By the way

[7j43k]

Very interesting, both in detail and in general.  Sort of a whole 'nother world from working construction (which I have done most of my life).

 

 

Ed

[jeffhergert]

They aren't "fired" on the spot.  They are taken out of service.  They aren't fired until the investigation* is concluded or they sign for the charge(s) against them.  That wouldn't be on the spot, but back at their tie up point.  It might take a day or two to determine what the charges will be.  

On the railroad, "fired" is more like being suspended.  Time off depends on the violation and the employee"s record.  If still on probation for previous infractions can lengthen suspension time.  Some suspension times are up to the railroad, others have Government required time periods.

*That's assuming the investigation doesn't exonerate those charged.  Very rare though it does happen.

Jeff 

 

[CShaveRR]

Jeff is correct...I served my share (and then some!) of suspensions, and even was dismissed once (though I had a "leniency reinstatement" in the shortest possible amount of time).  But at one investigation where I thought I was doomed for sure, the carrier witness admitted to being out of position at the time, and charges against me were dropped.

I hate the part about the entire crew being charged when the infraction is one that it's obvious that one person committed the offense and that the rest of the crew had nothing to do with it.  I had a few like that.  I would have been a better carrier witness in one of those cases, but they didn't want to have to pay me...  I guess nowadays, when the whole crew is in one place, it may make more sense to bring them all up under charges ("your responsibility in connection with...").

I think it was Mookie who came up with the truism once that the railroad pays you well, spends all kinds of money testing and training you, then looks for any possible way to fire you.

[PJS1]

A conductor on the Texas Eagle, whom I have gotten to know pretty well, told me if the engineer runs a red signal, he as well as the engineer are held accountable.  I was surprised since the conductor is not in the cab of the locomotive; he usually is in the transition sleeper or one of the cars.  

If the Eagle, as an example, runs through a stop signal, would the penalty be the same for the engineer and the conductor?

[BaltACD]

JPS1

A conductor on the Texas Eagle, whom I have gotten to know pretty well, told me if the engineer runs a red signal, he as well as the engineer are held accountable.  I was surprised since the conductor is not in the cab of the locomotive; he usually is in the transition sleeper or one of the cars.  

If the Eagle, as an example, runs through a stop signal, would the penalty be the same for the engineer and the conductor?

Can't speak for other carriers.  On CSX crews are required to call signals on the road radio channel.  Engineer being in the cab of Amtrak trains initiates the call and the Conductor responds - this will also apply to block occupancy and release in Dark territory.

Conductors are also required to be QUALIFIED on the territory over which they operate and by extension are expected to be in a position on the train where they can also observe the signals displayed for the head end.

The rules have been formulated and stated in such a way that there is always interlocking responsibility of all crew members in having proper compliance.

[n012944]

Cotton Belt MP104

1. Incident E.  The above dilemma might have been “fixed/allowed/correctly done” with the following “vocabulary” situation.  When a dispatcher gives AUTHORITY that is not the same as a dispatcher giving PERMISSION.  I know of a crew who was operating, and the dispatcher gave the wrong wording. Permission was granted when authority should have been said.  The crew balked and requested the dispatcher reword the instructions.  The dispatcher in the wrong got huffy about the situation but the crew did not know if they were “being tested”.

2. Incident F.  In the case of “being tested”, I observed the following.  A train must stop due to a Red signal even if there is a malfunction. The train can be given authority to AFTER STOPPING proceed past red signal indication.  Dispatch gave AUTHORITY to break a rule (if the condition of stopping is adhered to. 

This is way one does not take the rules from one railroad and apply them to another.  From my rule book...

 

 

 

1. 1. Properly position affected appliances and if any show as Out-of-Correspondence, Code Failure, or Low Air Activated, give instructions to the crew to hand operate or spike the appliance when issuing permission to pass the Stop signal 

   "After implementing the above procedures and issuing instructions concerning any power- operated switches, the train dispatcher will instruct the train:

2. 1. "After stopping, proceed by Stop signal at ________ (location) from track _____ to ________ track in the ____________ direction, switches in motor or hand," and

   2. When permission is given to pass a Stop signal "

[tree68]

The details escape me, but I recall an issue with an Amtrak train WB on the Chicago line, headed into Syracuse.  Several people (including some in Syracuse) that the engineer was not calling signals.

I also don't recall the resolution, aside from there was no catastrophe - the train was brought to a stop without incident.  Don't recall what happened with the engineer - might have been a medical issue.

[jeffhergert]

n012944

 

 

Cotton Belt MP104

1. Incident E.  The above dilemma might have been “fixed/allowed/correctly done” with the following “vocabulary” situation.  When a dispatcher gives AUTHORITY that is not the same as a dispatcher giving PERMISSION.  I know of a crew who was operating, and the dispatcher gave the wrong wording. Permission was granted when authority should have been said.  The crew balked and requested the dispatcher reword the instructions.  The dispatcher in the wrong got huffy about the situation but the crew did not know if they were “being tested”.

2. Incident F.  In the case of “being tested”, I observed the following.  A train must stop due to a Red signal even if there is a malfunction. The train can be given authority to AFTER STOPPING proceed past red signal indication.  Dispatch gave AUTHORITY to break a rule (if the condition of stopping is adhered to. 

 

 

This is way one does not take the rules from one railroad and apply them to another.  From my rule book...

 

 

 

1. 1. Properly position affected appliances and if any show as Out-of-Correspondence, Code Failure, or Low Air Activated, give instructions to the crew to hand operate or spike the appliance when issuing permission to pass the Stop signal 

   "After implementing the above procedures and issuing instructions concerning any power- operated switches, the train dispatcher will instruct the train:

2. 1. "After stopping, proceed by Stop signal at ________ (location) from track _____ to ________ track in the ____________ direction, switches in motor or hand," and

   2. When permission is given to pass a Stop signal "

 

 

This is the verbal format used by the dispacher/control operator to allow a train/engine to pass a Stop indication at a controlled signal for us.

"AFTER STOPPING, (Train ID) AT (location) HAS AUTHORITY TO PASS SIGNAL DISPLAYING STOP INDICATION." (Add: Route and Direction if more than one route is available)

I wouldn't say that it's giving the crew of the train/engine authority to break a rule.  I would say it's authorization to proceed under the rules.  

Jeff 

[BaltACD]

jeffhergert

I wouldn't say that it's giving the crew of the train/engine authority to break a rule.  I would say it's authorization to proceed under the rules.  

Jeff 

In the context of CSX rules it is Permission to pass a Stop signal, not an authority.  Authorities are 'Mandatory Directives' and must be written by both the Dispatcher and the crew.  Permission is verbal and need not be written although the permission must be repeated by the crew and ok'd by the Dispatcher to be effective.  A slight but REAL DIFFERENCE.

[zugmann]

BaltACD

In the context of CSX rules it is Permission to pass a Stop signal, not an authority. Authorities are 'Mandatory Directives' and must be written by both the Dispatcher and the crew. Permission is verbal and need not be written although the permission must be repeated by the crew and ok'd by the Dispatcher to be effective. A slight but REAL DIFFERENCE.

In other words, verbal permission is your authority?

[tree68]

Definitely from the outside looking in for me - I don't have to deal with signals thus am not conversant in any of the appropriate rules.

My impression from what's just been written is that a train may have authority to proceed on signal indication, but may need permission to pass a stop signal...

[Dakguy201]

BaltACD

Conductors are also required to be QUALIFIED on the territory over which they operate and by extension are expected to be in a position on the train where they can also observe the signals displayed for the head end.

I understand how that will work for a freight.  However, for Amtrak the conductor will be several cars removed from the engine with no forward visibility at all.  In that case, is his responsibilty met if he relies on the engineer's radio description of the signal aspect? 

[Cotton Belt MP104]

I say again, I am not a RR employee, I have received NO TRAINING in rules. I am an admirer of those who take on the dangerous job of safely operating trains for a living. Thus a curious/serious discussion of the term, AUTHORITY verses PERMISSION when spoken by a dispatcher has me feeling like I am wanting to argue/belaboring a point. And at this point I am worried that I am going to appear as a person who seems to enjoy the “sport” of belaboring points. At the end of this post I will describe WHAT I THINK I HEARD A DISPATCHER SAY THAT MIGHT be an answer to the tussle over permission/authority. Below is one blogger who actually confirmed the dispatch wording by citing the rule concerning a train to legally pass a red signal.

Jeff …..yes, “fired” might not be the correct term and suspension more appropriate. As for the issue of where they are relieved of duty, can’t argue w/that. I do know where these guys reported for work I took them to a job and they got suspended there and took them back to their “home, where they normally tied down”. Understand the clarification.

CShaveRR …. Glad that the dismissal was not end all for you ….. reminds me of a yard switcher accused of operating too fast in yard switching. The crewmember begged to be "suspended" so that he could work on his home being built. The official said it was too close to call and would not suspend the guy.

I respect Mookies comment however, provided it is not a weed weasel w/an agenda against SOMEONE, why not suspend someone when rules are broken? This is how people get killed, rules infraction.

BaltACD …. The rules have been formulated and stated in such a way that there is always interlocking responsibility of all crew members in having proper compliance.

Thanks for clarification …..i recall a T-bone wreck that took out a roadway overpass, UPRR into midtrain BNSF …… engineer passed flash yellow, yellow, red ……no throttle action or braking….. NTSB interview w/conductor in the cab, …. He was busy w/paperwork and did not notice …… ok … go figure

Now I am confused, ………..“In the context of CSX rules it is Permission to pass a Stop signal, not an authority. ........Edit MP104 We can’t have it both ways ….. if dispatch says verbally over the radio, “you have authority” okay the train can have permission to pass red, but why are we trying to dismiss that the dispatcher said, “YOU HAVE AUTHORITY” end edit ........Authorities are 'Mandatory Directives' and must be written by both the Dispatcher and the crew. Permission is verbal and need not be written although the permission must be repeated by the crew and ok'd by the Dispatcher to be effective. A slight but REAL DIFFERENCE.

I agree that there is a REAL DIFFERENCE, and as such it is more than a slight difference when speaking/giving instructions for proper operations. I heard an engineer refuse to accept verbal instructions from a dispatcher who mis worded a radio instruction to the crew. He would not obey until authority was substituted for permission. I DON’T KNOW WHAT I AM TALkING ABOUT. But I observed and respected the crew member and remember the dispatch being upset on being called out.

n012944 ……. “This is way one does not take the rules from one railroad and apply them to another. From my rule book... “ ……reply MP104: I guess you can say that again, and I will add that I am NOT a railroad employee and only share what I saw/heard ….. I will admit that I held my breath and tried to carefully word my observations when the terms “authority and permission” were used to make sure I didn’t have the meaning backwards. I do know this: on the UPRR at that time they were not interchangable. '

n012044……”This is the verbal format used by the dispacher/control operator to allow a train/engine to pass a Stop indication at a controlled signal for us. "AFTER STOPPING, (Train ID) AT (location) HAS AUTHORITY TO PASS SIGNAL DISPLAYING STOP INDICATION." (Add: Route and Direction if more than one route is available) I wouldn't say that it's giving the crew of the train/engine authority to break a rule. I would say it's authorization to proceed under the rules. Jeff

…….……. reply MP104: I understand the “distasteful” phrase of “breaking the rules” and your preference of terminology, but ghee whizzzzzz, thanks you did confirm what the dispatcher said, thanks for that confirmation, as I was worried that I got the two terms backwards (see above)

tree68 ……”The details escape me, but I recall an issue with an Amtrak train WB on the Chicago line, headed into Syracuse. Several people (including some in Syracuse) that the engineer was not calling signals. I also don't recall the resolution, aside from there was no catastrophe - the train was brought to a stop without incident. Don't recall what happened with the engineer - might have been a medical issue. ……

reply MP104: wow when was the train stopped between division crew change? enroute?

My impression from what's just been written is that a train may have authority to proceed on signal indication, but may need permission to pass a stop signal... ……

reply MP104: okay but then why is there such a reluctance for anyone to accept that the dispatch said YOU HAVE AUTHORITY to pass red signal …..he DID NOT SAY you have PERMISSION to pass stop signal

Zugmann ……. .. “In other words, verbal permission is your authority? ……. Interesting question……. Yes, I guess…… but all those that are wanting to avoid terms like “fired” and “authority” incorrectly are missing the point ///// check out my disclaimer at the first of this post    endmrw0225182309

[tree68]

Expanding on what I wrote earlier - permission.  Something permissive - you "may."

Authority - absolute.  In railroading, the track is all yours.

