G'day, During the test period for the proposed development of Train Order Working, two mechanical points indicators were trialed. The standard USRR green and yellow switch vane, and the QR black board with pivoting white arm. The QR board was chosen as it was visible for a greater distance on approach due to our summer foliage colours. All mechanically operated points within Train Order territory were then provided with the QR black board indicator. It was also decided to utilize a slightly different Main Line Indicator compared to the normal Running Signal. Within Train Order territory, the MLI would exhibit a pulsating lunar white light to indicate Clear proceed. The MLI would also exhibit Yellow for Caution proceed and Red for STOP. An MLI was to be utilized where track circuited level crossing protection existed. Plus, to permit entry into Train Order territory from a Controlled location, a Starting MLI would exhibit Clear. To exit Train Order territory into a Controlled location, a normal Running Signal would grant permission. Begin TOW and End TOW boards being positioned at the entry and exit of such territory. Originally, all points at a Train Order location were mechanically operated by the train crew. Recently, radio controlled motorized points are also provided at certain locations for Loop switches. An MLI exists at such points and has the adapted Turnout Indicator. In 1959, the NSWR gradually implemented a slanted three subsidiary lamp turnout indicator. Similar to the Pennsylvania Railway Position Light signal, but I believe not sourced from such. This applied to Main Running Signals of the Single Light type at locations of Main Line loop or refuge turnout. Originally, three subsidiary white lamps provided the indication below the Main Running Yellow indication. However, this caused crew confusion and after some derailments, the indication was altered. The trio of slanted subsidiary lamps becoming Yellow and the Main Running indication being Red. This has been adapted for Train Order territory use to provide three slanted lunar white lamps for turnout. The implementation of the radio operated turnout in TOW occurred after I had departed from NSW. So, I have not worked a train where such turnout indications exist today. But, I presume that the indications would replicate those for current Rail Vehicle Detection territory. The trio of slanted lunar white lamps being steady illumination for Caution turnout, next MLI at stop. The trio of lamps pulsating lunar white to indicate Medium turnout, next MLI not displaying stop. The pulsating Yellow Main Running Signal indication was implemented to provide for additional braking distance. This also applied to Turnout Indicators where the next signal encountered is not displaying Stop. An example being at a normal refuge where a following train is worked around a stationary train on the Main Line. However, within Train Order territory, I am not sure if such a manoeuvre would be necessary, except during a failure. Steve.
G'day John,
I based me comment concerning Canada on a PDF document that I scrounged some time ago.
It was a Canadian rail document published about the ETS safe working system.
Yes, very old, but very detailed and also included circuit wiring diagrams for interlocking the various ETS instruments.
The system also providing for Divisible ETS, the token rod being unscrewed into a couple of portions, the STAFF portion, and one or more TICKET portions.
This enabling following train movement, worked under section time, the first train / s travelling on the Ticket portion / s, the final train travelling on the Staff portion.
We had divisible ETS working in NSW, though I never worked it here in the Central West.
However, we did have Bank Engne Key ETS working here, also detailed in the Canadian ETS document.
Westbound trains requiring banking to climb the 6 km long 1 in 40 (2.5%) Tumulla Bank.
The bank engine dropping off the rear at the 260 km peg at the top of the climb, to return to the staff station in the rear while the train continued to the staff station in advance.
The Bank Engine Key locking the instruments while the bank engine was still in the section.
There were two types of ETS in use here in NSW, the Miniature Staff was the common, but we also had Large Staff in use.
The exchange hoop used for the miniature staff to be exchanged on the fly (25 kph during day and 15 kph during night) when performed by hand.
Automatic staff exchangers did exist in some high traffic regions, though I never worked those regions.
I enjoyed working under ETS
Steve.
stevej G'day Chris, Yes, it would appear that there might be some variations of the Original Safe Working formats around the globe. Though, I do believe that most railways on the planet with single line working did possess ETS (electric train staff) interlocked instrument token working, including in Canada. ..... Steve.
G'day Chris,
Yes, it would appear that there might be some variations of the Original Safe Working formats around the globe.
Though, I do believe that most railways on the planet with single line working did possess ETS (electric train staff) interlocked instrument token working, including in Canada.
