/clarifications. It could be said that I have been argumentive, but it seems the RR folks want to avoid the actual word used and only press the idea, this is what they mean. TOO, very important, I am talking about what goes on here in my region .......... Every organization I have worked in, if a superior instructed an employee to perform a task that he was not qualified to perform, any consequences that would result it would be the superior who would bear full responsibility and it would be his head that rolled in consequence. (negligent supervision). .......mrw: somewhere in this thread is an instance on the RR where this happened and guess what happened negligent supervisior pilot conductor no punishment of course it was not a serious or fatal ....... I guess in your scenario, the actual issue is one of semantics? That the crew did not get the dispatcher to word their "excursion" onto territory in which they were not qualified to perform with the proper term? Would the proper semantics (had they been used) have made their move any more safe than what they actually did? ........mrw: NO, the rule was for the unauthorized running of a train on a block of territory, they only needed a hundred feet of that block, BUT that has been my WHOLE point of the post .........rules are rules, they didn't think about it before making the move, of course they should have ..... below Or (out on a limb here I'll admit) absent their instructions........ ..........mrw: You are asking EXACTLY what I have been trying to get across. Instead of the "instructions" if their "request" for the wye track was asked with the statement they were not qualified on that block, I don't know, but would guess the dispatcher would ........ oh no ...... here comes that awful word...... have given them PERMISSION to make that short excursion, but certainly no authority to be there ............being properly worded, would the crew have been within their right to refuse to make the move, and still kept their jobs or would they suffer the wrath of the "officials" they were performing the re-enactment for? ......... mrw: GOOD QUESTION, ANYONE? .........All of this pertains to the first scenario you reported upon.
And, the same disclaimers you used...I am not a railroad employee etc etc, so to those who are railroad employees the following will probably sound dumb...but....
............mrw: You said a mouthful there, i have been blown away by the comments, since I was only posting observations and hoping for corrections/clarifications. It could be said that I have been argumentive, but it seems the RR folks want to avoid the actual word used and only press the idea, this is what they mean. TOO, very important, I am talking about what goes on here in my region ..........
Every organization I have worked in, if a superior instructed an employee to perform a task that he was not qualified to perform, any consequences that would result it would be the superior who would bear full responsibility and it would be his head that rolled in consequence. (negligent supervision).
.......mrw: somewhere in this thread is an instance on the RR where this happened and guess what happened negligent supervisior pilot conductor no punishment of course it was not a serious or fatal .......
I guess in your scenario, the actual issue is one of semantics? That the crew did not get the dispatcher to word their "excursion" onto territory in which they were not qualified to perform with the proper term? Would the proper semantics (had they been used) have made their move any more safe than what they actually did?
........mrw: NO, the rule was for the unauthorized running of a train on a block of territory, they only needed a hundred feet of that block, BUT that has been my WHOLE point of the post .........rules are rules, they didn't think about it before making the move, of course they should have ..... below
Or (out on a limb here I'll admit) absent their instructions........
..........mrw: You are asking EXACTLY what I have been trying to get across. Instead of the "instructions" if their "request" for the wye track was asked with the statement they were not qualified on that block, I don't know, but would guess the dispatcher would ........ oh no ...... here comes that awful word...... have given them PERMISSION to make that short excursion, but certainly no authority to be there
............being properly worded, would the crew have been within their right to refuse to make the move, and still kept their jobs or would they suffer the wrath of the "officials" they were performing the re-enactment for? .........
mrw: GOOD QUESTION, ANYONE?
.........All of this pertains to the first scenario you reported upon.
it helps to read the first post I made. Maybe someone can give you and me insight. Note Dispatcher is in Omaha and of course UPRR. I guess all other RR need not attempt to answer endmrw0302180224
[quote user="zugmann
Cotton Belt MP104 EXCUSE ME? are you referencing to my original post of situations I PERSONALLY OBSERVED? Your comment is so.... outta the blue, what specifically, seems untruthful? Do I need sworn notarized statements before posting what I saw/heard.
You're excused. If it was first hand info, then you'd be the one that was fired for the rules infraction. But you are going from what others have told you. That makes it second-hand information at best.
[/quote]
In my original post i explained in detail the source of my information. I carried a crew, while they were trying to do the work, I watched all the while the incident was happening. I was there, not as an employee but observer, hearing, seeing, and actually relating an amusing incident w/young RR official.
Did you not read the original post to understand? I was there, i saw it. I heard it. I am sorry but the guys that got back in my van said they were fired, take us back to Jonesboro.
Why can't that be accepted? We are not arguing this before the Supreme Court. endmrw0302180139
2. That said, I do not argue with what happens elsewhere. Obviously, I do not observe CSX. Instead I stated exactly where I am and what I observed.
3. To some, what I observed is suspect information and I guess only accepted if sworn testimony is included in my post
4. I have no argument with CSX rules, BUT this is the actual post (next item) of some RR rule book ….. and it is not my post …… it clearly states ….. what the dispatcher reads …. AUTHORITY again, okay okay okay all it means is that the train has permission BUT that is NOT what is being said by dispatch …. I am just reporting what is said
5. ”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.
6. Great that is “what you say”, BUT what did the dispatcher say? Dispatch said AUTHORITY and not permission. I have heard it said over and over that way.
