henry6 BaltACD To my knowledge, no tower or control point was ever 'shared' between Train Dispatcher control and operator control. Define "control". A tower could be "closed", no operator on duty, but still be a block station or block limit station under the "control" of the dispatcher. The dispatcher may not operate any of the switches or signals at the location but can use the location to base train orders and schedules.
BaltACD To my knowledge, no tower or control point was ever 'shared' between Train Dispatcher control and operator control.
Define "control". A tower could be "closed", no operator on duty, but still be a block station or block limit station under the "control" of the dispatcher. The dispatcher may not operate any of the switches or signals at the location but can use the location to base train orders and schedules.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
MP173RWM:Economically or operationally would it make sense for Fostoria Tower to remain open? Is that a special situation in the world of railroad operations? F Tower more of less is a traffic cop, actually acting as a subdivision within the CSX Great Lakes Division, Western Region. From time to time, particularly in the winter months while landlocked inside, I will listen to the scanner feed at Fostoria and it is quite a location (never been there). The flow of trains not only thru town, but also from line to line is rather fluid. Could that be accomplished as well or better from a centralized location?BTW....thanks for the suggestion on Vance...I am about 65 pages in and it is very, very educational. What a great perspective to write a book, the geographically history. Not only is this a book on railroading, but also a historical economics lesson. ed
RWM:Economically or operationally would it make sense for Fostoria Tower to remain open? Is that a special situation in the world of railroad operations?
F Tower more of less is a traffic cop, actually acting as a subdivision within the CSX Great Lakes Division, Western Region.
From time to time, particularly in the winter months while landlocked inside, I will listen to the scanner feed at Fostoria and it is quite a location (never been there). The flow of trains not only thru town, but also from line to line is rather fluid. Could that be accomplished as well or better from a centralized location?BTW....thanks for the suggestion on Vance...I am about 65 pages in and it is very, very educational. What a great perspective to write a book, the geographically history. Not only is this a book on railroading, but also a historical economics lesson.
ed
Ed -- I'm shan't comment on what railways should do or will do.
Glad you're finding Vance useful. For me it put order, rigor, and science, for what for me had been a lot of chaotic observation, thought, and unfinished threads. Given what I've seen on this forum of your inquisitive and open mind, I thought it would be as useful for you as it was for me ...
RWM
OK. But strictly speaking, if a tower is closed, all switches aligned and signals cleared, and is used as a schedule point or block station, it is "under control" of the dispatcher whether or not he can manipulate switches or signals.
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
Paul_D_North_Jr Chris30 I don't see JB Tower in W. Chicago becoming an automated crossing any time soon. The operations there are just too complex. Multiple grade crossings next to the diamond / tower make it more interesting. Even though the "J" operated the tower, the UP dispatcher (#11) dictated most of the movements through there because there were only a handful of "J" freights and trackage rights trains. Now, with CN taking over and wanting to run up to thirty trains a day through W. Chicago I expect some issues in the near future. I'm not sure if it can be done but the UP and CN might want to work out some type of joint operation with employees from both railroads working the tower on different shifts. It would make sense to have a UP employee operate the tower on the first and second shifts due to the Metra traffic and a CN employee cover the third shift because I expect a majority of the CN freight will move at night. CC There's an extensive discussion of this situation in the STB's Preliminary Environmental Assessment (? on exact title) for the CN/ EJ&E acquisition, including nearby "staging" (waiting) areas & lengths, hours of occupying the crossing, CN at night, etc. It's in/ under STB Finance Docket FD-35087, if I remember correctly, and in Sections 3.something (3.02 ?) for existing operations and Section 4.something (4.03 ?) for proposed operations, plus the Appendices. If I can find it again I'll post the links and citations to the specific pages. You fellas from Chi-town will likely find it very interesting. - Paul North.