.....
Jeff, I think that at the time I probably just figured it meant "on station," not that anyone told me that, or I saw that written somewhere. And never having seen anything challenging that, until now, that meaning just stuck, for me. So there's a good chance I've just been wrong all this time.
Though, I do believe that most railways on the planet with single line working did possess ETS (electric train staff) interlocked instrument token working, inlcuding in Canada.
Here in NSW, the British Tablet token working was firstly adopted, but this was subsequently replaced with ETS system.
I was not all that impressed with our Train Order Working when introduced in 1997.
The Mishap Order to rectify an operational incident was very problematic, something to do with the computer software.
I will post links to examples of both the NSW Train Order and Tasrail Track Warrant.
http://s3.amazonaws.com/rrpa_photos/121487/Train%20Order%2040150%20oct%201999.JPG
http://s3.amazonaws.com/rrpa_photos/121487/PNT%20protect%20against%20Trackwarrant.JPG
stevej But, I did not work under such systems until Train Order Working was implemented here in NSW in 1997. TOW was chosen to replace the traditional single line manual systems of Ordinary Train Staff and Ticket plus Electric Train Staff. I grew up with these systems and enjoyed working under them. The TOW implemented here is not similar to the original USRR version. Excepting that it features Yard Limits.
But, I did not work under such systems until Train Order Working was implemented here in NSW in 1997. TOW was chosen to replace the traditional single line manual systems of Ordinary Train Staff and Ticket plus Electric Train Staff. I grew up with these systems and enjoyed working under them. The TOW implemented here is not similar to the original USRR version. Excepting that it features Yard Limits.
Yes, despite a similar sounding term in the name, the NZ system you describe is not remotely at all similar to what we mean when we talk about "train orders" in North America. Here, that term is always intimately associated with timetable operation, as described throughout.
Chris van der Heide
My Algoma Central Railway Modeling Blog
B&O rules permitted all train orders to be typed and required the typed orders to be all caps. A standard piece of office equipment was the billing machine typewriter that only had capital letters. Billing machines were used to create waybills which also were required to be done in capital letters.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
At first, all train orders had to be written by hand. Later on, speed restriction orders could be typewritten. Eventually, all types of orders could be typewritten.
When using a typewriter, they were supposed to be in all capital letters. I have some in my collection that weren't all capital. I've seen a set of orders on another site where the operator also used punctuation, another no-no on train orders.
Lithonia Opr, you've opened a can of worms concerning the origins of OS. I'm in the "on sheet", as in station record or block sheet, camp. Others are in the "out of station" camp. Those who's only knowledge of OS is in the modern context of the OS being the interlocking or CTC control point, the trackage between the absolute signals, think it means "over switch".
Jeff
Lithonia Operator Johnny, you are exactly right. I had forgotten. It would always be, for example, "Train number 103 Engine 365 meet train number 24 Engine 248 at Conyers." Or maybe just "Eng" was used. (Actually, on the GARR at least, the entire orders were in all caps: ENGINE or ENG.) And yes, it was totally critical that the trains cound be identified that way.
Johnny, you are exactly right. I had forgotten.
It would always be, for example, "Train number 103 Engine 365 meet train number 24 Engine 248 at Conyers." Or maybe just "Eng" was used.
(Actually, on the GARR at least, the entire orders were in all caps: ENGINE or ENG.)
And yes, it was totally critical that the trains cound be identified that way.
I have seen orders written in longhand.
Johnny
The train orders that I read gave the number of the lead engine of each train, so that opposing crewmen would know for certain just what train they were meeting.
I definitely remember typing those Run X hrs./mins late orders, and Wait orders also.
On a single track railroad operating under TT&TO method of operation with both Schedules and Class and needless to say Direction. Schedules remain in effect for 12 hours only. One direction would be specified in the Timetable as being Superior. Class superiority is self explanatory. Additionally Extra Trains can and must be individually authorized when operated.
