Towers

[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.

As far as cost savings:  There's 168 hours in a week = 7 days x 24 hours.  At 40 hours per person per week, that requires 4.2 people minimum without any overtime or allowances for lunch breaks, etc.  Add in vacations, sick days, holidays, etc. and it's probably the equivalent of 5 full-time operators, plus a signal maintainer as Carl suggests (although the maintainer might still be needed even if the place is automated).  So call it 5 positions that cost the railroad about $100,000 per year (say $25 to $30 per hour in base wages) = $50 per hour, $400 per day, with wages & fringes & OT & extras all added in = potential savings about $500,000 per year.  That will easily support a investment cost to automate of up to around $5 million, which will cover most situations.

Whether those savings are not then lost through increased train delays and other costs from lack of operational flexibility or quick response times, etc. is a separate question.  Probably is different for each location.

- Paul North.

[AgentKid]

MP173

"does a local tower operator keep the traffic moving more efficiently than central dispatch?"

That a question that has bedeviled management through the ages.

I bet there is no one working in Calgary at the 12 St. E. Tower that knows that Calgary once had three towers, they have been so successfully integrated. But at other times it has not gone as smoothly.

Before CTC was fully installed on the Brooks Sub. east of Calgary there used to be operators at Gleichen, Bassano, and Brooks. Gleichen to Brooks was about 60 miles and Brooks to Medicine Hat was also about 60 miles. But Bassano, almost exactly halfway between Gleichen and Brooks, was also a Division Point for the Irricana and Bassano Subs., so it had it share of train order action. Brooks was open and closed several times during the 70's and 80's because the railway felt the 30 mile distance between Brooks and Bassano was too close. But, and I thought of this situation when I read it, in an interview in a TRAINS article several year back the President of the FEC said one of their capital improvement plans for that year was to replace a siding that they had earlier taken out, because no matter what they did in the office the trains just wanted to meet there!

There are newer examples of this situation still happening on the CPR but I'm not qualified to speak on it. Local dispatching in the Toronto area while the rest of the system in dispatched out of Calgary, for example. So I think there will always be situations where there is no substitute for having a local man at the scene of the action.

 

AgentKid

 

[CShaveRR]

The nearest operating tower to me is West Chicago, which is operated by EJ&E and controls the UP crossing there. The EJ&E's operations through there were fairly straightforward, but UP has always been complicated, with scheduled passenger (Metra) trains, through freights, locals and some manifests going either into the yard or to the Belvidere Sub, and so on. It's become a little more complicated with the new (several years ago) connection from the EJ&E to the UP right at the tower.

As things stand, the UP dispatcher has no control over any of the switches within the plant, so it's up to the operator to line trains up if they're doing anything other than using the straight route for their own track. He also has no knowledge of anything happening on the EJ&E, unless it's actually within the interlocking limits, blocking his own tracks.

Were this plant to become an automatic interlocking, I'm sure the UP dispatcher would be given control of the crossover switches in the plant, as well as the switch leading to the Belvidere Sub and the yard. The EJ&E dispatcher would get control of the switch for the connecting track off the EJ&E. The crossing would be under nobody's control. So the EJ&E dispatcher wouldn't know--or particularly care--if the coal drag that he wanted to get off his track and into the connection was going to be fouling the crossing on Metra's time.

I'm not sure what the cost savings would be for automating this plant--three operators, maybe a signal maintainer, and the upkeep of the tower itself if it were not needed to house any other equipment or offices. Savings to UP would probably be zilch, and signal department employees would be further overtaxed.

[MP173]

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).

 

ed