Chris30 I don't see JB Tower in W. Chicago becoming an automated crossing any time soon. The operations there are just too complex. Multiple grade crossings next to the diamond / tower make it more interesting. Even though the "J" operated the tower, the UP dispatcher (#11) dictated most of the movements through there because there were only a handful of "J" freights and trackage rights trains. Now, with CN taking over and wanting to run up to thirty trains a day through W. Chicago I expect some issues in the near future. I'm not sure if it can be done but the UP and CN might want to work out some type of joint operation with employees from both railroads working the tower on different shifts. It would make sense to have a UP employee operate the tower on the first and second shifts due to the Metra traffic and a CN employee cover the third shift because I expect a majority of the CN freight will move at night. CC
I'm not sure if it can be done but the UP and CN might want to work out some type of joint operation with employees from both railroads working the tower on different shifts. It would make sense to have a UP employee operate the tower on the first and second shifts due to the Metra traffic and a CN employee cover the third shift because I expect a majority of the CN freight will move at night.
CC
There's an extensive discussion of this situation in the STB's Preliminary Environmental Assessment (? on exact title) for the CN/ EJ&E acquisition, including nearby "staging" (waiting) areas & lengths, hours of occupying the crossing, CN at night, etc. It's in/ under STB Finance Docket FD-35087, if I remember correctly, and in Sections 3.something (3.02 ?) for existing operations and Section 4.something (4.03 ?) for proposed operations, plus the Appendices. If I can find it again I'll post the links and citations to the specific pages. You fellas from Chi-town will likely find it very interesting.
- Paul North.
OK, here are the links and references:
STB's "Background and Overview" page: http://www.stbfinancedocket35087.com/html/bkgrndoverview.html
What is essentially the Internet or "html" format "Table of Contents" for the Draft EIS is:
at: http://www.stb.dot.gov/Decisions/readingroom.nsf/WEBUNID/61898F9CADC3C7508525748E006688AC?OpenDocument
The formal Table of Contents is at (23 pages, approx. 76 KB in size):
http://www.stb.dot.gov/Decisions/readingroom.nsf/UNID/61898F9CADC3C7508525748E006688AC/$file/00.07_TOC_July08.pdf
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment, Section 3.1 - Current Rail Operations - 03.01_RailOperations_July08.pdf - is at (34 pages, approx. 3,714 KB in size):
http://www.stb.dot.gov/Decisions/readingroom.nsf/UNID/61898F9CADC3C7508525748E006688AC/$file/03.01_RailOperations_July08.pdf
Almost the whole document is worth reading, despite its size (a lot of graphic figures that use up a lot of KB, I suspect). Sections 3.1.2.6 - Interlockings and 3.1.2.7. - Trains Staging Locations near Interlockings are on pages 3.1-7 through 3.1-16 (Pages 7 through 16 of 34 of the PDF version); Metra Operations over EJ&E at-grade crossings are discussed on pages 3.1-25 through 3.1-27 (Pages 25 through 27 of 34 of the PDF version). West Chicago - in addition to appearing in the various tables in this presentation - is depicted in Figure 3.1-4 - West Chicago Train Staging Locations on page 3.1-13 (Page 13 of 27 of the PDF version).
The description and analysis of the proposed rail operations are in Chapter 4 - Environmental Consequences, Section 4.1 - Rail Operations - 04.01_RailOperations_July08.pdf - is at (52 pages, approx. 453 KB in size):
http://www.stb.dot.gov/Decisions/readingroom.nsf/UNID/61898F9CADC3C7508525748E006688AC/$file/04.01_RailOperations_July08.pdf
While West Chicago appears at numerous places in this section, it (and Barrington) are principally discussed in Section 4.1.7.3 Proposed Action under the caption "Existing and Expanded Metra Service on Rail Lines That Cross Affected EJ&E" on pages 4.1-42 throught 4.1-45 (Pages 42 through 45 of 52 of the PDF version) and the accompanying associated tables and figures.
Also, note that Figure 4.1-5 - Historic Rail Traffic Patterns in Chicago, Sheets 1 and 2 of 2 on pages 4.1-18 and 4.1-19 (Pages 18 and 19 of 52 of the "PDF" version) are "Reprinted With Permission" from Trains ! (looks like Copyright 2004).