Dispatchers, in my experience, used two philosophies in running 'their' railroad. One method was to issue Train Orders to specify meeting points and who would take siding at the meeting points. The second method is to use Train Orders to modify the schedules of Superior trains, thus giving inferior trains a option of how far along their route their train can operate and STILL CLEAR the Superior train operating on the modified schedule, with the inferior train taking siding. Most Dispatchers I worked with used a combination of both methods when issuing Train Orders to the various Operators.
There were several order types for modifying schedules. One method I to issue a orders such as - "NO 1 ENG 1444 RUN ONE HOUR LATE STORRS JCT TO SHOPS".
Another method was to issue 'wait orders' such as "NO 1 ENG 1444 WAIT AT CW CABIN UNTIL 845 AM WAIT AT MILAN UNTIL 930 AM WAIT AT BUTLERVILLE UNTIL 1015 AM". Inferior trains could use those times as the 'schedule' times to advance in the face of Number 1 without regard to the times printed in the timetable for Number 1. ie if a inferior train holding the order could make CW Cabin by the time they would proceed to CW Cabin, if they COULD NOT they would clear there train at a location before CW Cabin.
Train Orders remain in effect until Fulfilled, Superceded or Annulled. A meet order remains in effect until the specified trains meet at the specified location in the manner specified - if one train has trouble and is delayed the other train must wait at the location until the specified train arrives. That is one reason why Dispatchers would prefer to alter schedules of Superior trains and let Inferior trains operate in accordance with the altered schedules. For the most part, meet orders were used for only 1st Class Passenger trains as they experienced less mechanical issues than freight trains.
All in all it was quite an experience in being a Train Order Operator on a relatively high volume single track railroad operating on Time Table and Train Orders.
When I worked at Lithonia (GARR) under TT&TO in the early 70's I would receive and string up orders for most eastbound trains. They were almost always meet orders. The trains virtually never ran on time. Lithonia is just east of Atlanta, and by the time a train was approaching me, the dispatcher knew how late that day's version was running.
The train had timetable authority over the line to a certain point, based on when it would arrive there if on time; and meet an opposing train if it was on time. Once the DS knew how late the trains were actually running, he would change the meet locations by train order.
A typical order would simply read something like this: "Train number 103 meet Train number 108 at Union Point." There was priority by direction, and priority by class. I can't remember the particulars, but let's just say eastbounds had priority; if the classes of the trains were equal, the westbound would be the one to take the siding, and the EB would hold the main. I believe that the rules specified that the train taking the siding would always re-line the switch for the main, entering and leaving; everything was manual.
Every time a train passed a station operators would "OS" (means on-station) the train; that is, call the DC and say, for example, "Number 25 by here at 8:46." This is how the DS "saw" the progress, and could arrange the most efficient meet. The GARR had long stretches with no sidings, so sometimes it was inevitable that one train would be waiting a while, because no ideal spot was available. Let's say that EB #103 is about two hours late, but has (worst-case scenario) 12 hours to go the 171 miles to Augusta, so it's not in any trouble. #103 is a first-class train. But let's say that lowly WB local #24 has had a hellish day and is in danger of "going dead" per the "dog law." If it can't get to Atlanta in 90 mins., a new crew will have to be driven out to save it. In this case, the DS might instruct 103, who will arrive at the meet point first, to take the siding; thus enabling 24 to go by without stopping. Then the order would be something like "Train number 103 take siding and meet Train number 24 at Conyers." And around the same time an operator elsewhere will get an order telling 24 to hold the main.
All orders had to be read back in a very specific, somewhat clunky, way, to avoid any possible misunderstanding; and it was in fact virtually impossible for an order to be wrong.
I'd rig up one copy for the engine, and one, lower, for the caboose. Trains sometimes were going pretty fast, and I don't remember a crewman ever failing to snag the order.
I'd watch the whole train go by, looking for any signs of trouble, then go inside and OS it. If there was a visual defect, I was to tell the DS, and he would assumedly get a message to the train at the next open station. I never saw any defects, though.
Since most orders (like my first example) could be worded exactly the same for both trains, there would very often be another operator on the line with the DS at the same time as me; we would be typing the orders simultaneously. More trains involved than two, then maybe even more operators. It was on open line, and rang only at the pertinent stations needed at that moment. I wore headphones, and the voice-piece was on a stand that pulled out from the wall on an accordian-like rig.
