BaltACD Lithonia Operator What is a backup hose? A current one - it allows the person protecting the 'point' on a back up move to have control of the air brakes and it also has a segment of the valve that will sound a whistle when required by the rules
Lithonia Operator What is a backup hose?
A current one - it allows the person protecting the 'point' on a back up move to have control of the air brakes and it also has a segment of the valve that will sound a whistle when required by the rules
Thanks.
Rulebooks allowed for sections of one schedule to exchange position--for a two-section train, the former first section would turn its classification lights onand give its orders to operating crew of the new first section train and receive the orders of the former second section train, and the former second section would douse its classification lights, and exchange orders with the former first section. Of course, any orders that named engine numbers wouold have to be resissued, showing that the exchange in positions had taken place--this would include orders issued to opposing trains.
Johnny
Read Ken's (greyhound) post. Not a 2nd section. I really doubt if the Hawkeye or Land of Corn ever had multiple sections in the diesel era.
cx500 rcdrye Or... there might be a following second section, in which case IT would display the markers. While I am not an authority on every railroad's rulebooks, I firmly believe every section of a train must display markers. While they may use the same timetable authority, train orders may specify meets with each section separately. Each is a discrete train and must display markers to confirm that specific section has passed completely. It can be critical if a freight train has to double a grade. The non-display of markers suggests it is not yet formally a train, merely a yard movement backing into the terminal. John
rcdrye Or... there might be a following second section, in which case IT would display the markers.
While I am not an authority on every railroad's rulebooks, I firmly believe every section of a train must display markers. While they may use the same timetable authority, train orders may specify meets with each section separately. Each is a discrete train and must display markers to confirm that specific section has passed completely. It can be critical if a freight train has to double a grade.
The non-display of markers suggests it is not yet formally a train, merely a yard movement backing into the terminal.
John
Yes, each "section" is a complete train in its own right. Sections were used to run multiple trains using one timetable schedule and not have to create and protect all kinds of extras. (Which is easy to send a whole bunch of extras in one direction since they just need to get out of everyone's way, hard to send them in both directions since now you have to explicitly protect the extras against each other.)
If an inferior train had to wait for one ore more superior ones, any number of trains (all with proper rear markers) displaying green flags/lights ("section following") can go by while you're waiting; you're not done waiting until the correct number of trains go by NOT displaying signals. But each of those "sections" is a full train.
Chris van der Heide
My Algoma Central Railway Modeling Blog
rcdryeOr... there might be a following second section, in which case IT would display the markers.
rcdrye That's an IC Iowa line train climbing to the St. Charles Air Line, on its approach to Central Station. C&WI approach to Dearborn on left, AT&SF Archer Ave Coach Yard on right. Marker lamps are visible on the floor of the coach behind the gate. IC rulebook may not have required markers in signal territory. Or... there might be a following second section, in which case IT would display the markers.
That's an IC Iowa line train climbing to the St. Charles Air Line, on its approach to Central Station. C&WI approach to Dearborn on left, AT&SF Archer Ave Coach Yard on right. Marker lamps are visible on the floor of the coach behind the gate. IC rulebook may not have required markers in signal territory. Or... there might be a following second section, in which case IT would display the markers.
Yes, I make it to be one of my favorites, the IC's "Land O'Corn". The train had a morning departure from Waterloo, IA and an around noon arrival in Chicago. Intermediate points such as Dubuque, IA, Freeport, IL, and Rockford, IL were served. Return was an evening departure from Chicago.
The trains carried head end, including Flexi-Van, RPO, and baggage/express. (The Flexi-Van flatcar had a steam line.) Coaches and a full diner. You may see the diner in the photo.
I'll GUESS the consist is headed for the Chicago station to load passengers for its westbound run. It's not an official train yet, so that's why the markers aren't hung.
Lithonia OperatorWhat is a backup hose?
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
What is a backup hose?
Thanks for clarification. So it is not backing up, right?
BaltACDDon't see a Back-up Hose in use - Markers are sitting on the floor behind the passenger gate.
Many of our coaches (former CNR) have a whistle and a brake valve (such as would be on a back-up hose) installed within the car. While we use a back-up hose when appropriate, it would be possible to do such a move in such a car without the back-up hose. I think some of ours have been disabled as they are otherwise not needed.
I don't see a whistle on the end of the car like ours have.
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...
BaltACD charlie hebdo Maybe a backup move as still using the St. Charles Air Line and Central (12th St.) Station. Don't see a Back-up Hose in use - Markers are sitting on the floor behind the passenger gate.
charlie hebdo Maybe a backup move as still using the St. Charles Air Line and Central (12th St.) Station.
Don't see a Back-up Hose in use - Markers are sitting on the floor behind the passenger gate.
I dunno but is it possible a short move with a short train would not have required the use of a backup hose?
I'm having trouble orienting myself as to direction of the train. It appears to be facing north from a bit south of 18th street, but maybe not.
charlie hebdoMaybe a backup move as still using the St. Charles Air Line and Central (12th St.) Station.