I did not see anything in either Appendix B - Rail Operations Analysis 02.00_AppendixB_July08.pdf (5 pages, approx. 52 KB in size) at: http://www.stb.dot.gov/Decisions/readingroom.nsf/UNID/61898F9CADC3C7508525748E006688AC/$file/02.00_AppendixB_July08.pdf or Attachment B1 - Applicants’ Projected Rail Traffic (CN’s March 12 and January 3, 2008 Letters) 02.01_AppendixB_Attachments_July08.pdf (75 pages, approx. 3.8 MB in size) at: http://www.stb.dot.gov/Decisions/readingroom.nsf/UNID/61898F9CADC3C7508525748E006688AC/$file/02.01_AppendixB_Attachments_July08.pdf that directly affected West Chicago, although there sure is a lot of interesting reading and data in there as well !
I hope this is informative. Let me know if you find anything else pertaining to this suject, either on the STB's website or elsewhere.
If you want to get into a tower and operate it, keep an eye on www.grassellitower.com. Hoosier Valley Railroad Museum of North Judson, IN is moving this 67 lever tower from its' IHB East Chicago site to the museum. The top half arrived last Saturday, and bottom will arrive this coming Saturday. We plan to restore it to operational use on our railroad.
Carl
Railroader Emeritus (practiced railroading for 46 years--and in 2010 I finally got it right!)
CAACSCOCOM--I don't want to behave improperly, so I just won't behave at all. (SM)
Carl:West Chicago is a very interesting junction with lots happening. It would be very difficult to do anything to that line without a major, make that MAJOR rebuilding.
Fred...I look forward to Grasselli Tower in it's new location. Hats off to your organization's work. BTW did you know Ray Stokes? His wife is having an estate railroad sale this Saturday. I know Ray was involved some with your organization.
The only Tower I ever had experience with was the one at Frisco Lindenwood Yards. My Dad took me up in it a couple of times and you had a great overall view of the Yards. I remember being scared to walk up the 7 sets of steps from the ground level, I don't like heights. But it was torn down a few years ago, I assume it was no longer needed. Just like the Yard office where my Dad worked is gone too. A classmate retired as switchman a couple of years ago and he said all the yard work was being down with radios, no need for the office clerks. Dad died before BN originally took over Frisco. The office was still there for years but the Frisco name was removed. This upset my Mom who had worked for them too, 3rd generation employee.
CShaveRRThe nearest operating tower to me is West Chicago, which is operated by EJ&E
The road to to success is always under construction. _____________________________________________________________________________ When the going gets tough, the tough use duct tape.
No I don't know Ray. Did hear about the auction, but Saturday was a very busy day for us. Tower has arrived, plans are to remove all the old I-Beams and place new on foundation, move the first floor onto the foundation, and expect the crane to be in Thursday to place the second story. This will be a VERY busy week for us. We are hosting the NKP 765 for the Memorial Day weekend - lots happening.
Ray had done some work with your organization and was a great guy. He had tons of railroad stuff and I managed to pickup a number of books, timetables, and a few other things.
How/when is 765 coming to Judson?
MP173Railroad towers have always been fascinating to me. These days what little railroad photography I do is often based on locating and photography existing towers, either in service or retired. Fortunately in Chicago and NW Indiana there are still several towers still in operation. To gain an invitation inside is very rare, but quite a special experience. Ok, this is not about nostalgia, but rather the functionability of towers at certain junctions. At a fairly busy or complex junction, such as Fostoria, is it more efficient to have local control, in form of a tower and operator rather than centralized dispatch hundreds of miles distant? Perhaps my question is better phrased as "does a local tower operator keep the traffic moving more efficiently than central dispatch?" I fully understand the cost consideration involved and the labor saved, but there sure seem to still be a number of towers still in existance. Why? (hopefully this will not jinx those still in operation). ed
Railroad towers have always been fascinating to me. These days what little railroad photography I do is often based on locating and photography existing towers, either in service or retired.
Fortunately in Chicago and NW Indiana there are still several towers still in operation. To gain an invitation inside is very rare, but quite a special experience.
Ok, this is not about nostalgia, but rather the functionability of towers at certain junctions. At a fairly busy or complex junction, such as Fostoria, is it more efficient to have local control, in form of a tower and operator rather than centralized dispatch hundreds of miles distant? Perhaps my question is better phrased as "does a local tower operator keep the traffic moving more efficiently than central dispatch?"
I fully understand the cost consideration involved and the labor saved, but there sure seem to still be a number of towers still in existance. Why? (hopefully this will not jinx those still in operation).