To put the signal thing in another context - you're driving down the road and you come up on a red light.  Under normal circumstances, you're required to stop.  However, there is a police officer standing in the intersection and he waves you through.  That's permission to pass a stop signal.

As for the Amtrak incident I cited - what I wrote was all I know.  The train did have to pass through Dewitt yard, and the folks at the yard were amongst those who noted that they should have been hearing signals called and weren't.  Syracuse is a station stop, and may be a crew change as well.

[Cotton Belt MP104]

tree68

Expanding on what I wrote earlier - permission.  Something permissive - you "may."

Authority - absolute.  In railroading, the track is all yours.

To put the signal thing in another context - you're driving down the road and you come up on a red light.  Under normal circumstances, you're required to stop.  However, there is a police officer standing in the intersection and he waves you through.  That's permission to pass a stop signal.

As for the Amtrak incident I cited - what I wrote was all I know.  The train did have to pass through Dewitt yard, and the folks at the yard were amongst those who noted that they should have been hearing signals called and weren't.  Syracuse is a station stop, and may be a crew change as well.

 

.....exactly..... and the red light/police example was one i thought about to mention    to those who don't like my choice of words ...  break the rules ...  let's take the red stop light one more step       ya don't need a policeman to give permission if it is an ambulance  ..... he has  AUTHORITY  to disregard (break) the rules .... and that is what a crew wants to hear from the dispatcher  AUTHORITY   not permission      thanks for reply     i will not use the quick reply again and sacrifice the intent of ....spacing a lengthy reply ...... tree68 appreciate your endurance in reading the lengthy last post   endmrw0226180814 

[PJS1]

Dakguy201

 I understand how that will work for a freight.  However, for Amtrak the conductor will be several cars removed from the engine with no forward visibility at all.  In that case, is his responsibilty met if he relies on the engineer's radio description of the signal aspect?  

My chats with the Eagles conductor take place in the lounge car or in my sleeping compartment.  He does not ride in the locomotive.

Based on what I have been told, the Amtrak conductor is required to know the route as well as the engineer, and he is expected to know where the train is at all times.  If the conductor does not hear the engineer acknowledge a signal, he is supposed to confirm the engineer is aware of the signal.  If the engineer runs through a stop signal, as I have observed, the conductor cannot do anything about it.  

[CMStPnP]

Dakguy201

I understand how that will work for a freight.  However, for Amtrak the conductor will be several cars removed from the engine with no forward visibility at all.  In that case, is his responsibilty met if he relies on the engineer's radio description of the signal aspect? 

I don't think that is a problem....

I've seen Amtrak conductors on the Texas Eagle several times at night and during the day....... just open the full Superliner door on the lower level to peek out and look ahead or behind while the train is moving, they have to do that to see the brake indicator lights or wait for a curve in the track also if the engineer sees trespassers they sometimes do it to yell at them.   They even do it in full winter and it happened once when I was in the restroom downstairs at 2:00 a.m.(very cold!).    They also do it as they are approaching major stops and it's one reason they do not want passengers down in the vestibule waiting for the train to reach it's next stop OR they ask them to stand well back from the open door.

Also, have observed them confirm defect detectors over the radio while the train is rolling, interrupting conversations with passengers to do so (saw that repeatedly on the Chicago-Milwaukee Trains on CP).

The Amtrak conductors are fairly active in train operation.

[CMStPnP]

JPS1

If the engineer runs through a stop signal, as I have observed, the conductor cannot do anything about it.  

He can't even pull the emergency brake that is in each car?

[PJS1]

CMStPnP

JPS1 If the engineer runs through a stop signal, as I have observed, the conductor cannot do anything about it.  

He can't even pull the emergency brake that is in each car? 

I don't know. 

I am under the impression, perhaps wrongly, that pulling the emergency brake cord in one of the cars would not stop the train; rather it tells the engineer to stop it.  

[Overmod]

JPS1

I am under the impression, perhaps wrongly, that pulling the emergency brake cord in one of the cars would not stop the train; rather it tells the engineer to stop it.

I think you are confusing two things.

Passenger trains have a system to signal the engineer from the cars - this blows a little whistle in the cab (which is that little 'peep-peep' that tells the engineer that the conductor is ready for the train to leave a station).

Each car also, by law, has a hanging cord attached to a brake valve.  Pulling any of those cords will put the train in emergency, directly, with no little 'peep' signal required (although the engineer and perhaps some bruised people in the cars may make worse noises).

These are completely different systems aside from the fact they employ compressed air for some of their operation.

[Deggesty]

Is that signal system still used on "modern" pasenger equipment? I had the impression that with the advent of almost universal radio communicatoin between the train crew and engine crew it is no longer built in. I do not recall seeing any such valve in the entry of Superliner equipment. I do know that, especially after a "smoke stop," the engineer will answer the conductor's signal with two shorts of the horn to warn those who have been polluting the air that if they do not get back on quickly they will have a loong smoke break (possibly until the next day).

Incidentally, the one time that I was riding an engine on a train that made a passenger stop between the point at which I boarded the engine and the point at which I went back to a coach (it was dinner time, and the engine crew had not offered to share anything they had to eat with me), the whistle in the the cab swelled, faded, and swelled again because the trainman barely closed his valve before opening it again; since I was expecting two distinct sounds, the engineer had to prompt me to answer the trainman.

Incidentally, the radio communication makes it possible for a passenger train to make a long backup move, such as when backing into Denver, for the conductor can keep the engineer apprised of the line of sight distence as the train negotiates curves. This also appplies when #5 comes into Salt Lake City after crossing Wyoming and when #6 leaves Salt Lake City before crossing Wyoming. In Salt Lake City, the UP conductor tells the UP engineer the signal aspects as the train is backed.

[tree68]

Cotton Belt MP104

if it is an ambulance  ..... he has  AUTHORITY  to disregard (break) the rules ....

Actually, no.  

If I am driving an emergency vehicle RLAS, the law gives me permission (privilege) to disregard established V&T laws, with due regard.  I have no authority (right) to do so.  If something bad happens, it's my fault.

This is why you don't see ambulances enroute to the hospital running RLAS much any more.

This is also why you often see emergency vehicles running hot come to a full stop at busy intersections, even if they have the green light.

I've been in emergency services (fire and EMS) for over 40 years.

So, back to the original premise - A train may have the authority to proceed on signal indication.

But they will need the permission of the dispatcher to pass a red absolute signal, if f'rinstance, the signal for some reason will not be changing to a less restrictive aspect but the way is clear for them to proceed.

There is a difference.

[zugmann]

Cotton Belt MP104

.....exactly..... and the red light/police example was one i thought about to mention to those who don't like my choice of words ... break the rules ... let's take the red stop light one more step ya don't need a policeman to give permission if it is an ambulance ..... he has AUTHORITY to disregard (break) the rules .... and that is what a crew wants to hear from the dispatcher AUTHORITY not permission thanks for reply i will not use the quick reply again and sacrifice the intent of ....spacing a lengthy reply ...... tree68 appreciate your endurance in reading the lengthy last post endmrw0226180814

For us, it's permission by a stop signal.  Written in black and white in my rule books. Maybe other rule books say differently. 

[ChuckCobleigh]

tree68

This is also why you often see emergency vehicles running hot come to a full stop at busy intersections, even if they have the green light.

We don't have many collisions, or at least not lately, of emergency vehicles running code, but it seems that the majority involve them coming through an intersection on the green and getting smacked, and not intersections with the interrupter sensor, either.  The medics are pretty paranoid about crossing intersections in any event.

[BaltACD]

zugmann

 

Cotton Belt MP104

.....exactly..... and the red light/police example was one i thought about to mention to those who don't like my choice of words ... break the rules ... let's take the red stop light one more step ya don't need a policeman to give permission if it is an ambulance ..... he has AUTHORITY to disregard (break) the rules .... and that is what a crew wants to hear from the dispatcher AUTHORITY not permission thanks for reply i will not use the quick reply again and sacrifice the intent of ....spacing a lengthy reply ...... tree68 appreciate your endurance in reading the lengthy last post endmrw0226180814 

For us, it's permission by a stop signal.  Written in black and white in my rule books. Maybe other rule books say differently. 

For CSX it is PERMISSION.

Additionally there are some steps the Dispatcher has to take with the CADS to insure the permission at the field location.

CADS is the Computer Aided Dispatch System that is used to issue formal authorities and to operate switches and signals.

[Convicted One]

Cotton Belt MP104

I took a crew from Jonesboro to Brinkley to reenact a rules violation occurring the night before.  Since this was out of their normal operating territory,  a serious rules infraction occurred and they too got fired on the spot.   At Brinkley there is a wye that goes to Memphis.   As the crew needed to turn the engine to re enact the earlier incident, they asked dispatch to enter the wye to Memphis.   They were granted access to that track, but the were only authorized to work the through track to Pine Bluff.  They were fired on the spot

 

I sincerely appreciate your effort in sharing all this in such detail.  You do leave me with one question.

 

What about the officials who ordered, organized, and implemented this "re-enactment"?  Shouldn't they have some accountability here as well, for selecting crew members not properly qualified to perform the duties required by the re-enactment?

[jeffhergert]

I believe we use Authority instead of permission because our rules for CTC (and applies also to manual interlockings) is that to be able to proceed, you have to be authorized either by signal indication or verbally.  Your authorization to proceed ends at the red signal.  If the signal won't come in, then they verbally authorize you to proceed.

There are times disatchers give permission.  One is to pass a Stop signal in ABS/TWC territory where you have a track warrant in effect to proceed beyond the signal.  In this case they give permission to pass because your track warrant is your authority.  Other times permission is used is to change directions in a control point or make back up moves.  In these cases you already have authority to occupy a main or controlled track, but are being permitted to do something within that authority.

I think Dave H could do a better job of explaining this than I could.  He's more on the model railroad side now, but maybe he'll see this and jump in.

Jeff 

[Cotton Belt MP104]

jeffhergert

I believe we use Authority instead of permission because our rules for CTC (and applies also to manual interlockings) is that to be able to proceed, you have to be authorized either by signal indication or verbally. 

mrw: finally what i have been saying is confirmed    i.e. if you were only being given "permission" the dispatcher would have said that

Your authorization to proceed ends at the red signal. 

mrw:  key point, however if next is green train is operating on signal indication an all is well     IF GIVEN AUTHORITY to get past the red signal

If the signal won't come in, then they verbally authorize you to proceed.

There are times disatchers give permission.  One is to pass a Stop signal in ABS/TWC territory where you have a track warrant in effect to proceed beyond the signal.  In this case they give permission to pass because your track warrant is your authority.  Other times permission is used is to change directions in a control point or make back up moves. 

mrw:  in my original post i mentioned a "problem that got a crew suspended".  some have asked how could this been avoided?  i wonder if the crew knowing they were not qualified on that block, they could have asked for "permission" to enter only for purposes to use the wye? obviously they would not have asked for authority and that would not be possible due to their not being qualified 

 In these cases you already have authority to occupy a main or controlled track, but are being permitted to do something within that authority.

I think Dave H could do a better job of explaining this than I could.  He's more on the model railroad side now, but maybe he'll see this and jump in.

Jeff 

 

you have done an excellent job  thanks   endmrw0217181734

[Cotton Belt MP104]

 

Convicted One

 

 

Cotton Belt MP104

I took a crew from Jonesboro to Brinkley to reenact a rules violation occurring the night before.  Since this was out of their normal operating territory,  a serious rules infraction occurred and they too got fired on the spot.   At Brinkley there is a wye that goes to Memphis.   As the crew needed to turn the engine to re enact the earlier incident, they asked dispatch to enter the wye to Memphis.   They were granted access to that track, but the were only authorized to work the through track to Pine Bluff.  They were fired on the spot

 

 

 

I sincerely appreciate your effort in sharing all this in such detail.  You do leave me with one question.

 

What about the officials who ordered, organized, and implemented this "re-enactment"?  Shouldn't they have some accountability here as well, for selecting crew members not properly qualified to perform the duties required by the re-enactment?

 

two things here

1. Can officials be held responsible for???? .......  well i started to say nothing, but that would be sarcastic. Yes, you make a good point.  And I guess "their out" would be the crew did have qualification to run the north south main line of the wye. The wye pointed East.  Probably they would blame the crew for not getting permission.  answer = above my pay grade to answer   ........ I will say at first, I blamed the dispatcher for allowing them on the wye.......no, he does not have to know where they are qualified to operate  ....... thus everyone on the crew HAS to know and comply w/rules, safety demands it

2. The other situation where the crew refused to accept "permission" in instructions ..... they were qualified and leaving one main to another subdivision main and qualified there also ..... they insisted on hearing the dispatcher instruct that they had AUTHORITY to enter the new subdivision   endmrw0227181838

[tree68]

Cotton Belt MP104

they insisted on hearing the dispatcher instruct that they had AUTHORITY to enter the new subdivision 

And my take on that is that they were justified in their request.