Maybe a backup move as still using the St. Charles Air Line and Central (12th St.) Station.
charlie hebdoBack to the IC, but with E units: https://www.flickr.com/photos/arthurbig/49110885511/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/arthurbig/49110885511/
Notice that there are no markers being displayed!
Back to the IC, but with E units:
Murphy SidingTrain up a child in the way he should go, And when he is old he will not depart from it.
Same origins, different part -- Mishlei Schlomo, no?
Pity the 'train' is in the sense of espaliers and bonsai, isn't it?
Thanks Dave. Those are great examples of intent, action and consequences of GM policy.
One case is definite: GM really owned New York Railways, who operated directly, or through subsidiaries, most of Manhattan's streetcar lines, after 1926, and the purchase was definitely for the purpose of conversion to buses. The conversion occured in 1935 and 1936, after a real transit bus was developed, two models, 36-seat sloped-back and 40-seat straight-back.
Also, GM's policy of leasing buses helped conversion where there was no GM ownership. The Twin Cities system's new management scrapped a well-maintained streetcar system with good loading on major lines and with some PCCs, realized the income from sales of scrap, including the wire of course, and PCCs resold for further use elsewhere, then leased buses. The leasing costs were operating expenses and justification for higher fares. The exact same events occured with the large and fairly new Providence, RI, trolleybus system. I believe there were other examples.
The issue of whether companies with a vested interest in the elimination of streetcars did anything to push for that objective is not a simplistic dichotomy, all or nothing. Very few things are. Most real life events are multifactorial.
Another point that the GM/NCL conspiracy fans ignore is that a lot of properties not owned or managed by National City Lines converted to bus just as quickly.
I've observed that most modern light rail operations fall somewhere between streetcars and rapid transit, having features of both.
And some of the companies were not decrepit. Some were. Some, like Baltimore had bought new PCCs and had some good Peter Witts as well, with much private-right-of-way and plans for further modernization.
However, I will concede that in most cases, probably aboug 80%, long range, conversion to buses made economic sense anyway. Indeed, most of the smaller systems could continue as private systems as long as they did only because of the economy of diesel bus operation.
Today, many if not most modern streetcar and light rail systems are called successful for other reasons than just better transportation, urban revival, an attraction, history, etc. A streetcar in general is more economical than a bus in transportion only if it is necessary to move more than 20,000 people past a given point in one direction during the rush hour.
When I read about "succesful" light rail or streetcar lines with 5000 passengers or fares a day, I really wonder.
Jerusalem's one line carries 140,000 fares a day. Obviously, most ride twice. And many ride connecting buses. New lines are under construction and planning.
Forget just where, but yes, it's included.
charlie hebdo Dave: As someone with at least a passing interest in biblical scholarship I'd also like more info on the Babylonian Talmud.
Dave: As someone with at least a passing interest in biblical scholarship I'd also like more info on the Babylonian Talmud.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Starting in 1938, much of NCL's equity funding came from GM, Firestone and three large oil companies. Coincidence?
daveklepper Perhaps to make this all more relevant, I can point out the following, and have obtained agreement from very astute teachers: GM's part, in addition to rubber and oil interests, but certainly the main actor, in takeover of streetcar systems for conversion to bus operation, was not a conspiracy but simply good, by Capitalist economics, practice. The concent decree had zero to do with rail-to-bus conversion but only with the exclusion of other bus manufacturers. But by Talmudic Law, Halacha, it was a sin. Because a store owner is forbidden to enter or even stand in the doorway, a competitor's store, to solicit business. And GM was in the business of selling cars, and secondarily buses. All this was competition for streetcar companies, and thus Talmudic law says that GM's entering the public transportation busines through indirect and direct subsifiary ownership, was a sin. At the same time, when both the NYCentral and PRR entered the container-on-flatcar business, why were not they astute enough to enter into partnerships with local trucking companies but instead owned the pick-up and delivery trucks themselves? We could have had the intermodal revelution a lot earlier. And maybe if that had occoured, some abandoned railroad lines and even railroad-operated passenger service, might still be around.
Perhaps to make this all more relevant, I can point out the following, and have obtained agreement from very astute teachers:
GM's part, in addition to rubber and oil interests, but certainly the main actor, in takeover of streetcar systems for conversion to bus operation, was not a conspiracy but simply good, by Capitalist economics, practice. The concent decree had zero to do with rail-to-bus conversion but only with the exclusion of other bus manufacturers.
But by Talmudic Law, Halacha, it was a sin. Because a store owner is forbidden to enter or even stand in the doorway, a competitor's store, to solicit business. And GM was in the business of selling cars, and secondarily buses. All this was competition for streetcar companies, and thus Talmudic law says that GM's entering the public transportation busines through indirect and direct subsifiary ownership, was a sin.
At the same time, when both the NYCentral and PRR entered the container-on-flatcar business, why were not they astute enough to enter into partnerships with local trucking companies but instead owned the pick-up and delivery trucks themselves? We could have had the intermodal revelution a lot earlier.