It was a very interesting time.
good replies all and especially RWM, I had heard both terms but thought maybe it was just some railroads called it orders, which is the term I am familiar with and some called it track warrants. Don't ever remember that term being used by Dad. He worked in yard office most of his Frisco career but the road crews hung around in the office waiting for their trains to be made up and ready, so he picked up a lot of knowledge listening to them. The telegrapher was in Dad's office too, he sent out a signal down the line at 8:30 am to all stations to make sure everyone was on the correct time. He would also let Dad know when Sunnyland passed a certain spot, giving Dad time to call me and Mom on the phone and hang the receiver out the window so we could hear the train passing and the horn. I wonder how many passengers ever noticed a phone hanging out the window and wondered what was going on. It was a fun place to work, the super would just close his door and as long as the work got done, he never said a word about the horseplay or stupid pranks. Dad was dead by the time BN took over, but my godfather was still working and it was not the same. More business like and lost the family feeling that Frisco had.
G'day, I have recently discovered this threat about Train Orders and Track Warrants. I was aware of such safe working systems, having visited the USA and New Zealand. But, I did not work under such systems until Train Order Working was implemented here in NSW in 1997. TOW was chosen to replace the traditional single line manual systems of Ordinary Train Staff and Ticket plus Electric Train Staff. I grew up with these systems and enjoyed working under them. The TOW implemented here is not similar to the original USRR version. Excepting that it features Yard Limits. Any train movement within TOW must possess the necessary Train Order. The system is computerized and the Orders are generated with specific Security Codes to ensure safety. Train Order Control is not permitted to posses and paper or writing implement in the office. ALL action, including the Train Graph must be accomplished via the computer. Once the Order has been generated, transmitted to the train crew, read back and authorize, it then vanishes into the computer memory. Only the input of the specific Security Codes upon fulfilling of the Order or Clearance of a location, can then permit the block to be released. Our Train Order permits movement to one of three locations; The Yard Limit board; Clearance point on the Main Line, or Clearance point on the Loop Line. Within Yard Limits where regular shunting (switching) occurs, Shunt Limit boards can be provided. The provision of shunt limit boards permits another train to proceed to the Yard Limit board while shunting occurs. Where Shunt Limit boards do not exist, another train cannot proceed to the Yard Limit board if shunting is in operation. A Shunt Order can be issued to a train to shunt within a location which occupies that location for the duration of the Order. The Train Order can authorize minor shunting prior to departure, en route, or upon arrival, via the Shunt Access facet. When the wheels fall off, the Mishap Order is utilized to replace any existing Train Orders and resolve the problem. A Mishap Order can be bi-directional in movement authority. I was not a fan of our Train Order Working system, and have not experienced it since 2004. The Orders were hand written by Train Crew during my era, but I believe now the system is electronic. I am wondering if a similar computerized TOW system exists anywhere else outside of Australia. I do know that DTC is now utilized on some Australian rail networks, but have I ahve not worked under that system. When I transferred to Tasmania in 2004, I was then required to work under Track Warrant Control system. This format of Track Warrant having been imported via New Zealand. Prior to 1998, Tasrail did operate under a version of Train Order Working as adapted by Australian National. Though, the TGR originally utilized the trad systems of OTS&T and ETS. During my Tasrail era, 2004 - 2007, Track Warrants were manually created and compiled. Paper copies written by both Train Control and the Train Crew. I believe that the system is now electronic. Certain facets of the original USRR Track Warrant were not implemented. One adaptation was of interest in regard to trains running in convoy within the Limits of Authority. To permit this, Box 17 Other Specific Instructions was utilized. A subsequent train advised to Protect Against the Train ahead. Radio communication was utilized to maintain the necessary 5 km separation distance. The following train required to regularly contact the train ahead to obtain a KM peg clearance. Then proceed to a KM peg 5 kms behind that location and so on during the journey. Crossing Loops did not possess Yard Limits, nor fouling points. A live Track Warrant being necessary for a train to stand at a Crossing Loop. For the purpose of train cross, only a verbal instruction from Train Control advised this to the crew. During my TWC school, I did ponder this situation. At least the NSW TOW did permit notification of a pending train cross at a location on the form. Some of the Tasrail drivers were being pinged by Compliance Mob for annotating on the form. Such annotation regarded as defacing the form. The problem being that during train crew relief en route, only a verbal instruction of a cross existed. Management did eventually listen to crew concerns and permit annotation of a cross to be made. An X or the word CROSS scribbled on the bottom of the form to remind crews of the pending cross. GPS was not a factor of the system during my era. Train Control only knew where a train was when so informed via radio by the crew. Being DOO (driver only operation) in Tassie, I did appreciate the End Of Train Unit. Having witnessed the ETU in both the USA and New Zealand, I had prompted for such here in NSW. Alas, both management and the unions did NOT appreciate my suggestion. Here we continue with the basic flashing tail light. Though, motive power now provided with ECP brake system does provide for a pseudo ETU. I did enjoy the Track Warrant Control system while in Tassie. You had to be on yer toes and know where you were all of the time. Steve.