It depends on what keeps the tower operator busy. If it is mostly main line trains and diamonds, it becomes quite reasonable to remote it to the dispatcher controlling the rest of the busy route, and often will improve the operating efficiency.
On the other hand, if the tower also manages a lot of local switching moves that use the plant due to the proximity of a major yard you will likely still need operators dedicated to that location. If the interlocking has been modernized with microprocessor logic they can easily be moved to the remote dispatching center. No labor savings, only utilities, property tax and building maintenance is avoided. But in this situation it usually works better if the operator is on the spot where he can watch, understand and predict how to choreograph the competing moves. Train crews are infamous for requesting a signal considerably in advance of when they actually need it (sometimes because when they are ready to roll the dispatcher is busy elsewhere and doesn't respond). An operator on the spot is able to judge the actual situation and act accordingly.
John
John:Thanks for the explanation. It was my understanding that in certain "complex" arrangements, or perhaps extremely busy locations, it was worth having an operator on the spot, serving as a traffic cop, if you will. Having no railroading experience, it is difficult for me to quantify that argument. Your explanation confirmed what my belief was.
More than likely the number of such locations is few and far between these days.
cx500 [snips] But in this situation it usually works better if the operator is on the spot where he can watch, understand and predict how to choreograph the competing moves. Train crews are infamous for requesting a signal considerably in advance of when they actually need it (sometimes because when they are ready to roll the dispatcher is busy elsewhere and doesn't respond). An operator on the spot is able to judge the actual situation and act accordingly. John
I just love the dynamics as exemplified by the above explanation. Oh yeah - has the ring of truth to it, too - and too true to be funny, as the saying goes. Talk about a self-fulfilling prophecy and descending spiral of false economy dysfunctionality that ties up key interlockings from everybody way longer than necessary, as follows:
Train Crew: "Better go ahead and ask for the signal now - who knows how long it'll be until the DS gets back to us ? That way, we might get it by when we actually need it."
DS: "That crew's always asking for that route long before they actually need it. So it can wait until I handle these 6 moves over here and there, and get these 2 trains past them - then I can get back to them, and by then they might really be ready for it."
Repeat above dialogue several times daily, as necessary until everyone involved becomes throughly frustrated and cynical about each other. Season with periodic sessions to try to motivate everyone to dooperate and coordinate better with each other - which lasts about 2 days before it's back to the above.
Definitely the Op has a role to play here as the traffic cop, diplomat, and intermediary between the two competing legitimate needs. As such, he probably earns his pay in terms of expediting the yard and switching operations to their benefit, and avoiding delays to the main line trains and helping to keep that line fluid and running at capacity - even if he's not busy 100 % of the time. But I bet too many managers myopically focus on the percentage of time he's not actually handling trains, and therefore mistakenly conclude that position can be more economically handled by being remoted or consolidated with another one anyway . . . How do you explain or justify to them otherwise ???
Good example and explanation - thanks.
Paul_D_North_Jr ZOO Tower on Amtrak's former PRR NorthEast Corridor, about a mile north of 30th St. Station in Philadelphia, is supposedly too busy or difficult to automate. It's the junction of several different passenger and freight routes - and hosts SEPTA commuter trains plus NS freights to and from various places in the area.
ZOO Tower on Amtrak's former PRR NorthEast Corridor, about a mile north of 30th St. Station in Philadelphia, is supposedly too busy or difficult to automate. It's the junction of several different passenger and freight routes - and hosts SEPTA commuter trains plus NS freights to and from various places in the area.
From a source apparently inside Amtrak:
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
By "manual interlockings" I assume you mean "manned interlockings", having a person on duty at the location. The term "manual interlocking" usually refers to an interlocking where all switches are thrown at the switch by hand. Let's not confuse the confused any more than necessary.
henry6By "manual interlockings" I assume you mean "manned interlockings", having a person on duty at the location. The term "manual interlocking" usually refers to an interlocking where all switches are thrown at the switch by hand. Let's not confuse the confused any more than necessary.
No offense, but that is not the standard definition used within the railway industry. Within federal and state law, operating rules such as GCOR, and the AREMA manual, a manual interlocking is defined as "under human control" as opposed to an interlocking under automatic (non-human) control. It does not matter whether the human is in a tower or in a dispatching office 1,000 miles away, a human still controls it. Whether the physical mechanism of control is a human pulling a lever or clicking a mouse is irrelevant to the Method of Operation of a railway.