7. This whole thing is about words. My fault. I should never have described this “as okay to break the rules”. Sorry, but I thought passing a red board was a seriously broken RULE. But you were just given authority to do so. Now as for my poor choice of the word “fired” instead of suspended, My fault, but that is just exactly what the guys told me. Who am I, they work on the RR, I just drove the van. Endmrw0302180022
From CSX Rule Book
606 - Permission to Pass a Stop Signal 606.1 Before giving permission to pass the Stop signal, the train dispatcher must: 1. Determine the specified track is clear of opposing and conflicting movements and no opposing or conflicting movements have been authorized; 2. 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; 3. When conditions allow, request the signal the same as if it could be displayed to proceed; 4. Apply blocking devices; 5. After implementing the above procedures and issuing instructions concerning any poweroperated switches, the train dispatcher will instruct the train: 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 in order to couple to cars or to move to location short of a block signal, include this information in the instructions. 6. Confirm instructions to receiving employee when the employee repeats authorization correctly.
606.1 Before giving permission to pass the Stop signal, the train dispatcher must:
1. Determine the specified track is clear of opposing and conflicting movements and no opposing or conflicting movements have been authorized;
2. 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;
3. When conditions allow, request the signal the same as if it could be displayed to proceed;
4. Apply blocking devices;
5. After implementing the above procedures and issuing instructions concerning any poweroperated switches, the train dispatcher will instruct the train:
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 in order to couple to cars or to move to location short of a block signal, include this information in the instructions.
6. Confirm instructions to receiving employee when the employee repeats authorization correctly.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
I have no right (authority) to drive counter to established laws. The law gives me permission to do so ("may") under certain circumstances. These require the use of both emergency lights and audible warning devices.
Here is NYS Vehicle and Traffic law as it applies here:
(a) The driver of an authorized emergency vehicle, when involved in an emergency operation, may exercise the privileges set forth in this section, but subject to the condition herein stated. (b) The driver of an authorized emergency vehicle may: 1. Stop, stand or park irrespective of the provisions of this title; 2. Proceed past a steady red signal, a flashing red signal or a stop sign, but only after slowing down as may be necessary for safe operation; 3. Exceed the maximum speed limits so long as he does not endanger life or property; 4. Disregard regulations governing directions of movement or turning in specified directions.
(a) The driver of an authorized emergency vehicle, when involved in an emergency operation, may exercise the privileges set forth in this section, but subject to the condition herein stated.
(b) The driver of an authorized emergency vehicle may:
1. Stop, stand or park irrespective of the provisions of this title;
2. Proceed past a steady red signal, a flashing red signal or a stop sign, but only after slowing down as may be necessary for safe operation;
3. Exceed the maximum speed limits so long as he does not endanger life or property;
4. Disregard regulations governing directions of movement or turning in specified directions.
Apparatus vs apparatus collisions happen all too often, sometimes due to responding to different incidents, sometimes both are responding to the same incident, but from different directions. In either case, someone (actually both of them) was not driving with "due regard." If charges are to be laid, they will probably be against the apparatus that had the traffic control "against" them.
As the operator of an emergency vehicle, I have no right (authority) to drive counter to established laws. The law gives me permission to do so ("may") under certain circumstances. These require the use of both emergency lights and audible warning devices.
Section 1104. Authorized emergency vehicles. (a) The driver of an authorized emergency vehicle, when involved in an emergency operation, may exercise the privileges set forth in this section, but subject to the condition herein stated. (b) The driver of an authorized emergency vehicle may: 1. Stop, stand or park irrespective of the provisions of this title; 2. Proceed past a steady red signal, a flashing red signal or a stop sign, but only after slowing down as may be necessary for safe operation; 3. Exceed the maximum speed limits so long as he does not endanger life or property; 4. Disregard regulations governing directions of movement or turning in specified directions.
(emphasis mine)
If I had the authority to disregard V&T laws, I could do so with impugnity. But that is not the case.
As I said before, if I am operating an emergency vehicle RLAS and have an accident, it's most likely going to be my fault in the eyes of the law, even if the other vehicle ran a red light and hit me. Because I apparently was not operating my vehicle with due regard.
Electroliner 1935 tree68 Cotton Belt MP104 if it is an ambulance ..... he has AUTHORITY to disregard (break) the rules .... Actually, no. This reminds me of what my dad used to point out to me when I was learning to drive. Specifically, "A green light does not give me the "RIGHT OF WAY" I may have the ROW but it comes with qualifiers. Such as an emergency vehicle or an obstruction that requires yielding. I don't have the right to mow down pedestrians that violate the roadway. Etc. PS, Who is in the wrong if a fire truck strikes a postal vehicle? This may be an unusual thing.
tree68 Cotton Belt MP104 if it is an ambulance ..... he has AUTHORITY to disregard (break) the rules .... Actually, no.
This reminds me of what my dad used to point out to me when I was learning to drive. Specifically, "A green light does not give me the "RIGHT OF WAY" I may have the ROW but it comes with qualifiers. Such as an emergency vehicle or an obstruction that requires yielding. I don't have the right to mow down pedestrians that violate the roadway. Etc.
PS, Who is in the wrong if a fire truck strikes a postal vehicle? This may be an unusual thing.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.