joesap1 Basically there are 3 types of authority(i.e. permission) for using the Main Track: Track Warrant, Automatic Block System, and Centralized Traffic Control.
Basically there are 3 types of authority(i.e. permission) for using the Main Track: Track Warrant, Automatic Block System, and Centralized Traffic Control.
Automatic Block System, by itself, does not grant any authority to use any tracks. ABS is simply a system of dividing up the main track (s) into "blocks" and the signals only indicate whether or not the block is occupied or not (clear). Some other set of rules governing authority: Timetable & Train Order, Track Warrant Control, Centralized Traffic Control, Direct Traffic Control, Interlocking Rules, etc. must be superimposed upon ABS equipped trackage to grant authority (permission) for movements.
Railway Man .............. T&TO was a very good Method of Operation in a world before the advent of reliable, cheap, mobile radio communications equipment, ................ RWM
..............
T&TO was a very good Method of Operation in a world before the advent of reliable, cheap, mobile radio communications equipment, ................
RWM
Emphasis added; It should also be noted that TWC very much relies on modern, high capacity, high speed computer equipment and software to keep track of all the trains and movements, that simply was not around in the days when dispatching was primarily Time Table & Train Order.
Paul_D_North_Jr A couple of further questions: 1. How does the amount and detail of information needed vary for a Track Warrant or Form D as compared to an old Form 19 or 31 Train Order ?
A couple of further questions:
1. How does the amount and detail of information needed vary for a Track Warrant or Form D as compared to an old Form 19 or 31 Train Order ?
A Track Warrant, Form D, or DTC authority is a pretty simple document. It was very unusual for me to issue a warrant or DTC authority with more than 3 boxes checked. A Train Order in contrast can be phenomenally complex.
2. [Hang on, now] In an age when most rail lines and DiSpatchers are very busy, would it be more efficient to reinstate TT&TO authority for certain regular and repetitive train movements, rather than have to treat each on as a special project ? For routes that have a number of Amtrak and intermodal trains that pretty much have to run on set schedules and have priority over most other trains, their authority would then exist by 'default' and wouldn't need to be re-created anew each day, nor their meets and passes, etc. More importantly, it would reduce the workload on the dispatcher desks and redirect it to the out-of-the-ordinary and truly unusual train movements, and maybe making shorter the waits by train crews and MOW and C&S folks in the field for attention from the DS. And most importantly, it would free up the radio system from messages that the Timetable could handle, thereby relieving some of the crowded airtime problems without having to add additional channels and install additional base stations and repeaters, etc.
Interesting idea but ... absolutely no. Reasons:
The safety flaws I think are overwhelming negatives.
Paul_D_North_Jr * * * A couple of further questions: 1. * * * 2. [Hang on, now] In an age when most rail lines and DiSpatchers are very busy, would it be more efficient to reinstate TT&TO authority for certain regular and repetitive train movements, rather than have to treat each on as a special project ? For routes that have a number of Amtrak and intermodal trains that pretty much have to run on set schedules and have priority over most other trains, their authority would then exist by 'default' and wouldn't need to be re-created anew each day, nor their meets and passes, etc. More importantly, it would reduce the workload on the dispatcher desks and redirect it to the out-of-the-ordinary and truly unusual train movements, and maybe making shorter the waits by train crews and MOW and C&S folks in the field for attention from the DS. And most importantly, it would free up the radio system from messages that the Timetable could handle, thereby relieving some of the crowded airtime problems without having to add additional channels and install additional base stations and repeaters, etc. - Paul North.
