tree68Cotton 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.
Cotton Belt MP104EXCUSE 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. I am not a crewmember, I might have overlooked some nuance in the situations, BUT SECOND,THIRD, AND PERHAPS FOURTH HAND INFO is definately not the case here. This is the sad part of this blog, if one is not a part of the elite ........ dat guy is just ...... shanty talk endmrw0228182134
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.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
SD70Dude BaltACD I am not the grammer police - however, the format you use without identifiable paragraphs make your posts next to unreadable. Especially when one is on a smartphone or other small-screened device which does not allow the entirety of a large post to be viewed at once.
BaltACD I am not the grammer police - however, the format you use without identifiable paragraphs make your posts next to unreadable.
I am not the grammer police - however, the format you use without identifiable paragraphs make your posts next to unreadable.
Especially when one is on a smartphone or other small-screened device which does not allow the entirety of a large post to be viewed at once.
DUELY NOTED, APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENT, I HAVE HAD ANGST OVER THIS, BUT SLOWLY HAVE LEARNED AND HOPE TO DO BETTER endmrw0228182146
zugmann The problem here is that all this is second, third, and perhaps fourth-hand information. (shanty talk). I have feeling the truth in many of these situations is a bit different than what is being presented.
The problem here is that all this is second, third, and perhaps fourth-hand information. (shanty talk).
I have feeling the truth in many of these situations is a bit different than what is being presented.
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. I am not a crewmember, I might have overlooked some nuance in the situations, BUT SECOND,THIRD, AND PERHAPS FOURTH HAND INFO is definately not the case here. This is the sad part of this blog, if one is not a part of the elite ........ dat guy is just ...... shanty talk endmrw0228182134
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
Cotton Belt MP104jeffhergert wrote ………………………/………………………………/ ………………………………./ Employees acting as pilots are to be within 50 feet of the person they are piloting. The manager was said to have been in his vehicle, I guess at the customer's facility which is a bit more than 50 feet away. More like 750 feet, but who's counting. If he had a conductor-pilot and still had cornered a car, they both would've been in trouble. The manager, being the pilot, received... ………….. Mrw: ………..right, nutin’ ………………… then jeff said: …………. The dispatcher situation in some ways smells of a test. However, the dispatcher being put off by the crew asking for the use of authority instead of permission makes me think otherwise. Dispatcher's have been known to make mistakes. …………………. Mrw:………. thanks for the insight from a professional ………….. just gotta relate two stories of “officials” and the red faces they had. …………………. 1. A factory loads gons with scrap steel from a factory process. When the car got loaded the springs were weak and the car was on the wheels. RR official said it was over loaded. The factory called in a backhoe to have the car unloaded. Getting close to noon the official said ………..nope car is still too over loaded. He left for lunch and the smart factory guy had the backhoe take everything out. RR inspector came back and looked at the springs on the wheel set truck. Sorry guys we gonna have to take out more ………2. Another company made lift platforms for trailer trucks both tractor/trailer gravity unload of a NON dump trailer. This monstrosity is so big that it comes in two pieces and was loaded on a TTX/TOFC two trailer truck van flat car. The loading man was welding the equipment to the car. Did so for years until an RR inspector came one day and said, “Hey you can’t do that” Boom it down w/chains. My friend said it won’t stay, but he did as the official insisted…….. Guess what, in transit it came loose, endmrw0228181757
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Cotton Belt MP104Probably 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
Your reply is appreciated, and I agree, the crew absolutely must be ultimately responsible for the areas of work where they are....allowed... to perform (qualified).
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....
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).
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? Or (out on a limb here I'll admit) absent their instructions 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?
All of this pertains to the first scenario you reported upon.
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
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?
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
On the UP, train dispatchers are company officials. Can company officials be held responsible? Yes, at least in theory. In actual practice, well... . We had a case a few months back where an extra board conductor was called to work a local freight. He ran the territory, but hadn't worked the local and didn't know the industry spots, etc. He asked for a pilot and they gave him a manager. In the process of working one industry, he cut away from the train too close to the switch. Shoving back into the industry track he cornered a car, derailing it. He was permanently dismissed after the investigation. Now, while he should've known he cut away too close, if he had a real conductor-pilot he might've been shown where to stop or at least the condr-pilot may have seen he cut away too close. Employees acting as pilots are to be within 50 feet of the person they are piloting. The manager was said to have been in his vehicle, I guess at the customer's facility which is a bit more than 50 feet away. More like 750 feet, but who's counting. If he had a conductor-pilot and still had cornered a car, they both would've been in trouble. The manager, being the pilot, received... .
The dispatcher situation in some ways smells of a test. However, the dispatcher being put off by the crew asking for the use of authority instead of permission makes me think otherwise. Dispatcher's have been known to make mistakes. I've heard a few, most are minor. A couple a bit more critical that didn't compromise safety, but were instructions that were against the proper procedures called for by the rules for in those situations.
Jeff
Cotton Belt MP104they insisted on hearing the dispatcher instruct that they had AUTHORITY to enter the new subdivision
And my take on that is that they were justified in their request.
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...
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
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.
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.
Cotton Belt MP104I 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
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.
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.
tree68This 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.
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
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.
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.
Johnny
JPS1I 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.
CMStPnPJPS1 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?
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.
Rio Grande Valley, CFI,CFII
JPS1If the engineer runs through a stop signal, as I have observed, the conductor cannot do anything about it.
Dakguy201I 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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
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...
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.