And maybe if that had occoured, some abandoned railroad lines and even railroad-operated passenger service, might still be around.
Dave, that's really interesting. Our laws, customs, cultures, etc. are greatly influenced by religious teachings. Acknowledging that is just accepting reality.
I'm going to disagree with you on the container issue. The new truckers were taking the freight from the railroads, not the other way around. The truckers were the ones diverting customers, not the railroads. The containerization, with its new, lower, rates and better service was an innovation made possible by a new technology. And A very effective response to motor freight.
The rail containers greatly reduced costs, as they have done with ocean shipping. Due to competition, most of the cost savings were passed through to the rail customers. But the railroads managed to hang on to some of the money. So the shipping public received better service at a lower charge while the railroads made more money. It just doesn't get any better than that.
But the regulators wanted to preserve a "Rate Structure" that was untenable given the advent of motor freight. People supportive of rate regulation are prone to fabricate reasons (excuses?) for the government regulators' actions. Such as, they were trying to protect the nascent trucking industry. These government apologists have absolutely no substantiation for their fabrications.
The American people were significantly harmed by their government's action in that logistics cost were driven up. It was wasteful.
The railroads weren't the ones standing in their competitors' stores trying to grab business. The truckers were doing that to the railroads. And the US Government blocked the rails' response for an absurd reason.
The railroads did use local truckers. Most of the container freight was from freight forwarders. These useful middlemen selected the most efficient way to move the freight for their customers and used whatever mode, rail or truck, was most appropriate. They could pick their own trucker to and from the rail terminal. Freight forwarders drove the regulators nuts. They brought some free market competition to freight movement and the regulators just hated that. Forwarders were regulated in 1940, to the detriment of the public.
As to GM and its city busses, it's another straw man. National City Lines was a company with a business plan. They'd buy decrepit streetcar systems and convert them to bus operation. They'd do this where busses were a better option, which was about everywhere. The busses had advantages or they wouldn't have replaced the streetcars.
GM got involved because it made busses and financed its products' purchases. Just like when people buy a car. The government trouble came from GM's agreement with NCL on exclusivity. The financing was conditioned on NCL buying only GM busses. That exclusivity is what the government objected to.
The case was settled when GM was fined $5,000 (They took up a collection at the office?) and the responsible executives were fined $1.00.
This case has been convoluted in to some kind of anti streetcar conspiracy.
I would argue quite differently -- GM's interest in 'streetcar companies' was far more to ensure a future for truly useful public transport than to substitute cars for the multitude by necessity.
Remember that the revolution in buses - the Yellow Coach monocoque with angle drive and, soon enough, Detroit Diesel power, was as revolutionary as combining Electro-Motive and the Winton diesel engine. All the 1950s advantages of GM's buses are just as true today as they were then -- easy peak vs. off-peak service, air-conditioning, alternate routes a cinch, dedicated routes with alternative use a possibility, all sorts of alternative things to do with them when not needed in service... there are more.
Would you object to the Good Roads movement because it made interurbans less profitable? Ban jitneys for stealing streetcar nickels? Go after those evil electric utilities for ruthless suppression of horse cars?
One thing I've always thought the conspiracy theorists missed is that it's NOT in GM's interest to deprecate public transport. They're after the Insolent Chariots market of upper-middle-class keeping-up-with-the-Joneses and then they'll-know-you've-ARRIVED-when-you-pull-up, where buying the new car every year is a social 'given' ... and no one would ever, ever stoop to buying a 'used' car. Yet anyone who would be riding public transport is there because they didn't want a car or the expense in running or parking it ... or couldn't afford or waste money on anything new. (And they don't go to the stealer to service their used car, either, and huge fortunes can and have been made in supplying aftermarket parts.)
If you look at the speed with which interurban track and maintenance went downhill after the Government dis incentivized utility ownership, and recollect the fate of BMT after ONE publicized wreck, you can read their future without necessary recourse to GM or oilmen or Firestone machination. On the other hand there are very few instances where even modern 'rail' buses succeeded over rubber-tired ones -- and some very modern ones were tried.
The Talmudic proscription is against the taking of another's livelihood, which is little if any different from the act of knowingly stealing. It is NOT against providing a superior product, or for that matter advertising its advantages... or buying out competitors at a fair price. (I agree with you that Biblical fairness does not mean buying at some fire-sale forced price, but it is not necessarily an owner's self-inflated 'profit opportunity' either ... that's stealing-in-the-heart from another direction.)
Rigging the suppliers was wrong ... and GM paid for it. If I recall correctly EMD ran a similar scam with 'genuine GM parts' and rebuilt assemblies for decades, until our Government made the whole captive warranty market technically illegal by policy. Which policy I think is as it should be... as long as the parts ARE honestly known serviceable and safe as applied. (And it's yet again a violation of Commandment to sell unsafe as safe...)
And Talmudic law would have prevented the destruction of half of Colorado's Towwer Gate.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.