Change of train numbers

[timz]

wjstix

"In 1953, the GN's Western Star rode the Black Hawk eastbound, followed 15 minutes later by the NP's Mainstreeter. Westbound the Mainstreeter and Black Hawk were combined with the Western Star running separately. In later years the three were combined."

That's all the book says about when the combining happened?

If so, no indication that the author thinks Western Star was scheduled to run separately in 1954 or later. He's just describing the situation in 1953.

Yes, of course Q could run the train in sections -- any railroad could run any train in sections. If you want to claim they're "separate trains", you have to show separate schedules.

By the way: operators would OS each section by, wouldn't they? If there were seven sections, they wouldn't keep the dispatcher in the dark for hours until a section finally appeared with no signals?

[wjstix]

No, I chose not to quote like an entire page. It says the trains ran separately before 1953, were combined 1953-59 as described, then all three normally went together from 1959 on. 

Sections normally ran a few minutes apart, in this case 15 minutes. So say the Black Hawk / Western Star was one section, and the Mainstreeter was the other. Each would be a section of the Black Hawk. Since they did this combining every day 1953-59, it made sense to assign all three trains with the same train number in the schedule. 

From what I understand of dispatching (and I'm sure many folks know more) the 'train' was not considered to have passed a station or tower until the last section had gone by. It wouldn't be marked 'on the sheet' until then. So let's say train A was ordered to take a siding until train B went past. They'd have to wait until all sections of train A had passed them by. 

[rcdrye]

All three trains operated separately from the GN station in Minneapolis to SPUD, with GN, NP and CB&Q crews and numbers, from where they were either combined or fitted with appropriate marker to run as sections under the Black Hawk's number.

[Vermontanan2]

wjstix

No, I chose not to quote like an entire page. It says the trains ran separately before 1953, were combined 1953-59 as described, then all three normally went together from 1959 on. 

Again quoting the Strauss book:

"Although the plan for the Mainstreeter originally called for it to be operated between Chicago and St. Paul as CB&Q Nos. 51 & 50, shortly after it entered service it was combined with Burlington Route's Black Hawk for the overnight Chicago-St. Paul runs."

The Mainstreeter began in late 1952 and throughout all of 1953, NP timetables show the Mainstreeter as trains 47 and 48 (Black Hawk) between Chicago and St. Paul; CB&Q timetables indicate the Western Star as trains 53 and 54 from 1951 through 1953.  Therefore, there were two such trains in each direction, the Western Star and Black Hawk, with the Black Hawk handling the Mainstreeter’s cars when it started operating.  It’s unlikely and illogical that CB&Q would change their method of operation in 1953 and still operate two trains (the claim in wjstix's book), but use one number in each direction, but two sections.  It would seem that if the book is as flawless as wjstix claims it to be, its authors would note this significant change, and explain why.

wjstix

Sections normally ran a few minutes apart, in this case 15 minutes.

If they wanted the trains 15 minutes apart, they would be on different schedules and no timetables from 1953 to 1959 indicate that.  Spacing of 15 minutes would be possible by train order, but not in this territory (see below).  It could also be done by “M” message or holding the train at a control point, but this would be cumbersome.  In reality, the second section would simply show up after the first section, maybe 15 minutes later, maybe 30 minutes later, or maybe just on block following the first section.   

wjstix

From what I understand of dispatching (and I'm sure many folks know more) the 'train' was not considered to have passed a station or tower until the last section had gone by. It wouldn't be marked 'on the sheet' until then. So let's say train A was ordered to take a siding until train B went past. They'd have to wait until all sections of train A had passed them by. 

 

Not the case.  If you had three sections of train 47, they would be individual trains in on the train sheet, train register, receiving clearance and reported (OS’d) at stations.  They would be First 47, Second 47, and Third 47.  The first and second sections would display green signals and the third (and last) second no signals.  An intermediate station would OS the first train as: “First 47, Eng 1234, green signals, by at 459 AM” and the dispatcher would place the time “on sheet” at that station in the column for First 47, which would be on a separate column from any other sections on his/her train sheet.  This would indicate to the dispatcher that that train was by said station in its entirety.  The second section would be similarly OS’d, and the third section, “Third No. 47, Eng 3456, no signals, by at 615 AM.”  “No signals” indicates that this is the last section of this regular train.  Each section of this regular train has equal timetable authority, but how they interact with other trains on the railroad does not have to be the same.

I can’t say how CB&Q operated sections of regular trains, but as a train dispatcher, in this particular territory it would seem most logical to operate anything other than the first section as an extra because here movement is authorized by signal indication which supersedes the superiority of trains and no train order authorization would be necessary.  Authorizing extra sections by train order would be superfluous.

Where this would not be the case (like dark territory or single-track non-CTC, for example), multiple sections (Second, third, fourth sections, etc.) could be authorized by train order, and indeed could operate well apart and meet and pass other trains at different locations than the other sections.  The only limitation is that all the movement would need to occur within 12 hours at each station where time was shown for that regular train.  This type of operation would usually use the “run late” order: “Second No. 47 Eng 2345, run 2 hours late C to J, and 1 hour 30 minutes late J to Z.”  This would allow inferior trains to move against Second No. 47 even after meeting or being passed by First No. 47 operating on time.

[/quote]

 

[Vermontanan2]

rcdrye

All three trains operated separately from the GN station in Minneapolis to SPUD, with GN, NP and CB&Q crews and numbers, from where they were either combined or fitted with appropriate marker to run as sections under the Black Hawk's number.

 

 

Yes, all the trains operated as Great Northern trains as this was the GN from Minneapolis to St. Paul.  Usually, the GN train number in the timetable was different than the train number used by the foreign railroad.  (In 1953, for example, the Black Hawk was trains 923 and 930.)

 

https://www.gn-npjointarchive.org/GN%20Timetable%20Scans/GN%2019530927%20ETT%20302%20TWIN%20CITY%20TERMINALS.pdf 

 

Same thing in the early 1950s on CB&Q between St. Paul and Chicago:  Great Northern timetables (and in the Official Guide) refers the Western Star as trains 3 and 4 between Chicago and St. Paul, but the CB&Q employee and public timetables referred to the Western Star as trains 53 and 54.