I don't know who is being confused, but it's not railroaders. I know some of the railfan publications get matters bollixed up sometimes, which doesn't help.
I guess there are three types of junctions.
Non-interlocked junctions of course are just that, with no hard protection against conflicting moves. If a diamond crossing, it is just like a 4-way stop intersection on city streets. If it is a junction with a diverging branch the train crew will have to throw the switch, and protection against conflicting moves is covered by train orders, manual block clearances or whatever the local rule book requires. So if switches are thrown at the switch by hand it is non-interlocked except in the sense that on a signaled route an open switch will cause the signals to drop to red.
The second is the automatic interlocking, which is primarily limited to diamond crossings. When a train reaches the approach circuit, if there are no conflicting moves already on the cross track(s), the signal will clear for it. Obviously any subsequent train approaching on the other road then will have to wait its turn. It's first-come, first-served; whether it is a hotshot or drag freight makes no difference.
Technically, any interlocking where humans make the decision is a manual interlocking. It doesn't matter whether the human is in the local tower or miles away. However, the term is often used to describe the very specific type of manual interlocking where lots of rodding physically connects the tower operator to the various switches and signals. The large levers in classic old photographs were very necessary to push or pull 500 feet or more of iron rods and move the switch points over. Very few examples survive, since electric switch machines are far simpler to maintain.
As an aside, it appears that the evolution of the interlocking was in phases. First was the mechanically interlocked frame with the rodding connected to the levers. Then came electro-mechanical interlocking. The (smaller) levers were still mechanically interlocked, but when moved actuated electric motors at the switch or signal location (occasionally switches were operated pneumatically instead). The next step was electric interlocking with banks of relays replacing the mechanical logic. Today it will be microprocessors.
Toronto Union Station may have been the last major installation of electro-mechanical interlocking, done about 1930. When changes were made to the plant about 1978 it was fortunate there was still an old head around who could work out the necessary modifications to the interlocking, with its "IF" dogs and "WHEN" dogs for the many affected routes. The plant is now in the course of being modernized but hopefully the old interlocking machines will be preserved.
BaltACD Irrespective of any Joint Facility agreements and what they may specify. The operator at a Tower or the Train Dispatcher who has direct control of a railroad crossing at grade knows whose name is printed on their pay checks and will give their employer all reasonable (and sometimes unreasonable) priorities.
I've long thought that achieving better operational efficiencies - such as faster schedules, "velocity", etc. - over routes and regions that are presently split up between 2 (or more) railroads can be more quickly and pragmatically accomplished by better coordination and with comparatively simple agreements, instead of by the more problematical mergers & acquisitions, etc.
The quote above is the perfect counter-argument to that belief, and illustrates why the present situations continue and it can be so hard to achieve improvement otherwise.
cx500 MP173 [snip] Ok, this is not about nostalgia, but rather the functionability of towers at certain junctions. At a fairly busy or complex junction, such as Fostoria, is it more efficient to have local control, in form of a tower and operator rather than centralized dispatch hundreds of miles distant? Perhaps my question is better phrased as "does a local tower operator keep the traffic moving more efficiently than central dispatch?" I fully understand the cost consideration involved and the labor saved, but there sure seem to still be a number of towers still in existance. Why? (hopefully this will not jinx those still in operation). ed [snip] On the other hand, if the tower also manages a lot of local switching moves that use the plant due to the proximity of a major yard you will likely still need operators dedicated to that location. If the interlocking has been modernized with microprocessor logic they can easily be moved to the remote dispatching center. No labor savings, only utilities, property tax and building maintenance is avoided. But in this situation it usually works better if the operator is on the spot where he can watch, understand and predict how to choreograph the competing moves. Train crews are infamous for requesting a signal considerably in advance of when they actually need it (sometimes because when they are ready to roll the dispatcher is busy elsewhere and doesn't respond). An operator on the spot is able to judge the actual situation and act accordingly. John
MP173 [snip] Ok, this is not about nostalgia, but rather the functionability of towers at certain junctions. At a fairly busy or complex junction, such as Fostoria, is it more efficient to have local control, in form of a tower and operator rather than centralized dispatch hundreds of miles distant? Perhaps my question is better phrased as "does a local tower operator keep the traffic moving more efficiently than central dispatch?" I fully understand the cost consideration involved and the labor saved, but there sure seem to still be a number of towers still in existance. Why? (hopefully this will not jinx those still in operation). ed
[snip]
In such situations, how much information does the operator have about the "line-up" (informal schedule) of trains coming his way each day and when, and their current status, so as to better plan and coordinate the route clearances and allowed moves ? Does he know only when the main line trains eventually "hit the bell" (approach his interlocking), or does he have better real-time advance information ? Does he - or could he, or should he - have access to the info on the DS' display ? In other words, is there a computer screen in the tower that he can check for the latest info on which trains are late, and which ones are early ? He might be OK to allow a switching move across the plant if No. 26 is running 20 minutes behind today, but not if it's 10 minutes early. See also that article in Trains about the delays on the passenger train route from Chicago to St. Louis in the last issue or two.