* * *
1. * * *
- Paul North.
I would think that, if the traffic on a particular rail line is overwhelming the capabilities of a TWC system it's time for the railroad to seriously consider CTC.
jeffhergert Deggesty, I saw the CNW do the same thing a few times, only for freight trains. I don't think train orders were involved. It seems like it was done either verbally or by message handed up to them from the dispatcher. By backing over, they're aren't running against the current of traffic. The rear brakeman would line the crossover, wait 5 minutes, then back onto the other track. They would be protected by any traffic coming at them by block signals. In your case, they'ld have the time table that would tell them of any superior traffic coming at them. There would usually be a dispatcher's phone box or booth fairly close to a crossover, so they could contact him by phone for permission to do this if they had not already been instructed by message or radio to do so. Jeff
Deggesty, I saw the CNW do the same thing a few times, only for freight trains. I don't think train orders were involved. It seems like it was done either verbally or by message handed up to them from the dispatcher. By backing over, they're aren't running against the current of traffic. The rear brakeman would line the crossover, wait 5 minutes, then back onto the other track. They would be protected by any traffic coming at them by block signals. In your case, they'ld have the time table that would tell them of any superior traffic coming at them. There would usually be a dispatcher's phone box or booth fairly close to a crossover, so they could contact him by phone for permission to do this if they had not already been instructed by message or radio to do so.
Incidentally, at that time all freights between Canton and New Orleans were running as extras--and they did not have to show white lights between New Orleans and North Jackson (junction with the line through the Delta); passenger extras did have to show white lights. All trains obtained clearance at North Jackson.
Paul, TWC rules compared to TT&TO rules are a lot (A LOT) easier to learn and apply. If they still used TT&TO, they couldn't take someone off the street and make them a conductor in 6 months (sometimes less). I sometimes have an old ETT and/or rule book to pass the time in the motel. I've shown these to some of the younger conductors (and engineers). Some have a hard time grasping how it worked.
Bottom line, from spending time in my youth at a RI train order office and running my model railroad by TT&TO, I wouldn't mind working with it. It would be a challenge to say the least. Then I think of some of the others who'ld be out there. Don't get me wrong, they're good guys, but maybe we had better stick with TWC.
There is one section of current of traffic, double track that I work. A local has to use a crossover and run wrong main for about 1/4 to 1/3 mile (no yard limits either) to clear on a branchline. It's done verbally. The dispatcher makes sure there is no opposing move, gives them permission to crossover and occupy the other track and to clear up at the branch switch.
A Track Warrant gives you permsiion to move your train over a specific portion of track - say between MP 23.5 to MP 87.0 on the Main track.
Today, Train Orders have been replaced by General Track Bulletins(GTB's) - which list all the speed restrictions, out-of-service track, and other important info you will need to work your run or shift.
cx500 Deggesty: ............. What a difference reliable radio communication has made! By the way, I wonder just how an order directing a southbound manifest freight to back over onto the wrong main at Wesson, Miss., to allow #1 (the City of New Orleans) to overtake and pass the freight would have been written. I saw this operation, trackside, one night in 1965, and did not think to ask the conductor of the freight how the order was written. Possibly the reverse movement was within yard limits, if this option existed in the rules for that railroad. That might have simplified things. Using Canadian rules, within yard limits the main track could be occupied by local movements, but they had to clear the schedule times of 1st and 2nd Class trains, and first check the register to be certain there were no overdue trains or additional sections. It might also depend on what, if any, type of signaling system was in place. In CTC territory, movement is governed by signal indication so no train orders would be required. Interesting question, anyway, and I'll hope for more information. John
Deggesty: ............. What a difference reliable radio communication has made! By the way, I wonder just how an order directing a southbound manifest freight to back over onto the wrong main at Wesson, Miss., to allow #1 (the City of New Orleans) to overtake and pass the freight would have been written. I saw this operation, trackside, one night in 1965, and did not think to ask the conductor of the freight how the order was written.