[jeffhergert]

Cotton Belt MP104

 

 

 

Convicted One

 

 

Cotton Belt MP104

I took a crew from Jonesboro to Brinkley to reenact a rules violation occurring the night before.  Since this was out of their normal operating territory,  a serious rules infraction occurred and they too got fired on the spot.   At Brinkley there is a wye that goes to Memphis.   As the crew needed to turn the engine to re enact the earlier incident, they asked dispatch to enter the wye to Memphis.   They were granted access to that track, but the were only authorized to work the through track to Pine Bluff.  They were fired on the spot

 

 

 

I sincerely appreciate your effort in sharing all this in such detail.  You do leave me with one question.

 

What about the officials who ordered, organized, and implemented this "re-enactment"?  Shouldn't they have some accountability here as well, for selecting crew members not properly qualified to perform the duties required by the re-enactment?

 

 

 

 

two things here

1. Can officials be held responsible for???? .......  well i started to say nothing, but that would be sarcastic. Yes, you make a good point.  And I guess "their out" would be the crew did have qualification to run the north south main line of the wye. The wye pointed East.  Probably they would blame the crew for not getting permission.  answer = above my pay grade to answer   ........ I will say at first, I blamed the dispatcher for allowing them on the wye.......no, he does not have to know where they are qualified to operate  ....... thus everyone on the crew HAS to know and comply w/rules, safety demands it

2. The other situation where the crew refused to accept "permission" in instructions ..... they were qualified and leaving one main to another subdivision main and qualified there also ..... they insisted on hearing the dispatcher instruct that they had AUTHORITY to enter the new subdivision   endmrw0227181838

 

On the UP, train dispatchers are company officials.  Can company officials be held responsible?  Yes, at least in theory.  In actual practice, well... .  We had a case a few months back where an extra board conductor was called to work a local freight.  He ran the territory, but hadn't worked the local and didn't know the industry spots, etc.  He asked for a pilot and they gave him a manager.  In the process of working one industry, he cut away from the train too close to the switch.  Shoving back into the industry track he cornered a car, derailing it.  He was permanently dismissed after the investigation.  Now, while he should've known he cut away too close, if he had a real conductor-pilot he might've been shown where to stop or at least the condr-pilot may have seen he cut away too close.  Employees acting as pilots are to be within 50 feet of the person they are piloting.  The manager was said to have been in his vehicle, I guess at the customer's facility which is a bit more than 50 feet away.  More like 750 feet, but who's counting.  If he had a conductor-pilot and still had cornered a car, they both would've been in trouble.  The manager, being the pilot, received... .

The dispatcher situation in some ways smells of a test.  However, the dispatcher being put off by the crew asking for the use of authority instead of permission makes me think otherwise.  Dispatcher's have been known to make mistakes.  I've heard a few, most are minor.  A couple a bit more critical that didn't compromise safety, but were instructions that were against the proper procedures called for by the rules for in those situations.

Jeff   

[Cotton Belt MP104]

jeffhergert wrote ………………………/………………………………/ ………………………………./ Employees acting as pilots are to be within 50 feet of the person they are piloting. The manager was said to have been in his vehicle, I guess at the customer's facility which is a bit more than 50 feet away. More like 750 feet, but who's counting. If he had a conductor-pilot and still had cornered a car, they both would've been in trouble. The manager, being the pilot, received... ………….. Mrw: ………..right, nutin’ ………………… then jeff said: …………. The dispatcher situation in some ways smells of a test. However, the dispatcher being put off by the crew asking for the use of authority instead of permission makes me think otherwise. Dispatcher's have been known to make mistakes. …………………. Mrw:………. thanks for the insight from a professional ………….. just gotta relate two stories of “officials” and the red faces they had. …………………. 1. A factory loads gons with scrap steel from a factory process. When the car got loaded the springs were weak and the car was on the wheels. RR official said it was over loaded. The factory called in a backhoe to have the car unloaded. Getting close to noon the official said ………..nope car is still too over loaded. He left for lunch and the smart factory guy had the backhoe take everything out. RR inspector came back and looked at the springs on the wheel set truck. Sorry guys we gonna have to take out more ………2. Another company made lift platforms for trailer trucks both tractor/trailer gravity unload of a NON dump trailer. This monstrosity is so big that it comes in two pieces and was loaded on a TTX/TOFC two trailer truck van flat car. The loading man was welding the equipment to the car. Did so for years until an RR inspector came one day and said, “Hey you can’t do that” Boom it down w/chains. My friend said it won’t stay, but he did as the official insisted…….. Guess what, in transit it came loose, endmrw0228181757

[zugmann]

The problem here is that all this is second, third, and perhaps fourth-hand information.  (shanty talk). 

I have feeling the truth in many of these situations is a bit different than what is being presented. 

[Convicted One]

Cotton Belt MP104

Probably they would blame the crew for not getting permission. answer = above my pay grade to answer ........ I will say at first, I blamed the dispatcher for allowing them on the wye.......no, he does not have to know where they are qualified to operate ....... thus everyone on the crew HAS to know and comply w/rules, safety demands it

 

Your reply is appreciated, and I agree, the crew absolutely must be ultimately responsible for the areas  of work  where they are....allowed... to perform (qualified).

And, the same disclaimers you used...I am not a railroad employee etc etc, so to those who are  railroad employees the following will probably sound dumb...but....

Every organization I have worked in, if a superior instructed an employee to perform a task that he was not qualified to perform, any consequences that would result it would be the superior who would bear full responsibility and it would be his head that rolled in consequence.  (negligent supervision).

I guess in your scenario, the actual issue is one of semantics? That the crew did not get the dispatcher to word their "excursion" onto territory in which they were not qualified to perform with the proper term?  Would the proper semantics (had they been used) have made their move any more safe than what they actually did? Or (out on a limb here I'll admit) absent their instructions being properly worded, would the crew have been within their right to refuse to make the move, and still kept their jobs or would they suffer the wrath of the "officials" they were performing the re-enactment for?

All of this pertains to the first scenario you reported upon.

[BaltACD]

Cotton Belt MP104

jeffhergert wrote ………………………/………………………………/ ………………………………./ Employees acting as pilots are to be within 50 feet of the person they are piloting. The manager was said to have been in his vehicle, I guess at the customer's facility which is a bit more than 50 feet away. More like 750 feet, but who's counting. If he had a conductor-pilot and still had cornered a car, they both would've been in trouble. The manager, being the pilot, received... ………….. Mrw: ………..right, nutin’ ………………… then jeff said: …………. The dispatcher situation in some ways smells of a test. However, the dispatcher being put off by the crew asking for the use of authority instead of permission makes me think otherwise. Dispatcher's have been known to make mistakes. …………………. Mrw:………. thanks for the insight from a professional ………….. just gotta relate two stories of “officials” and the red faces they had. …………………. 1. A factory loads gons with scrap steel from a factory process. When the car got loaded the springs were weak and the car was on the wheels. RR official said it was over loaded. The factory called in a backhoe to have the car unloaded. Getting close to noon the official said ………..nope car is still too over loaded. He left for lunch and the smart factory guy had the backhoe take everything out. RR inspector came back and looked at the springs on the wheel set truck. Sorry guys we gonna have to take out more ………2. Another company made lift platforms for trailer trucks both tractor/trailer gravity unload of a NON dump trailer. This monstrosity is so big that it comes in two pieces and was loaded on a TTX/TOFC two trailer truck van flat car. The loading man was welding the equipment to the car. Did so for years until an RR inspector came one day and said, “Hey you can’t do that” Boom it down w/chains. My friend said it won’t stay, but he did as the official insisted…….. Guess what, in transit it came loose, endmrw0228181757

I am not the grammer police - however, the format you use without identifiable paragraphs make your posts next to unreadable.

[SD70Dude]

BaltACD

I am not the grammer police - however, the format you use without identifiable paragraphs make your posts next to unreadable.

Especially when one is on a smartphone or other small-screened device which does not allow the entirety of a large post to be viewed at once.

[Cotton Belt MP104]

zugmann

The problem here is that all this is second, third, and perhaps fourth-hand information.  (shanty talk). 

I have feeling the truth in many of these situations is a bit different than what is being presented. 

 

EXCUSE ME?  are you referencing to my original post of situations I PERSONALLY OBSERVED?   Your comment is so.... outta the blue, what specifically, seems untruthful?  Do I need sworn notarized statements before posting what I saw/heard.  I am not a crewmember, I might have overlooked some nuance in the situations, BUT SECOND,THIRD, AND PERHAPS FOURTH HAND INFO is definately not the case here.  This is the sad part of this blog, if one is not a part of the elite ........ dat guy is just ...... shanty talk    endmrw0228182134

[Cotton Belt MP104]

SD70Dude

 

 

BaltACD

I am not the grammer police - however, the format you use without identifiable paragraphs make your posts next to unreadable.

 

 

 

Especially when one is on a smartphone or other small-screened device which does not allow the entirety of a large post to be viewed at once.

 

DUELY NOTED, APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENT, I HAVE HAD ANGST OVER THIS, BUT SLOWLY HAVE LEARNED AND HOPE TO DO BETTER endmrw0228182146

[zugmann]

Cotton Belt MP104

EXCUSE ME? are you referencing to my original post of situations I PERSONALLY OBSERVED? Your comment is so.... outta the blue, what specifically, seems untruthful? Do I need sworn notarized statements before posting what I saw/heard. I am not a crewmember, I might have overlooked some nuance in the situations, BUT SECOND,THIRD, AND PERHAPS FOURTH HAND INFO is definately not the case here. This is the sad part of this blog, if one is not a part of the elite ........ dat guy is just ...... shanty talk endmrw0228182134

You're excused.  If it was first hand info, then you'd be the one that was fired for the rules infraction. But you are going from what others have told you.  That makes it second-hand information at best.

[Electroliner 1935]

tree68

Cotton Belt MP104 if it is an ambulance  ..... he has  AUTHORITY  to disregard (break) the rules .... Actually, no.  

This reminds me of what my dad used to point out to me when I was learning to drive. Specifically, "A green light does not give me the "RIGHT OF WAY" I may have the ROW but it comes with qualifiers. Such as an emergency vehicle or an obstruction that requires yielding. I don't have the right to mow down pedestrians that violate the roadway. Etc. 

PS, Who is in the wrong if a fire truck strikes a postal vehicle? This may be an unusual thing.

[Cotton Belt MP104]

Electroliner 1935

 

 

tree68

Cotton Belt MP104 if it is an ambulance  ..... he has  AUTHORITY  to disregard (break) the rules .... Actually, no.  

 

 

This reminds me of what my dad used to point out to me when I was learning to drive. Specifically, "A green light does not give me the "RIGHT OF WAY" I may have the ROW but it comes with qualifiers. Such as an emergency vehicle or an obstruction that requires yielding. I don't have the right to mow down pedestrians that violate the roadway. Etc. 

PS, Who is in the wrong if a fire truck strikes a postal vehicle? This may be an unusual thing.

 

I was going to respond to tree68 also.  You make a good point.  I have heard it said in large cities don’t go forward when the light turns green.  Wait a few seconds till all the red light runners are through taking away your right of way.

What I would have said to tree68.  Okay, you are a certified person who operates emergency vehicles.  When in that vehicle doing his duty, we all would do well to yield right of way to him.  He is a person qualified to do things we cannot do.  I am sorry that there are so many people who refuse to accept the terminology I use  ……. HE HAS THE AUTHORITY to do that and doesn’t have to get anyone/anywhere permission to suspend rules of the road  (common term = “break the rules of the road”   another term that really gets on some peoples nerves)

Your PS would be more interesting if ………Fire truck and ambulance, crashed,  both to two different emergencies.  Tree68 will help us out here.  I have always enjoyed his insightful comments as he seems to have had lots of experience and is not smart aleck about it   endmrw0301181940

[tree68]

Apparatus vs apparatus collisions happen all too often, sometimes due to responding to different incidents, sometimes both are responding to the same incident, but from different directions.  In either case, someone (actually both of them) was not driving with "due regard."  If charges are to be laid, they will probably be against the apparatus that had the traffic control "against" them.

As the operator of an emergency vehicle, I have no right (authority) to drive counter to established laws.  The law gives me permission to do so ("may") under certain circumstances.  These require the use of both emergency lights and audible warning devices.