oltmannd Paul_D_North_Jr ZOO Tower on Amtrak's former PRR NorthEast Corridor, about a mile north of 30th St. Station in Philadelphia, is supposedly too busy or difficult to automate. It's the junction of several different passenger and freight routes - and hosts SEPTA commuter trains plus NS freights to and from various places in the area. From a source apparently inside Amtrak: "Mark your calendars. The attached configuration diagram shows the new configuration for what will almost certainly end the last manually controlled interlocking on the NEC spine (I’m taking a bit of license here since ‘K’ in WTC and ‘Q’ in SSYD will still manually over see terminal movements). Once considered “unremotable” due to its size, the grand tower’s control was broken into smaller interlockings and brought into CETC, one-by-one, until only movements on the Harrisburg Line have remained. The reconfiguration project is among those requested by Amtrak to receive Stimulus Bill funding so these changes could begin quickly.The plan has been carefully coordinated with SEPTA and NS to preserve future opportunities for freight traffic. SEPTA is also completing designs to finally end its use of the famous “jump-over bridge” at 52nd St., once the route of all main line trains to the west. Construction of an at-grade replacement is scheduled within the next couple of years. When the Zoo – Overbrook work is completed, ‘Paoli’, ‘Thorn’, and ‘State’ on the Harrisburg Line and LAB Bridge in Albany, NY, still remain as manual interlockings. But, the clock is ticking loudly…"
"Mark your calendars. The attached configuration diagram shows the new configuration for what will almost certainly end the last manually controlled interlocking on the NEC spine (I’m taking a bit of license here since ‘K’ in WTC and ‘Q’ in SSYD will still manually over see terminal movements). Once considered “unremotable” due to its size, the grand tower’s control was broken into smaller interlockings and brought into CETC, one-by-one, until only movements on the Harrisburg Line have remained. The reconfiguration project is among those requested by Amtrak to receive Stimulus Bill funding so these changes could begin quickly.The plan has been carefully coordinated with SEPTA and NS to preserve future opportunities for freight traffic. SEPTA is also completing designs to finally end its use of the famous “jump-over bridge” at 52nd St., once the route of all main line trains to the west. Construction of an at-grade replacement is scheduled within the next couple of years. When the Zoo – Overbrook work is completed, ‘Paoli’, ‘Thorn’, and ‘State’ on the Harrisburg Line and LAB Bridge in Albany, NY, still remain as manual interlockings. But, the clock is ticking loudly…"
Bummer, man. But thanks for letting us know. Good news part - maybe a little while yet to get some photos of it. Maybe one of the railfan groups can organize a tour of it some weekend.
Better yet - wouldn't it make a great railfan club or park ? Well, that neighborhood isn't the best, and the potential liability aspects would likely freak out SEPTA and NS and maybe AMTRAK as well, but the rail activity would rival Rochelle, FOlkston, and all the others - and no place else would have that passenger mix of the NEC plus Keystone plus SEPTA, plus NS freight and even some CSX freight nearby - all just a couple blocks from a major Interstate, I-76 (a/k/a the Schuylkill Expressway).