.............
What a difference reliable radio communication has made!
By the way, I wonder just how an order directing a southbound manifest freight to back over onto the wrong main at Wesson, Miss., to allow #1 (the City of New Orleans) to overtake and pass the freight would have been written. I saw this operation, trackside, one night in 1965, and did not think to ask the conductor of the freight how the order was written.
Possibly the reverse movement was within yard limits, if this option existed in the rules for that railroad. That might have simplified things. Using Canadian rules, within yard limits the main track could be occupied by local movements, but they had to clear the schedule times of 1st and 2nd Class trains, and first check the register to be certain there were no overdue trains or additional sections.
It might also depend on what, if any, type of signaling system was in place. In CTC territory, movement is governed by signal indication so no train orders would be required.
Interesting question, anyway, and I'll hope for more information.
John
We will often take track "out of service" via a Line 4 on the NORAC Form D for cases where close coordination makes going to the dispatcher problematic.
We're also in the Adirondacks, where cell phone connectivity is sometimes sketchy and radio communications with the dispatcher (GVT in Scranton) can be inadequate at times.
The employee holding the OOS becomes the "dispatcher," as petitnj points out.
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...
Just to add to the information (maybe). The US. Operating Rules, used by CN and others, now has Track Authorities. They are basically the same as a Track Warrant but add the ability to have multiple trains and MOW groups share the same track. The Track Authority creates a hierarchy of groups in the same limits and requires all of them to communicate when sharing the track. It essentially makes the trains/MOW groups on the track their own dispatchers. This has the effect to somewhat reduce the load on the dispatcher, but often the dispatcher ends up being the communication go-between among the various groups. The effect is also similar to a Form B where trains entering certain limits must get permissions from other MOW/trains already there. If more details are desired, read Rule 1004 of the USOR.
Always good to get a more informed insight - thanks !
- PDN.
When trains in a TT&TO operation are off their scheduled times the Dispatchers work load grows exponentially....been there, done that. While there is a lot of communications between field personnel and the Dispatcher under TWC or DTC, it is nowhere near as much as would be involved in a TT&TO operation with today's railroad operations, especially when in the heyday of TT&TO operation MofW personnel never had exclusive track occupancy to perform their duties, they operated on the ambiguities of a 'Track Car Lineup' which basically stated what trains were on the territory and their last known OS. For daylight Train Dispatchers, working with MofW's needs is almost their primary concern.
Paul_D_North_Jr See also the article on "Railroad's Traffic Control Systems" by Frank W. Bryan in the "Railroad Reference - ABC's of Railroading" section here, at: http://trn.trains.com/Railroad%20Reference/ABCs%20of%20Railroading/2006/05/Railroads%20traffic%20control%20systems.aspx A couple of further questions: 1. How does the amount and detail of information needed vary for a Track Warrant or Form D as compared to an old Form 19 or 31 Train Order ? 2. [Hang on, now] In an age when most rail lines and DiSpatchers are very busy, would it be more efficient to reinstate TT&TO authority for certain regular and repetitive train movements, rather than have to treat each on as a special project ? For routes that have a number of Amtrak and intermodal trains that pretty much have to run on set schedules and have priority over most other trains, their authority would then exist by 'default' and wouldn't need to be re-created anew each day, nor their meets and passes, etc. More importantly, it would reduce the workload on the dispatcher desks and redirect it to the out-of-the-ordinary and truly unusual train movements, and maybe making shorter the waits by train crews and MOW and C&S folks in the field for attention from the DS. And most importantly, it would free up the radio system from messages that the Timetable could handle, thereby relieving some of the crowded airtime problems without having to add additional channels and install additional base stations and repeaters, etc. - Paul North.
See also the article on "Railroad's Traffic Control Systems" by Frank W. Bryan in the "Railroad Reference - ABC's of Railroading" section here, at:
http://trn.trains.com/Railroad%20Reference/ABCs%20of%20Railroading/2006/05/Railroads%20traffic%20control%20systems.aspx
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.