Here is NYS Vehicle and Traffic law as it applies here:

Section 1104. Authorized emergency vehicles.

(a) The driver of an authorized emergency vehicle, when involved in an emergency operation, may exercise the privileges set forth in this section, but subject to the condition herein stated.

(b) The driver of an authorized emergency vehicle may: 

1. Stop, stand or park irrespective of the provisions of this title;

2. Proceed past a steady red signal, a flashing red signal or a stop sign, but only after slowing down as may be necessary for safe operation;

3. Exceed the maximum speed limits so long as he does not endanger life or property;

4. Disregard regulations governing directions of movement or turning in specified directions.

(emphasis mine)

If I had the authority to disregard V&T laws, I could do so with impugnity.  But that is not the case.

As I said before, if I am operating an emergency vehicle RLAS and have an accident, it's most likely going to be my fault in the eyes of the law, even if the other vehicle ran a red light and hit me.  Because I apparently was not operating my vehicle with due regard.

[Cotton Belt MP104]

 I have no right (authority) to drive counter to established laws.  The law gives me permission to do so ("may") under certain circumstances.  These require the use of both emergency lights and audible warning devices.

Here is NYS Vehicle and Traffic law as it applies here:

 

Section 1104.       Authorized                emergency vehicles.

(a) The driver of an             authorized           emergency vehicle, when involved in an emergency operation, may exercise the privileges set forth in this section, but subject to the condition herein stated.

(b) The driver of an            authorized           emergency vehicle may: 

1. Stop, stand or park irrespective of the provisions of this title;

2. Proceed past a steady red signal, a flashing red signal or a stop sign, but only after slowing down as may be necessary for safe operation;

3. Exceed the maximum speed limits so long as he does not endanger life or property;

4. Disregard regulations governing directions of movement or turning in specified directions.

 

WHICH WORD COMES FIRST   

...............AUTHORIZED..........       

THEN THE WORD ..........   MAY  

 

 

 

[/quote]

 

This reply is only for the benefit of people like me who have always read this blog and not commented at all. I have been entertained by the back and forth, most of the time.  When it gets vindictive it is a shame. 

Reference section 1104    Permission (may) is granted, but I noticed in the law you cite   “authorized” is repeated  three times    to me authorized has a direct connection to the word authority …. Just sayin   endmrw0301182024

[Cotton Belt MP104]

 

This little back and forth about permission/authority   and   suspension/fired     I guess the subject is getting worn out.  But one last stab at the verbal order given via radio to a train stopped for red signal.      As one poster cited, the actual words used by the dispatcher       “ train…. has authority”  ……..okay okay okay okay……… I realize this  MEANS  the train has permission, but this is NOT what the dispatcher says.   end0301182055

[BaltACD]

From CSX Rule Book

606 - Permission to Pass a Stop Signal

606.1 Before giving permission to pass the Stop signal, the train dispatcher must:

1. Determine the specified track is clear of opposing and conflicting movements and no opposing or conflicting movements have been authorized;

2. Properly position affected appliances and if any show as Out-of-Correspondence, Code Failure, or Low Air Activated, give instructions to the crew to hand operate or spike the appliance when issuing permission to pass the Stop signal;

3. When conditions allow, request the signal the same as if it could be displayed to proceed;

4. Apply blocking devices;

5. After implementing the above procedures and issuing instructions concerning any poweroperated switches, the train dispatcher will instruct the train:

1. "After stopping, proceed by Stop signal at ________ (location) from track _____ to ________ track in the ____________ direction, switches in motor or hand," and 

2. When permission is given to pass a Stop signal in order to couple to cars or to move to location short of a block signal, include this information in the instructions.

6. Confirm instructions to receiving employee when the employee repeats authorization correctly.

[n012944]

Cotton Belt MP104

 

This little back and forth about permission/authority   and   suspension/fired     I guess the subject is getting worn out.  But one last stab at the verbal order given via radio to a train stopped for red signal.      As one poster cited, the actual words used by the dispatcher       “ train…. has authority”  ……..okay okay okay okay……… I realize this  MEANS  the train has permission, but this is NOT what the dispatcher says.   end0301182055

 

 

Both myself and Balt have quoted the script from a railroad's rulebook on talking a train by a red.  The word authority is never used, permission is.

[Cotton Belt MP104]

n012944

Both myself and Balt have quoted the script from a railroad's rulebook on talking a train by a red.  The word authority is never used, permission is.

 

1.       My original post was an attempt to cast light on some day to day RR things. Why?  It seemed that other folks making posts, due to their questions, were missing day to day things I had seen.

2.       That said, I do not argue with what happens elsewhere. Obviously, I do not observe CSX. Instead I stated exactly where I am and what I observed.

3.       To some, what I observed is suspect information and I guess only accepted if sworn testimony is included in my post

4.       I have no argument with CSX rules, BUT this is the actual post (next item) of some RR rule book  ….. and it is not my post …… it clearly states ….. what the dispatcher reads ….  AUTHORITY   again, okay okay okay all it means is that the train has permission  BUT that is NOT what is being said by dispatch …. I am just reporting what is said

5.       ”This is the verbal format used by the dispacher/control operator to allow a train/engine to pass a Stop indication at a controlled signal for us.  "AFTER STOPPING, (Train ID) AT (location) HAS AUTHORITY TO PASS SIGNAL DISPLAYING STOP INDICATION." (Add: Route and Direction if more than one route is available)     I wouldn't say that it's giving the crew of the train/engine authority to break a rule.     I would say        it's authorization to proceed under the rules.  

6.       Great that is “what you say”, BUT what did the dispatcher say?  Dispatch said AUTHORITY and not permission.  I have heard it said over and over that way.

7.       This whole thing is about words.  My fault.  I should never have described this “as okay to break the rules”.    Sorry, but I thought passing a red board was a seriously broken RULE.   But you were just given authority to do so.   Now as for my poor choice of the word “fired”   instead of suspended,  My fault, but that is just exactly what the guys told me.  Who am I, they work on the RR, I just drove the van.     Endmrw0302180022

[Cotton Belt MP104]

[quote user="zugmann

Cotton Belt MP104

EXCUSE ME? are you referencing to my original post of situations I PERSONALLY OBSERVED? Your comment is so.... outta the blue, what specifically, seems untruthful? Do I need sworn notarized statements before posting what I saw/heard. 

 

You're excused.  If it was first hand info, then you'd be the one that was fired for the rules infraction. But you are going from what others have told you.  That makes it second-hand information at best.

 

[/quote]

In my original post i explained in detail the source of my information.  I carried a crew, while they were trying to do the work, I watched all the while the incident was happening.  I was there, not as an employee but observer, hearing, seeing, and actually relating an amusing incident w/young RR official.   

Did you not read the original post to understand?   I was there, i saw it.  I heard it.  I am sorry but the guys that got back in my van said they were fired, take us back to Jonesboro.

Why can't that be accepted?  We are not arguing this before the Supreme Court.  endmrw0302180139

[Cotton Belt MP104]

Convicted One

And, the same disclaimers you used...I am not a railroad employee etc etc, so to those who are  railroad employees the following will probably sound dumb...but....

............mrw: You said a mouthful there, i have been blown away by the comments, since I was only posting observations and hoping for corrections/clarifications.  It could be said that I have been argumentive, but it seems the RR folks want to avoid the actual word used and only press the idea, this is what they mean.  TOO, very important, I am talking about what goes on here in my region ..........

Every organization I have worked in, if a superior instructed an employee to perform a task that he was not qualified to perform, any consequences that would result it would be the superior who would bear full responsibility and it would be his head that rolled in consequence.  (negligent supervision).

.......mrw: somewhere in this thread is an instance on the RR where this happened and guess what happened     negligent supervisior    pilot conductor     no punishment      of course it was not a serious or fatal .......

I guess in your scenario, the actual issue is one of semantics? That the crew did not get the dispatcher to word their "excursion" onto territory in which they were not qualified to perform with the proper term?  Would the proper semantics (had they been used) have made their move any more safe than what they actually did?

........mrw:  NO, the rule was for the unauthorized running of a train on a block of territory,  they only needed a hundred feet of that block, BUT that has been my WHOLE point of the post .........rules are rules, they didn't think about it before making the move, of course they should have  ..... below

Or (out on a limb here I'll admit) absent their instructions........

..........mrw:   You are asking EXACTLY what I have been trying to get across.  Instead of the "instructions"   if their "request" for the wye track was asked with the statement they were not qualified on that block, I don't know, but would guess the dispatcher would  ........ oh no ...... here comes that awful word...... have given them PERMISSION to make that short excursion, but certainly no authority to be there

............being properly worded, would the crew have been within their right to refuse to make the move, and still kept their jobs or would they suffer the wrath of the "officials" they were performing the re-enactment for?  .........

mrw: GOOD QUESTION, ANYONE?

.........All of this pertains to the first scenario you reported upon.

 

it helps to read the first post I made. Maybe someone can give you and me insight.  Note Dispatcher is in Omaha and of course UPRR.  I guess all other RR need not attempt to answer          endmrw0302180224

[jeffhergert]

n012944

 

 

Cotton Belt MP104

 

This little back and forth about permission/authority   and   suspension/fired     I guess the subject is getting worn out.  But one last stab at the verbal order given via radio to a train stopped for red signal.      As one poster cited, the actual words used by the dispatcher       “ train…. has authority”  ……..okay okay okay okay……… I realize this  MEANS  the train has permission, but this is NOT what the dispatcher says.   end0301182055

 

 

 

 

 

Both myself and Balt have quoted the script from a railroad's rulebook on talking a train by a red.  The word authority is never used, permission is.

 

On the UP, and I would think on the other GCOR roads, the word is AUTHORITY when being talked by an absolute in CTC or at a manual interlocking.

Example: "After stopping, UP1234 at CP A123 has authority to pass signal displaying Stop indication main one to main one westward."  

To enter CTC at a hand throw switch:  "UP1234 at Bess has authority to enter main track and proceed west."

When our track warrant and track bulletins print out, there is a couple of pages of fill in the blank scripts for the proper wording for the above plus other mandatory directives.  The wording has to be in the right order or the dispatcher won't (can't by the rules) accept the repeat.  They started giving us these scripts because a few were either too obtuse or deliberately not repeating instructions correctly.  One dispatcher once, after about 5 tries on the repeat, asked if there was another crew member who could repeat the instructions.

Jeff

[Cotton Belt MP104]

jeffhergert

On the UP, and I would think on the other GCOR roads, the word is AUTHORITY when being talked by an absolute in CTC or at a manual interlocking.

Example: "After stopping, UP1234 at CP A123 has authority to pass signal displaying Stop indication main one to main one westward."  

To enter CTC at a hand throw switch:  "UP1234 at Bess has authority to enter main track and proceed west."

When our track warrant and track bulletins print out, there is a couple of pages of fill in the blank scripts for the proper wording for the above plus other mandatory directives.  The wording has to be in the right order or the dispatcher won't (can't by the rules) accept the repeat.  They started giving us these scripts because a few were either too obtuse or deliberately not repeating instructions correctly.  One dispatcher once, after about 5 tries on the repeat, asked if there was another crew member who could repeat the instructions.

Jeff

 

thanks Jeff, to add to your last comment....once monitoring I heard a young signal man who got bad ordered thus trying to become a dispatcher. On the other end of the radio was a bridge foreman who must have hired out during the civil war.  Oh it was pitiful and so sad.  I don't know how many times they tried and tried and tried at correct read back before it occured.  

What do you think the crew i mentioned should have done?  When making the move onto the wye  ...... ask permission to make the turn around move and not use the block?    endmrw0302180308

[tree68]

OK, I'm not under GCOR, but it wasn't hard to find the rules for UP and GCOR governing passing a stop signal.  Other references not cited here indicate that a foreman can give permission through his work area.  

Observation:  He cannot give authority, since there can generally only be one entity with authority and he holds it, but he can give permission through the area he holds the authority for.  I have done this.

UP Dispatcher Rules:

23.13: Stop Signal / ABS Territory

Reference: GCOR 9.12.4

On single main track, before granting permission for movement to pass Stop in ABS territory the train dispatcher must:

1. Ensure that train has authority to occupy track beyond the Stop indication.

2. Ascertain no conflict of authority exists.

Use verbal format: “AFTER STOPPING (engine/direction) AT (location) HAS PERMISSION TO PASS SIGNAL DISPLAYING STOP INDICATION.”