Note how this seemingly undoable project was acomplished - like the proverbial instructions for eating an elephant: "One bite at a time !" Or: "The merely difficult we accomplish immediately; the impossible takes a little longer."
I take it that K Tower at "WTC" is Washington [D.C.] Terminal Co., and Q Tower at "SSYD" is SunnySide YarD ?
Interesting that PAOLI - in the heart of SEPTA's western Philadelphia, PA commuter territory and the intermediate destination / origin of many runs on the R-5 route - and STATE in Harrisburg, PA where a lot of local activity occurs at the several big junctions - will stay open. But I wonder why THORN (Thorndale, PA - about 5 miles west of Downingtown) is still in operation - I did not think it was of like kind. But maybe there's enough SEPTA action at that end of the R-5 to justify it.
Anyway, thanks for sharing that, Don.
Paul_D_North_JrIn such situations, how much information does the operator have about the "line-up" (informal schedule) of trains coming his way each day and when, and their current status, so as to better plan and coordinate the route clearances and allowed moves ? Does he know only when the main line trains eventually "hit the bell" (approach his interlocking), or does he have better real-time advance information ? Does he - or could he, or should he - have access to the info on the DS' display ? In other words, is there a computer screen in the tower that he can check for the latest info on which trains are late, and which ones are early ? He might be OK to allow a switching move across the plant if No. 26 is running 20 minutes behind today, but not if it's 10 minutes early. See also that article in Trains about the delays on the passenger train route from Chicago to St. Louis in the last issue or two. - Paul North.
The specific example is 12th Street tower in Calgary, and is the only remaining one on CPR, at least on the Canadian side of the border. Calgary is a crew change point for all trains. The territory controlled by the tower now extends several miles in each direction but it is located at the west throat of the Alyth Yard near the junction of north and south lines with the main east-west mainline. At one time there were additional towers downtown in the depot area, but their roles got added to 12th Street.
The operator will be coordinating with the four dispatchers and the yardmaster to manage trains departing or arriving at the the hump yard, trains stopping somewhere in the terminal area to change crews, power being turned on the north or south wye, power to/from their trains on some tracks, long hump cuts that may foul the main when pulling a track, and the occasional industrial switcher. No passenger trains to speak of, but nowadays management can get just as upset if a hot freight gets delayed!
Take a look on Google Earth and you will see that there are geographical constraints that compress a lot of railroad into a tight space.
Paul_D_North_Jr cx500 MP173 [snip] Ok, this is not about nostalgia, but rather the functionability of towers at certain junctions. At a fairly busy or complex junction, such as Fostoria, is it more efficient to have local control, in form of a tower and operator rather than centralized dispatch hundreds of miles distant? Perhaps my question is better phrased as "does a local tower operator keep the traffic moving more efficiently than central dispatch?" I fully understand the cost consideration involved and the labor saved, but there sure seem to still be a number of towers still in existance. Why? (hopefully this will not jinx those still in operation). ed [snip] On the other hand, if the tower also manages a lot of local switching moves that use the plant due to the proximity of a major yard you will likely still need operators dedicated to that location. If the interlocking has been modernized with microprocessor logic they can easily be moved to the remote dispatching center. No labor savings, only utilities, property tax and building maintenance is avoided. But in this situation it usually works better if the operator is on the spot where he can watch, understand and predict how to choreograph the competing moves. Train crews are infamous for requesting a signal considerably in advance of when they actually need it (sometimes because when they are ready to roll the dispatcher is busy elsewhere and doesn't respond). An operator on the spot is able to judge the actual situation and act accordingly. John In such situations, how much information does the operator have about the "line-up" (informal schedule) of trains coming his way each day and when, and their current status, so as to better plan and coordinate the route clearances and allowed moves ? Does he know only when the main line trains eventually "hit the bell" (approach his interlocking), or does he have better real-time advance information ? Does he - or could he, or should he - have access to the info on the DS' display ? In other words, is there a computer screen in the tower that he can check for the latest info on which trains are late, and which ones are early ? He might be OK to allow a switching move across the plant if No. 26 is running 20 minutes behind today, but not if it's 10 minutes early. See also that article in Trains about the delays on the passenger train route from Chicago to St. Louis in the last issue or two.