GCOR Rule 9.12.4:

9.12.4 ABS Territory

At a signal displaying a Stop indication outside interlocking limits, the train will be governed as follows:

A. Main Track

On a main track, after stopping, a train authorized beyond the signal must comply with one of the following procedures:

 

1. If authority beyond the signal is joint with other trains or employees, proceed at restricted speed.or
2. Proceed at restricted speed when a crew member has contacted the train dispatcher and obtained permission to pass the Stop indication. However, if the train dispatcher cannot be contacted, move 100 feet past the signal, wait 5 minutes, then proceed at restricted speed. 
4. B. Siding or Other Track

   If the signal governs movements from a siding or other track to the main track, comply with Rule 9.17 (Entering Main Track at Hand-Operated or Spring Switch).

There is clearly a difference between authority and permission.  

[jeffhergert]

tree68

OK, I'm not under GCOR, but it wasn't hard to find the rules for UP and GCOR governing passing a stop signal.  Other references not cited here indicate that a foreman can give permission through his work area.  

Observation:  He cannot give authority, since there can generally only be one entity with authority and he holds it, but he can give permission through the area he holds the authority for.  I have done this.

UP Dispatcher Rules:

 

 

23.13: Stop Signal / ABS Territory

Reference: GCOR 9.12.4

On single main track, before granting permission for movement to pass Stop in ABS territory the train dispatcher must:

1. Ensure that train has authority to occupy track beyond the Stop indication.

2. Ascertain no conflict of authority exists.

Use verbal format: “AFTER STOPPING (engine/direction) AT (location) HAS PERMISSION TO PASS SIGNAL DISPLAYING STOP INDICATION.”

 

 

GCOR Rule 9.12.4:

 

 

9.12.4 ABS Territory

At a signal displaying a Stop indication outside interlocking limits, the train will be governed as follows:

A. Main Track

On a main track, after stopping, a train authorized beyond the signal must comply with one of the following procedures:

 

1. If authority beyond the signal is joint with other trains or employees, proceed at restricted speed.or
2. Proceed at restricted speed when a crew member has contacted the train dispatcher and obtained permission to pass the Stop indication. However, if the train dispatcher cannot be contacted, move 100 feet past the signal, wait 5 minutes, then proceed at restricted speed. 
4. B. Siding or Other Track

   If the signal governs movements from a siding or other track to the main track, comply with Rule 9.17 (Entering Main Track at Hand-Operated or Spring Switch).

 

 

There is clearly a difference between authority and permission.  

 

 

I was going to give examples of the difference, but I think edited it out.  

In ABS single track, the signal system is usually setup in the manner of Absolute-Permissve Block.  http://broadway.pennsyrr.com/Rail/Signal/Apb/ The head blocks at sidings are non-controlled absolute signals.  The dispatcher has no control over them.  Trains are not authorized by signal indication but other means like track warrants.  In the case of a Stop signal when the train has a track warrant beyond the signal, the authority beyond is the track warrant.  The dispatcher can only gives permission past it.  Note that if the dispatcher can't be contacted there is a way to pass the signal without direct permission.  (I've used both methods before.)  With permission, the stop beyond the signal and 5 minute wait aren't required.

Jeff

Oh, I guess I did already mention it.  I probably should've said it has to do with Main Track Authorizations, which in CTC can include controlled sidings.

I believe we use Authority instead of permission because our rules for CTC (and applies also to manual interlockings) is that to be able to proceed, you have to be authorized either by signal indication or verbally.  Your authorization to proceed ends at the red signal.  If the signal won't come in, then they verbally authorize you to proceed.

 

There are times disatchers give permission.  One is to pass a Stop signal in ABS/TWC territory where you have a track warrant in effect to proceed beyond the signal.  In this case they give permission to pass because your track warrant is your authority.  Other times permission is used is to change directions in a control point or make back up moves.  In these cases you already have authority to occupy a main or controlled track, but are being permitted to do something within that authority.

 

I think Dave H could do a better job of explaining this than I could.  He's more on the model railroad side now, but maybe he'll see this and jump in.

 

Jeff 

 

[oltmannd]

Deggesty

Is that signal system still used on "modern" pasenger equipment? I had the impression that with the advent of almost universal radio communicatoin between the train crew and engine crew it is no longer built in.

I believe it still exists, but is electric. Trainline wires and a buzzer in the head end.

 

[jeffhergert]

oltmannd

 

 

Deggesty

Is that signal system still used on "modern" pasenger equipment? I had the impression that with the advent of almost universal radio communicatoin between the train crew and engine crew it is no longer built in.

 

 

I believe it still exists, but is electric. Trainline wires and a buzzer in the head end.

 

 

The Communicating Signals used to be in the operating rule books.  GCOR doesn't have them.  I'll have to check if the earliest versions did.  Some of the signals sent by the conductor required the engineer to answer with the whistle.

Jeff

[n012944]

Cotton Belt MP104

 

 

n012944

Both myself and Balt have quoted the script from a railroad's rulebook on talking a train by a red.  The word authority is never used, permission is.

 

 

 

 

1.       My original post was an attempt to cast light on some day to day RR things. Why?  It seemed that other folks making posts, due to their questions, were missing day to day things I had seen.

 

2.       That said, I do not argue with what happens elsewhere. 

 

 

You did, and that is what I took exception to.  When you started arguing what happens outside of railroading, ie when you stated an emergancy vehicle has authority not permission to disregard a red light, you drew a line in the sand.  As pointed out by others, that line is not there.

 

  I completely agree that GCOR uses authority, however CSX, and according to Zugman the railroad with little ponies on the side of their locomotive uses permission.  One thing about railroad rule books, they all might all use different words, but they pretty much say the same thing.

 

 

[tree68]

n012944

I completely agree that GCOR uses authority,

And, according to the GCOR and UP excerpts I quoted, they use permission.

I would assert that authority connotes a form of ownership.  The track is mine, all mine, within any constraints that may exist (ie, my authority may include travel in a south direction only - I can't roam around at will, etc).

Permission connotes something temporary - I may pass that specific stop signal, this time and this time only, and (as specifically cited in the UP DS and GCOR rules) only if I have the authority to be on the track beyond that stop signal.

That's not to say that folks might not conflate the two terms, but the definitions are pretty specific.

[Convicted One]

Cotton Belt MP104

NO, the rule was for the unauthorized running of a train on a block of territory,  they only needed a hundred feet of that block, BUT that has been my WHOLE point of the post .........rules are rules, they didn't think about it before making the move, of course they should have  ..

 

Okay so what would have been the right thing for this crew to have done? Refuse to turn the train around and force the railroad to send out a qualified crew to negotiate the wye? 

I'm sure that would have impressed the officials orchestrating the re-enactment.

[SD70Dude]

The Canadian rules (CROR) use "authority" when referring to written instructions issued by the RTC (dispatcher). 

To muddy the waters futher, while in the U.S. dark territory is called "Track Warrant Control"  in Canada it is called the "Occupancy Control System", abbreviated to "OCS" (not to be confused with "On Company Service...).  In OCS trains operate with Clearances, not Track Warrants.

In Canada a Track Warrant is a written authority in CTC (work block, pass stop signal, etc). 

[jeffhergert]

Convicted One

 

 

Cotton Belt MP104

NO, the rule was for the unauthorized running of a train on a block of territory,  they only needed a hundred feet of that block, BUT that has been my WHOLE point of the post .........rules are rules, they didn't think about it before making the move, of course they should have  ..

 

 

 

Okay so what would have been the right thing for this crew to have done? Refuse to turn the train around and force the railroad to send out a qualified crew to negotiate the wye? 

I'm sure that would have impressed the officials orchestrating the re-enactment.

 

That happens more often than you would think.  CMS calls a crew, giving minimal if not outright wrong information.  Crew shows up and realizes they aren't qualified for the route intendend for the job.  Notify the dispatcher or local on-duty management.  Usually this happens when something out of the ordinary trains or jobs are run, especially if boards are depleted. 

I looked at the timetable for that area.  The main route through Brinkley (exSSW) is CTC.  The line from Brinkley to Memphis (exRI) is ABS/TWC.  Just from looking at the TT, to turn an engine it seems you would need a track warrant to use a portion of the wye, one leg being the main track to Memphis.  Because it is a junction point on territory they were qualified on, I'm not sure they could refuse on the grounds of not being qualified or familiar.  Maybe they couldn't take a train to Memphis, or even the next siding east of Brinkley, but could turn an engine on the wye.  That's why one carries timetables and subdivision general orders for all lines, even auxilary ones, to the territory you normally run.  So you can check what authorizations you may need.   

Jeff

 

[Convicted One]

jeffhergert

Just from looking at the TT, to turn an engine it seems you would need a track warrant to use a portion of the wye, one leg being the main track to Memphis.  Because it is a junction point on territory they were qualified on, I'm not sure they could refuse on the grounds of not being qualified or familiar.  Maybe they couldn't take a train to Memphis, or even the next siding east of Brinkley, but could turn an engine on the wye

 

Okay, thanks!!  Your reply  makes the most sense out of all of this. 

[Cotton Belt MP104]

Convicted One

 

 

jeffhergert

Just from looking at the TT, to turn an engine it seems you would need a track warrant to use a portion of the wye, one leg being the main track to Memphis.  Because it is a junction point on territory they were qualified on, I'm not sure they could refuse on the grounds of not being qualified or familiar.  Maybe they couldn't take a train to Memphis, or even the next siding east of Brinkley, but could turn an engine on the wye

 

 

 

Okay, thanks!!  Your reply  makes the most sense out of all of this. 

 

thanks guys for your interest and insight of the situation i observed......next Wednesday I hope to see the "fireman" involved in the situation.  I will certainly ask several questions of him.  btw   scared me when i saw TT    until i realized it was timetable and not the symbol for turntable.  i thought dang, i didn't think they had a turntable there.....more update later   endmrw0304181340

[Cotton Belt MP104]

Questions?  Anyone add to the list?

Tomorrow i hope to meet the fireman mentioned in my original post.  I will ask:

a. when you guys got called to go to the job, who called you to perform the reenactment?

b. did that person realize the need for turning the engine on track that you all were not certified/qualified to run on?

c. did you feel (afterwards) that you were set up?   i.e. if they knew of the non certification, were they trying to see if a violation of rules would happen

d. who actually suspended you?   

e. how quickly into the move did cesation of the reenactment occur?

f. what was the reason given for suspension?

g. when at the wye, what could have been done to preclude the suspension?

h.  would there have been such a thing as asking the dispatch for "permission" to make the move, knowing, conceding, the crew was not certified to operate on that block?   Not "authority" to occupy the block, but instead permission to advance only to accomplish the turn around

i. as a fireman, have you ever shoveled coal into a steam engine firebox?

anyone?    endmrw0305182111

[Cotton Belt MP104]

oooops   meeting is hopefully Wednesday    reference see below post  endmrw0305182202

[Cotton Belt MP104]

[quote user="zugmann"]

 For us, it's permission by a stop signal.  Written in black and white in my rule books. Maybe other rule books say differently. 

 Posted by jeffhergert on Tuesday, February 27, 2018 5:14 PM

I believe we use Authority instead of permission because our rules for CTC (and applies also to manual interlockings) is that to be able to proceed, you have to be authorized either by signal indication or verbally.  Your authorization to proceed ends at the red signal.  If the signal won't come in, then they verbally authorize you to proceed.

Hope this clarifies what was observed here in UP territory  endmrw0306181855

 

 

 

[tree68]

Cotton Belt MP104

I believe we use Authority instead of permission because our rules for CTC (and applies also to manual interlockings) is that to be able to proceed, you have to be authorized either by signal indication or verbally.  Your authorization to proceed ends at the red signal.  If the signal won't come in, then they verbally authorize you to proceed.

The UP Dispatcher Rules and the GCOR that I cited both used permission when passing a stop signal.  A train has to have authority on the track beyond the signal before the dispatcher can give them permission to pass the signal.

[zugmann]

tree68

The UP Dispatcher Rules and the GCOR that I cited both used permission when passing a stop signal. A train has to have authority on the track beyond the signal before the dispatcher can give them permission to pass the signal.

We should add out of service tracks to this mix.  To go there you need permission and a copy of the authority.

[Cotton Belt MP104]

[quote user="tree68"] 

Cotton Belt MP104

I believe we use Authority instead of permission because our rules for CTC (and applies also to manual interlockings) is that to be able to proceed, you have to be authorized either by signal indication or verbally.  Your authorization to proceed ends at the red signal.  If the signal won't come in, then they verbally authorize you to proceed.

 The UP Dispatcher Rules and the GCOR that I cited both used permission when passing a stop signal.  A train has to have authority on the track beyond the signal before the dispatcher can give them permission to pass the signal.

 

FOUL ......come on.....you edited what clearly was plainly a post of someone who has verified my comment and it appears he is correct in that some of you active RR guys have acknowledged his being correct. You have reposted a part of my post but do not include who actually said, ,.....what you make out to appear my words ...... why?

Note:...."I believe we use Authority instead of permission......" a quote of Jeff   NOT ME

I'm beginning to wonder if there is any recoginition of RR's west of the Mississippi?  Sure there are RR on the East but the radio talk doesn't sound the same there as here.  It's really a simple, reality, as some have acknowledged ,"on our road" well this is another road. Please accept that.  Who knows maybe all the dispatchers I hear on the radio are saying this wrong and violating the rules. I have only repeated what I heard

endmrw0306181914....

[Cotton Belt MP104]

zugmann

 

 

tree68

The UP Dispatcher Rules and the GCOR that I cited both used permission when passing a stop signal. A train has to have authority on the track beyond the signal before the dispatcher can give them permission to pass the signal.

 

 

We should add out of service tracks to this mix.  To go there you need permission and a copy of the authority.

 

Why add more to the mix? It is really simple, I reported what I heard, first hand and not shanty talk. Others have confirmed that this wording is used on some railroads. Maybe those who disagree are on roads that do not use the same wording that is used elsewhere.  What is so hard to accept about that? endmrw0306181946

[zugmann]

Cotton Belt MP104

Why add more to the mix? It is really simple, I reported what I heard, first hand and not shanty talk. Others have confirmed that this wording is used on some railroads. Maybe those who disagree are on roads that do not use the same wording that is used elsewhere. What is so hard to accept about that? endmrw0306181946

Adding to the mix is fun.  

[Cotton Belt MP104]

n012944

 Cotton Belt MP104

n012944

Both myself and Balt have quoted the script from a railroad's rulebook on talking a train by a red.  The word authority is never used, permission is.

NO ARGUEMENT, BUT I THINK WHAT I HEARD WAS ON ANOTHER RAILROAD  mrw 

 

 1.       My original post was an attempt to cast light on some day to day RR things. Why?  It seemed that other folks making posts, due to their questions, were missing day to day things I had seen.

 2.       That said, I do not argue with what happens elsewhere. 

BE CAREFUL THE ABOVE #2 IS IN REFERENCE TO .....ANOTHER RAILROAD......NOT MINE

You did, and that is what I took exception to.

 

BE CAREFUL, YOU THOUGHT, WHAT YOU WANTED TO THINK, BUT MY USE OF THE WORD "ELSEWHERE" .......IN CONTEXT...... REFERS TO OTHER RAILROADS

 When you started arguing what happens outside of railroading, ie when you stated an emergancy vehicle has authority not permission to disregard a red light, you drew a line in the sand.  As pointed out by others, that line is not there.

 FOR THE MOMENT LET'S DELAY THE EMERGENCY VEHICLE SITUATION

AND PAY CLOSE ATTENTION TO THE STATEMENT BELOW    I WILL HIGHLIGHT THE PART THAT IS IMPORTANT TO ME

  I completely agree that GCOR uses authority, ....... WOW THAT IS SOME STATEMENT mrw

however CSX, ..........  PARDON ME BUT MY COMMENTS WERE CLEARLY STATED AS .......NOT...... BEING IN CSX TERRITORY mrw

and according to Zugman the railroad with little ponies on the side of their locomotive uses permission.  One thing about railroad rule books, they all might all use different words, but they pretty much say the same thing.

IF THEY PRETTY MUCH SAY THE SAME THING ........WHY PRAY TELL HAS THERE BEEN SUCH A COMMOTION OVER WHAT I HEARD SAID  endmrw0306182007

 

 

 

[zugmann]

I don't know why you're getting so upset about discussion.  It's kind of what this site is about.

[Cotton Belt MP104]

zugmann

I don't know why you're getting so upset about discussion.  It's kind of what this site is about.

 

Discussion is great, but contridicting what is and is not ......that is not discussion. upset naw, just slightly irritated that some are so insistent that their way is the only way.  I have been recited to by the definitions of authority versis permission and cited by the rules of the railroads that they are familiar with.  Fine, but to say what I heard is false and I am misleading.  Slightly irritating. I will be very cautious to ever again use the word   fired    for suspension.  Although a retired conductor friend used it last night in a railroad chat.   endmrw0306182022

[tree68]

Cotton Belt MP104

I'm beginning to wonder if there is any recognition of RR's west of the Mississippi? 

Cut and paste quotes of UP dispatcher rules and GCOR isn't recognition?

Both plainly state that there is a difference.

I will acknowledge that there are some who may conflate "authority" and "permission."

About the only significant difference between the rules used by the various railroads are the paragraph numbers.  And so far, four recognized rulebooks have shown there to be a difference between the two terms.

I missed the fact that you were quoting Jeff because I'm used to dealing with properly formatted quotes.  

And I don't think what we're saying conflicts with what Jeff wrote.  

In fact, in the paragraph Jeff wrote after the one you quoted, he said:

jhegert

There are times disatchers give permission.  One is to pass a Stop signal in ABS/TWC territory where you have a track warrant in effect to proceed beyond the signal.  In this case they give permission to pass because your track warrant is your authority.  Other times permission is used is to change directions in a control point or make back up moves.  In these cases you already have authority to occupy a main or controlled track, but are being permitted to do something within that authority.

And that is exactly what I've been trying to point out.

Something we're missing here is context.  If a train only has authority to a given point (control point/signal/interlocking), then they do need authority to go beyond that point (as specified in the UP dispatcher rules).  Thus the dispatcher would not only have to give them permission to pass said signal (if it won't clear to a less restricting aspect), but authority to occupy the track beyond it.

If all you're hearing is the local chatter, you won't know what authority a given train had up to that point.  

Oh - as for insisting that "our" way is the only way - "our" way is the rules we have to operate under.  We really don't have any other choice.

If you'd like to quote, chapter and verse, the rules that back up what you're insisting on, I'm sure we'd love to see it.

 

[Deggesty]

Well said, Larry. 

May the two words never be conflated, as "can" is often used when asking permission. I was taught that "can" meant "ability," and "may" meant "permission"--two quite different meanings. 

[zugmann]

Cotton Belt MP104

Discussion is great, but contridicting what is and is not ......that is not discussion. upset naw, just slightly irritated that some are so insistent that their way is the only way. I have been recited to by the definitions of authority versis permission and cited by the rules of the railroads that they are familiar with. Fine, but to say what I heard is false and I am misleading. Slightly irritating. I will be very cautious to ever again use the word fired for suspension. Although a retired conductor friend used it last night in a railroad chat. endmrw0306182022

Fine.  I don't know why you're getting so irritated about it.  I wasn't even going to repsond, but you kept quoting my posts for some reason. 

 

 

I don't think anyone on here said their way is the only way, either.

[Murphy Siding]

 

Cotton Belt-

We’re having trouble following how things are quoted on this thread. Here’s a quick tutorial. Can you practice it once? Please use this post as your guinea pig.

Here’s what you do:
*Hit REPLY button
*Hit Add quote to your post
The post you’re quoting will show up in the reply box down below
*Scroll to the bottom of the reply box
*Click to the right of [/quote]
*Write your comment
*Click SUBMIT to post.

 

[Murphy Siding]

[quote user="Murphy Siding"]

 

Cotton Belt-

We’re having trouble following how things are quoted on this thread. Here’s a quick tutorial. Can you practice it once? Please use this post as your guinea pig.

Here’s what you do:
*Hit REPLY button
*Hit Add quote to your post
The post you’re quoting will show up in the reply box down below
*Scroll to the bottom of the reply box
*Click to the right of [/quote}
*Write your comment
*Click SUBMIT to post.

 

 

[/quote] 






Finished product should look like this.

[Euclid]

What is happening is that sometimes when you hit "Add quote to your post", it leaves the cursor located right after the first designation of [quote] rather than the last designation. 

Often, when you then see your cursor after the first [quote], the actual quote text is not showing in the composition box.  So, thinking that your cursor is following the quote text, you begin to type your message text.  But the message text is actually following the first [quote] so it ends up appearing to be part of your quote when you post.  

I have had this happen frequently during the last few weeks, and have gone back to edit and correct the problem in many posts.  I am not sure, but I believe this has happened only when using IE.  In any case, now when selecting for a quote, I always scroll to check where the cursor is left and make sure it is following the quoted text.  

[jeffhergert]

tree68

OK, I'm not under GCOR, but it wasn't hard to find the rules for UP and GCOR governing passing a stop signal.  Other references not cited here indicate that a foreman can give permission through his work area.  

Observation:  He cannot give authority, since there can generally only be one entity with authority and he holds it, but he can give permission through the area he holds the authority for.  I have done this.

UP Dispatcher Rules:

 

 

23.13: Stop Signal / ABS Territory

Reference: GCOR 9.12.4

On single main track, before granting permission for movement to pass Stop in ABS territory the train dispatcher must:

1. Ensure that train has authority to occupy track beyond the Stop indication.

2. Ascertain no conflict of authority exists.

Use verbal format: “AFTER STOPPING (engine/direction) AT (location) HAS PERMISSION TO PASS SIGNAL DISPLAYING STOP INDICATION.”

 

 

GCOR Rule 9.12.4:

 

 

9.12.4 ABS Territory

At a signal displaying a Stop indication outside interlocking limits, the train will be governed as follows:

A. Main Track

On a main track, after stopping, a train authorized beyond the signal must comply with one of the following procedures:

 

1. If authority beyond the signal is joint with other trains or employees, proceed at restricted speed.or
2. Proceed at restricted speed when a crew member has contacted the train dispatcher and obtained permission to pass the Stop indication. However, if the train dispatcher cannot be contacted, move 100 feet past the signal, wait 5 minutes, then proceed at restricted speed. 
4. B. Siding or Other Track

   If the signal governs movements from a siding or other track to the main track, comply with Rule 9.17 (Entering Main Track at Hand-Operated or Spring Switch).

 

 

There is clearly a difference between authority and permission.  

 

 

If you will note, both rules say ABS AUTOMATIC BLOCK SYSTEM territory.

This is for CTC CENTRALIZED TRAFFIC CONTROL territory.

23.10 - Stop Indications / CTC / Manual Interlockings

 

 

Rule Ref: GCOR 9.12.1, 9.12.2, and 9.13

 

Before verbally authorizing a train by a Stop Indication, the Control Operator must ascertain the position of the switch:

Note: A power-operated derail is a dual controlled switch.  "Switch(es)" referenced in 23.10, also apply to power-operated derails, where applicable.

 

If the switches show to be lined and locked for the intended route, apply Paragraph A.

 

If the switches are not lined and locked (out of correspondence), apply Paragraph B.

 

A. Stop Indication Where Dual Control Switches Show to Be Lined and Locked for Intended Route or Where There Are No Switches.

 

Before authorizing a train to proceed past Stop indication, the dispatcher must know that:

 

•            The crew has signal aspect in view

 

•            There are no conflicting movements

 

•            Blocking Mechanism has been applied to prevent unauthorized movement into the protected area

 

•            The affected switch(es) are lined for the intended route by requested signal or OS Block applied

 

•            The affected switch(es) are locked by a Switch Block 

•            All train dispatchers or control operators, including foreign railroads, controlling any signaled route within a manual interlocking, have been contacted to determine that no conflicting movements have been or will be authorized 

•            If in PTC territory, the Enter/Pass Authority (EPA) function is used   

 

 Use verbal format:

 

"AFTER STOPPING, (Train ID) AT (location) HAS AUTHORITY TO PASS SIGNAL DISPLAYING STOP INDICATION." (Add: Route and Direction if more than one route is available)

 

 Removal of blocking mechanisms:

 

•  Do not remove the blocking mechanism from the dual control switches until the train has entered the protected limits
•  Do not remove the blocking mechanism from the protected area until the train has entered the limits and the next controlled signal has been established in direction of movement

 

Notice the word AUTHORITY is used.

 

[tree68]

jeffhergert

Notice the word AUTHORITY is used.

And in black and white.

I do notice, however, that as opposed to the ABS rules, there is no mention of the train involved having to have authority to occupy the track beyond the signal in question, only that there be no conflicting movements, switches are aligned, etc.

The signal notwithstanding, how does a train in CTC territory gain the authority to occupy a given stretch of track? 

[BaltACD]

tree68

 

 

jeffhergert

Notice the word AUTHORITY is used. 

 

And in black and white.

 

I do notice, however, that as opposed to the ABS rules, there is no mention of the train involved having to have authority to occupy the track beyond the signal in question, only that there be no conflicting movements, switches are aligned, etc.