It's the May 2009 issue, the PASSENGER section, pp. 22 - 23, "Slow Tracks Won't Help Fast Trains" by Bob Johnston, about the operating hurdles on the "ragtag" Lincoln Corridor.
- PDN.
Paul_D_North_JrInteresting that PAOLI - in the heart of SEPTA's western Philadelphia, PA commuter territory and the intermediate destination / origin of many runs on the R-5 route - and STATE in Harrisburg, PA where a lot of local activity occurs at the several big junctions - will stay open. But I wonder why THORN (Thorndale, PA - about 5 miles west of Downingtown) is still in operation - I did not think it was of like kind. But maybe there's enough SEPTA action at that end of the R-5 to justify it.
I think it has more with the Main Line to Harrisburg being the forgotten, neglected NEC branch. Any capital for improvement went into the NEC proper as the Harrisburg Line sunk into the swamp.
artschlosser Since I worked only in Illinois, I don't know about other states. But along the route of the old C&A - later GM&O, ICG, CMW, SP and now UP - the road that was there first signed the pay checks of the tower employees. Thus Iles (Springfield) had 'Wabash' employees, Joliet had CRIP employees, but Corwith had C&A lineage employees. I worked at Corwith and would not let ATSF freight trains, leaving or entering the yard, hinder the passage of our trains - much to the chagrin of the Corwith Yard Master, an ATSF employee; but I was within my rights if you go by the rule book of that time. Now who actually is footing the bill for the tower and employees is determined by the original contract signed by the original two roads. Art
I worked at Corwith and would not let ATSF freight trains, leaving or entering the yard, hinder the passage of our trains - much to the chagrin of the Corwith Yard Master, an ATSF employee; but I was within my rights if you go by the rule book of that time.
Now who actually is footing the bill for the tower and employees is determined by the original contract signed by the original two roads.
Art
Since my previous attempt to post to this disappeared without a trace, I'll try to recreate it:
This (above) is a classic example of the operations of a junior road (ATSF) being subject to the superior rights of a senior road (C&A and successors), according to the doctrine of "First in time, first in right", absent an agreement or order from the Public Utilities Commission (or similar) which would vary that general rule.
Likely the C&A etc. continued to sign the paychecks - perhaps reimbursed for same by ATSF, though ? - so that there would not be divided loyalties along the lines of "No man can serve 2 masters" as BaltACD mentioned several posts above. What's not stated is whether ATSF was responsible for installing and maintaining the interlocking, etc.
Finally, that CORWITH interlocking was apparently recently upgraded and "remoted". See the February 2009 CREATE newsletter and press releases on same at:
http://www.createprogram.org/Feb2009Newletter.html
http://www.createprogram.org/PDF/WA5%20Benefits2.pdf
http://www.createprogram.org/PDF/WA5%20Benefits%2002.25.09.pdf
PDN, very interesting! Wonder where the interlocking is controlled from. Guess I have a lot more to read.
I'd always thought the at ATSF
I'd always thought the ATSF was shortsighted putting the yard on the other side of the C&A's tracks.
Early in the game the Santa Fe crossed the C&A near South Joliet, proceeded north past the Joliet station and crossed again after the Rock Island tracks. They should have built on the east side up to the Corwith and on to Bridgeport but that's Monday morning quarterbacking.
Within the past couple of years CN and BNSF signed an agreement covering the Corwith - Joliet lines. If memories serves me correctly, it seems that BNSF assumed control of dispatching the entire CN line out to Joliet. Further they might have been given trackage rights to run on that line.
My CORA map does not indicate the CN line can access Corwith Yard, so any trains running the CN would probably make a right hand turn at the IHB. Just a guess and I might be incorrect on all of the above.
This agreement between CN and BNSF might have been part of a larger agreement covering the Southern Illinois - specifically Centralia area.
MP173, I had known that BNSF was dispatching the CN line down to Joliet and running trains on the line, but I hadn't read anywhere that they were controlling the interlocking.
When I worked there, there was a link between the Yard and CN (back then GM&O) to the east but none toward Joliet to the west (and south). A train could be pulled (or backed) from the yard onto the CN tracks, and then move west toward Joliet. A satellite view on google shows a CN double track, the connection from the yard to the eastbound, and a facing points crossover to the westbound track, just the way it was when I was there.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.