 

The signal notwithstanding, how does a train in CTC territory gain the authority to occupy a given stretch of track? 

In CTC territory - Signal Indication conveys the Authority for movement.

[tree68]

BaltACD

In CTC territory - Signal Indication conveys the Authority for movement.

Well, there you go, then.  That was the source of the confusion.

[Cotton Belt MP104]

[quote user="Euclid"]

What is happening is that sometimes when you hit "Add quote to your post", it leaves the cursor located right after the first designation of [quote] rather than the last designation. 

Often, when you then see your cursor after the first [quote], the actual quote text is not showing in the composition box.  So, thinking that your cursor is following the quote text, you begin to type your message text.  But the message text is actually following the first

so it ends up appearing to be part of your quote when you post.  

I have had this happen frequently during the last few weeks, and have gone back to edit and correct the problem in many posts.  I am not sure, but I believe this has happened only when using IE.  In any case, now when selecting for a quote, I always scroll to check where the cursor is left and make sure it is following the quoted text.  

 

thanks endmrw0306182210

[Cotton Belt MP104]

tree68

 

 

BaltACD

In CTC territory - Signal Indication conveys the Authority for movement.

 

 

Well, there you go, then.  That was the source of the confusion.

 

    Was I the source of the confusion?  If not, who or where did the source of confusion come from?  endmrw0307180005

 

 

[tree68]

Cotton Belt MP104

Was I the source of the confusion? 

Not really - what got lost in the discussion was the difference between ABS and CTC and that it was a factor.  

[Murphy Siding]

[quote user="Cotton Belt MP104"]

 

What is happening is that sometimes when you hit "Add quote to your post", it leaves the cursor located right after the first designation of quote rather than the last designation. 

Often, when you then see your cursor after the first

, the actual quote text is not showing in the composition box.  So, thinking that your cursor is following the quote text, you begin to type your message text.  But the message text is actually following the first

 

so it ends up appearing to be part of your quote when you post.  

I have had this happen frequently during the last few weeks, and have gone back to edit and correct the problem in many posts.  I am not sure, but I believe this has happened only when using IE.  In any case, now when selecting for a quote, I always scroll to check where the cursor is left and make sure it is following the quoted text.  

 

 

 

thanks endmrw0306182210

 

Test.

Conclusion> I think something is ginked up in the quoting function.

 

[BaltACD]

Method I have been using for quoting - Write my screed.  Move cursor to start of my screed.  Hit Enter, which adds a couple of lines above what I have written. (If what has been written EXCEEDS the view of the writing window - use the UP key to get you viewing position to the actual cursor position).  Hit the 'Add Quote to your Post' button.

Note - when you quote, the system will add blank lines - for the most part I go through the combined resulting post and remove as many as possible.

[Murphy Siding]

BaltACD

Method I have been using for quoting - Write my screed.  Move cursor to start of my screed.  Hit Enter, which adds a couple of lines above what I have written. (If what has been written EXCEEDS the view of the writing window - use the UP key to get you viewing position to the actual cursor position).  Hit the 'Add Quote to your Post' button.

Note - when you quote, the system will add blank lines - for the most part I go through the combined resulting post and remove as many as possible.

 

Test screed

Edit- That worked!. Why do I always have to relearn how to do things differently? Old dog + new tricks =  

[tree68]

Sometimes I'll use the quote tags themselves if I want to bring in several quotes from different posts, or perhaps just another section from the same post I'm quoting.  Forum code is similar to HTML, but uses brackets [] instead of the less than  < and greater than > signs.  Seems like there used to be a key here somewhere, but I haven't looked for it in a long time.

Just using quote and /quote will set what's between them apart.  If you want to get fancy, or are quoting different people in the same post, you'll want to add the 'user="Name"' as well.  What you end up with in your post looks like what follows, except you'll use [ and ] instead of { and }

{quote user="Name"}Quoted text here.{/quote}

Which will end up looking like this:

Name

Quoted text here.

As Balt says, the quote function will usually add a few blank lines between the quoted text and the end tag.  I also generally delete those lines, which results in a little less white space.  It also ensures that I know where my cursor is.

As noted, what usually gets people in trouble is not ensuring that the cursor is after the /quote tag.  Then you're left to figure out which part is the quote and which part is their contribution.

 

[Overmod]

Just look up "BBcode" for the syntax.  A surprising number of the tags work here.

Part of the great mobile-site crap-up is that selecting part of the text in a reply doesn't always 'take' on an iPhone ... just goes ahead and pastes the whole quote.  This promptly combines with the improper implementation of keyboard codes when backspace-deleting and the poor method of selecting text past the tiny visible edit window to make attempts at quoting suck pretty badly.

[rdamon]

I use the code frequently ..  great for google maps

I use the 'Share or Embed' option to get a link

<iframe src="https://www.google.com/maps/embed ....

And then I hit the <> (source code) button and paste it in at the end.

 

[jeffhergert]

tree68

 

 

BaltACD

In CTC territory - Signal Indication conveys the Authority for movement.

 

 

Well, there you go, then.  That was the source of the confusion.

 

Except when the signal is at Stop and can't or won't be allowed to be cleared by conditions in the field.  Then you have to be verbally authorized to proceed.

10.1 - Authority to Enter CTC Limits

 

 

CTC limits are designated in the timetable. Sidings within CTC limits are controlled sidings and are governed by CTC rules. A train must not enter or occupy any track where CTC is in effect unless a controlled signal displays a proceed indication or the control operator authorizes:

 

• Movement past a Stop indication under Rule 9.12.1 (CTC Territory).

• A train to enter track between block signals as follows: "(Train) at (location) has authority to enter (track) and proceed (direction)." After entering the track, the train is authorized to move only in the direction specified.
  
  or

• Track and Time under Rule 10.3 (Track and Time).

   

 

Signal Governing Movement Over a Hand-Operated Switch

 

If a signal governs movement over a hand-operated switch that is not electrically locked, the control operator must authorize the train to enter or occupy any track where CTC is in effect before the switch is opened. After the switch is opened, if the signal does not display a proceed indication, a crew member must wait 10  minutes at the switch. After the 10 minute wait if the signal does not display a proceed indication, move the train at restricted speed and notify the control operator.

 

However, if the block to be entered is occupied by its own standing train or when the hand-operated switch remains open, the movement may, after stopping, pass an absolute signal displaying a Stop indication without waiting 10 minutes and without contacting the control operator.

 

 

Jeff

[Cotton Belt MP104]

tree68

 Cotton Belt MP104

Was I the source of the confusion? 

 

 

Not really - what got lost in the discussion was the difference between ABS and CTC and that it was a factor.  

 

Since we have been splitting hairs on word usage, I am curious about the term you used,   NOT REALLY. 

 I looked it up:

 not really: To a low degree, not particularly, not especially. Not actually

I would hope your usage is the last, not the next to last or especially the first suggested definition.  The way the thread has been running I get the feeling that so many have been misled by my depending on shanty, 4^th hand information and “I am the WHO in confusing things” due to my misrepresenting things   endmrw0308182244

[tree68]

Not splitting hairs.

In the case of CTC, where the signal indication grants authority to occupy the track beyond the signal, a signal that can't/won't clear (as Jeff notes) requires the dispatcher to orally do so (give permission), thus conferring authority to a train.  No sense in using both terms (and potentially confusing), so authority alone is used.

While this may appear to be the same thing as talking a train past a stop signal in ABS, it is not, as with ABS the train already has authority on the track beyond the signal but needs assistance (permission) to pass that signal.

Hence the difference between the use of the two terms.  

The fact that we (as a whole) focused for a while on the passing a stop signal angle vs the CTC angle speaks to the confusion amongst us all.  But that may have been a good thing, as it did nicely illustrate the difference between the two.

[Euclid]

BaltACD

 

tree68

 

 

jeffhergert

Notice the word AUTHORITY is used. 

 

And in black and white.

 

I do notice, however, that as opposed to the ABS rules, there is no mention of the train involved having to have authority to occupy the track beyond the signal in question, only that there be no conflicting movements, switches are aligned, etc.

 

The signal notwithstanding, how does a train in CTC territory gain the authority to occupy a given stretch of track? 

 

 

In CTC territory - Signal Indication conveys the Authority for movement.

 

If the signal is clear in ABS, does the train not have authority to occupy track beyond the signal?  Does signal indication not convey authority for movment in ABS?  If so, what does convey authority for trains to pass clear signals in ABS?

[tree68]

Euclid

If the signal is clear in ABS, does the train not have authority to occupy track beyond the signal?  Does signal indication not convey authority for movment in ABS?  If so, what does convey authority for trains to pass clear signals in ABS?

A track warrant conveys authority in that situation.  The signals simply indicate the occupancy status of the tracks ahead.

If you look back at the rule cites on passing a stop signal in ABS territory, you'll note that the dispatcher can only give permission to pass a stop signal if the train already has authority on the track past the signal.

[Angela Pusztai-Pasternak]

Please keep this to friendly conversations about railroading and not nitpicking one another about language usage. Happy Fri-Yay! Ang

[Cotton Belt MP104]

Angela Pusztai-Pasternak

Please keep this to friendly conversations about railroading and not nitpicking one another about language usage. Happy Fri-Yay! Ang

 

Whole heartedly agree.

Thanks.

Where have you been when ranting and raving about Southwest airlines customer service and other side related issues were going on. 

For instance the tragedy of two crewmembers who died at Casey were discussed on a thread that degenerated into getting drunk and playing whack a mole. 

When i brought up that disgrace, I was told to go start my own "serious thread" if i was offended.  Seriously?  endmrw0309180909

[Euclid]

tree68

 

Euclid

If the signal is clear in ABS, does the train not have authority to occupy track beyond the signal?  Does signal indication not convey authority for movment in ABS?  If so, what does convey authority for trains to pass clear signals in ABS?

 

 

A track warrant conveys authority in that situation.  The signals simply indicate the occupancy status of the tracks ahead.

If you look back at the rule cites on passing a stop signal in ABS territory, you'll note that the dispatcher can only give permission to pass a stop signal if the train already has authority on the track past the signal.

 

Okay, I see the distinction.  If a train has a track warrant conveying authority, and an ABS displays stop, does the stop indication suspend or override the track authority conveyed by the warrant? 

[Overmod]

Euclid

Okay, I see the distinction. If a train has a track warrant conveying authority, and an ABS displays stop, does the stop indication suspend or override the track authority conveyed by the warrant?

I think you have missed the whole point of the thread up to now.

The only way a train will pass an ABS displaying 'stop' is if it is given permission to do so.  That is completely different from the authority that ensures it is the only train able to operate in that section of railroad.

If you read up on the early history, first of the block system and then on implementation of automatic block systems (notably in the early years of the 20th Century) you will appreciate why this distinction is so important ... and why the display on the signals is different from train-order and track-warrant control of movements.

It does not help that the signal displays have been 'overloaded' (in the computer sense) with more aspects that convey different information -- for example, 'diverging clear' on NS.  (These are not limited to color-light signals; there are some for PRR-style position lights and BaltACD can explain some for CPLs).  Remember that at least nominally the dispatcher controls the extra aspects, and therefore they constitute a form of 'permission' not requiring explicit communication with the dispatcher via radio.

I'm sure you recognize that the effectiveness of ABS as a safety system would be fundamentally destroyed if track-warrant authority 'superseded' a stop signal it displayed.

When I was young, I was fooled by analogy into thinking that signals worked as they do on the roads, and by extension on the New York subways, and that as a B&O engineer famously said about Patenall's signals "when I see a green anywhere I go like hell".  There have been arguments over the years to implement just this kind of signal-based 'authority' and I believe some of the PTC proposals in that time either tacitly or explicitly contain some details (albeit with the 'safety' aspects sent in code rather than with colored lights for human eyes).  But there are likely to remain valid reasons to retain some form of authority, if only as a 'backup', even in a world of full and effective bandwidth and communications enabling good CBTC.

[tree68]

Euclid

...does the stop indication suspend or override the track authority conveyed by the warrant? 

No, aside from prohibiting further movement in that direction until the signal aspect becomes less restrictive.  As mentioned, the signal simply indicates track occupancy in the block ahead.  Suspend is too strong a term.  The train still has authority to occupy the track, just not until the light turns green, if you will.

For all intents and purposes, an automatic interlocking like Rochelle is still a track occupancy indication - it's just that your track may not be occupied, but the intersecting track is.

[Euclid]

Overmod

I think you have missed the whole point of the thread up to now.

I am sure that I did miss the whole poing of this thread up to now because I was not reading the thread up to now.  So I was just asking a pinpoint, stand alone question regarding the relationship between signal indication and track authority for ABS and CTC. 

[Overmod]

tree68

The train still has authority to occupy the track, just not until the light turns green, if you will.

If I might recommend a semantic change: the train still has authority to be on the section of railroad it occupies, to the exception of any other train.  That says nothing about its progress down that section of railroad -- which, to be safe, is governed by ABS or, in its absence, by a very careful version of block working.

As a very imperfect analogy:  a driver's license allows you to operate a vehicle on a given section of public road, and without it you're not supposed to turn a wheel there.  But having a valid license in your possession does not allow you to run red lights or roll through stops with impunity.  Likewise primarily for safety, not operational-efficiency, reasons.

[Euclid]

tree68

 

Euclid

...does the stop indication suspend or override the track authority conveyed by the warrant? 

 

 

No, aside from prohibiting further movement in that direction until the signal aspect becomes less restrictive.  As mentioned, the signal simply indicates track occupancy in the block ahead.  Suspend is too strong a term.  The train still has authority to occupy the track, just not until the light turns green, if you will.

For all intents and purposes, an automatic interlocking like Rochelle is still a track occupancy indication - it's just that your track may not be occupied, but the intersecting track is.

 

So the ABS stop indication, does not actually eliminate the track authority, as may be implied by my use of the word "suspend."  But the ABS stop indication does prohibit movement past it even though track authority exists beyond the stop indication.  So even though track authority exists, the right to use it is voided as long as the ABS indicates stop (unless permission is granted to proceed past the stop indication).  So track authority can exist without the authority to move through it. 

[tree68]

Overmod

If I might recommend a semantic change: the train still has authority to be on the section of railroad it occupies, to the exception of any other train.  That says nothing about its progress down that section of railroad -- which, to be safe, is governed by ABS or, in its absence, by a very careful version of block working.

Agreed.

In the absence of ABS (and without CTC), though, aren't we look at dark territory, in which each train will be given exclusive authority (TWC/DCS/etc) to occupy a specific stretch of track?

The driver's license analogy is appropriate.

[jeffhergert]

Overmod

 

 

Euclid

Okay, I see the distinction. If a train has a track warrant conveying authority, and an ABS displays stop, does the stop indication suspend or override the track authority conveyed by the warrant?

 

 

I think you have missed the whole point of the thread up to now.

The only way a train will pass an ABS displaying 'stop' is if it is given permission to do so.  That is completely different from the authority that ensures it is the only train able to operate in that section of railroad.

 

In ABS, if you have a track warrant authorizing movement past the signal displaying stop (This does not apply to interlockings, manual or automatic.  Those are covered by other rules.) you can pass the signal without permission if you can't get hold of the dispatcher.  

After stopping and attempting to contact the dispatcher, you can pull past the signal 100 feet and then again stop.  Wait 5 minutes and then proceed at restricted speed to the next signal.  Pulling past, stopping and then waiting 5 minutes establishes opposing block signal protection.   

Jeff

[Overmod]

Euclid

So even though track authority exists, the right to use it is voided as long as the ABS indicates stop (unless permission is granted to proceed past the stop indication).

See Jeff's corrections to what I wrote.  The right to 'use' the authority remains regardless of what the ABS says; it establishes the right of the train to be where it is.  All that is "voided" by the ABS indicating red is the permission to advance the train into the (unknown) hazards that caused the safety signal to display 'stop'. Note that the procedures Jeff provided are all relatively safe ways to move up and confirm what made the signal drop without having to, say, wait for someone on the ground to confirm the situation for the dispatcher.  But they involve aspects of permission; without pre-existing and continuing authority none of them could be utilized.

[Euclid]

Overmod

 

Euclid

So even though track authority exists, the right to use it is voided as long as the ABS indicates stop (unless permission is granted to proceed past the stop indication).

 

 

See Jeff's corrections to what I wrote.  The right to 'use' the authority remains regardless of what the ABS says; it establishes the right of the train to be where it is.  All that is "voided" by the ABS indicating red is the permission to advance the train into the (unknown) hazards that caused the safety signal to display 'stop'. Note that the procedures Jeff provided are all relatively safe ways to move up and confirm what made the signal drop without having to, say, wait for someone on the ground to confirm the situation for the dispatcher.  But they involve aspects of permission; without pre-existing and continuing authority none of them could be utilized.

 

That is what I said.

[zugmann]

Cotton Belt MP104

Where have you been when ranting and raving about Southwest airlines customer service and other side related issues were going on.

Even God had to take a break on the 7th day.

[Overmod]

Euclid

That is what I said.

Except that you said 'voided' which is not right.  "Suspended" might be a better word but still not semantically quite right.  The train reserves the 'sole right' to be there at all times; that does not go away if the train is 'held' for safety reasons.  And if there is some other train causing the ABS stop, it will not be allowed to move without a release and reassignment of the unvoided use of authority that has been granted.

[Euclid]

Overmod

 

Euclid

That is what I said.

 

 

Except that you said 'voided' which is not right.  "Suspended" might be a better word but still not semantically quite right.  The train reserves the 'sole right' to be there at all times; that does not go away if the train is 'held' for safety reasons.  And if there is some other train causing the ABS stop, it will not be allowed to move without a release and reassignment of the unvoided use of authority that has been granted.

 

"Voided" is just fine.  Obviously the train cannot have the right to be where it has track authority if a stop signal prevents the train from being in that place of track authority.  So in that case, track authority alone does not grant a right to be there.  So in a practical sense, I would say that the stop signal voids the track authority.  Then when the signal clears, the track authority becomes unvoided.

Actually, the perfect word is "suppress."  This allows the concept that when a stop signal prevents movement through a zone of track authority, the track authority is still there.  But is suppressed by the stop signal.  I'm going with suppress.  It means to restrain or subdue the effect without removing the underlying cause.  Suppress...  A stop indication on ABS suppresses track authority beyond the signal. 

[BaltACD]

Yes, but!

[Euclid]

YES SUPPRESS

[zugmann]

I'd say interrupt.

[Overmod]

Would Johnny Cochrane say "if the 'spatch don't bless you must suppress"?

[charlie hebdo]

In the spirit of the Pythons, "Stop! Stop! This sketch is not funny!"

[tree68]

zugmann

I'd say interrupt.

[Euclid]

I thought we were told that track authority continues to exist while movement over it is prohibited due to a stop indication from ABS. Interrupt means that the thing interrupted ceases to exist during the interruption.  So I don’t think the glove fits.

[zugmann]

Voiding has a very specific meaning when it comes to our track authorities and form Ds (I have no clue about you GCOR guys), so you have to be careful with that term.

 

[tree68]

OK.  Dad calls you into his workshop, hands you the car keys, and tells you he wants to go to the hardware store to pick up a framis for his current project.

For the purposes of this example, his directive to drive to the hardware store equates to authority to drive to the hardware store.

On the way, you encounter a traffic light that is red for your direction of travel, so you stop.

At this point, is your trip to the hardware store voided, suppressed, suspended, or interrupted?

[Electroliner 1935]

tree68

At this point, is your trip to the hardware store voided, suppressed, suspended, or interrupted?

I would say none of those. Motion is paused, but the goal is still in effect and as soon as permission is given, the trip can continue. Slow orders don't end a trip, they just advise the allowable speed for a specified portion of the route. Similarly, the stop (or stop and proceed) signal may cause the train to pause, but it doesn't terminate the trip. 

[BaltACD]

tree68

OK.  Dad calls you into his workshop, hands you the car keys, and tells you he wants to go to the hardware store to pick up a framis for his current project.

For the purposes of this example, his directive to drive to the hardware store equates to authority to drive to the hardware store.

On the way, you encounter a traffic light that is red for your direction of travel, so you stop.

At this point, is your trip to the hardware store voided, suppressed, suspended, or interrupted?

Once at the hardware store and business had been concluded, authority is also in hand for the return home, however, should a side trip to Pizza Hut be taken - that is outside the limits of the authority and is punishable for exceeding the limits of the authority.  Stop Signs or Stop Lights DO NOT change the limits of the authority they just change the speeds at which the authority may be fulfilled.

[Cotton Belt MP104]

tree68

OK.  Dad calls you into his workshop, hands you the car keys, and tells you he wants to go to the hardware store to pick up a framis for his current project.

For the purposes of this example, his directive to drive to the hardware store equates to authority to drive to the hardware store.

On the way, you encounter a traffic light that is red for your direction of travel, so you stop.

At this point, is your trip to the hardware store voided, suppressed, suspended, or interrupted?

 

two questions: does the kid have a valid drivers license and what is a framis  endmrw0309182116

[jeffhergert]

Euclid

 

 

Overmod

 

Euclid

That is what I said.

 

 

Except that you said 'voided' which is not right.  "Suspended" might be a better word but still not semantically quite right.  The train reserves the 'sole right' to be there at all times; that does not go away if the train is 'held' for safety reasons.  And if there is some other train causing the ABS stop, it will not be allowed to move without a release and reassignment of the unvoided use of authority that has been granted.

 

 

 

 

"Voided" is just fine.  Obviously the train cannot have the right to be where it has track authority if a stop signal prevents the train from being in that place of track authority.  So in that case, track authority alone does not grant a right to be there.  So in a practical sense, I would say that the stop signal voids the track authority.  Then when the signal clears, the track authority becomes unvoided.

Actually, the perfect word is "suppress."  This allows the concept that when a stop signal prevents movement through a zone of track authority, the track authority is still there.  But is suppressed by the stop signal.  I'm going with suppress.  It means to restrain or subdue the effect without removing the underlying cause.  Suppress...  A stop indication on ABS suppresses track authority beyond the signal. 

 

A stop signal in ABS does nothing to the train's authority.  The signal can not grant, nor take away authority.  If the signal had a proceed indication (clear, advance approach, approach) but the train did not have a track warrant beyond the signal, the train can not proceed.    

If the train has authorization past it, the Stop signal does not keep the train from passing it.  It requires a stop, but there are procedures to pass it which have been discussed.  If the Stop signal took away authority, a train could not pass it without contacting the dispatcher.  Something the rules clearly allow.  If the Stop signal took away authority the dispatcher would have to use the word authority instead of permission to allow the train to proceed past it.  

Jeff

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

A college professor once told my class that we can use any words we want as long as we agree on the definitions.  Definitions of the various words used in the Operating Rules are what matter.

[Deggesty]

CSSHEGEWISCH

A college professor once told my class that we can use any words we want as long as we agree on the definitions.  Definitions of the various words used in the Operating Rules are what matter.

 

Exactly. You may not act as Humpty Dumpty in Through Looking Glass did, saying that words mean "what I want them to."

You must know what the words in your rule book mean--and live by them.

[Cotton Belt MP104]

Deggesty

 CSSHEGEWISCH

A college professor once told my class that we can use any words we want as long as we agree on the definitions.  Definitions of the various words used in the Operating Rules are what matter.

 

Exactly. You may not act as Humpty Dumpty in Through Looking Glass did, saying that words mean "what I want them to."

 You must know what the words in your rule book mean--and live by them.

 

Exactly, ........and that is what happened in this discussion about authority versis permission.  Those who said I was in error concerning my first post, have been shown via Jeff's post, especially the most recent one, it is as I said.  And I was not repeating "what I wanted them to mean"  or discounted as "fourth hand shanty talk"   endmrw0310181015

[n012944]

Cotton Belt MP104

 

 

Deggesty

 CSSHEGEWISCH

A college professor once told my class that we can use any words we want as long as we agree on the definitions.  Definitions of the various words used in the Operating Rules are what matter.

 

Exactly. You may not act as Humpty Dumpty in Through Looking Glass did, saying that words mean "what I want them to."

 You must know what the words in your rule book mean--and live by them.

 

 

 

 

Exactly, ........and that is what happened in this discussion about authority versis permission.  Those who said I was in error concerning my first post, have been shown via Jeff's post, especially the most recent one, it is as I said.  And I was not repeating "what I wanted them to mean"  or discounted as "fourth hand shanty talk"   endmrw0310181015

 

 

Um, no you were in error because you were not clear with the details.  As pointed out by many, what you said was wrong on non GCOR railroads.  And since you never mentioned a railroad in your almost unreadable 1st post, those that pointed out your error were correct.

[jeffhergert]

n012944

 

 

Cotton Belt MP104

 

 

Deggesty

 CSSHEGEWISCH

A college professor once told my class that we can use any words we want as long as we agree on the definitions.  Definitions of the various words used in the Operating Rules are what matter.

 

Exactly. You may not act as Humpty Dumpty in Through Looking Glass did, saying that words mean "what I want them to."

 You must know what the words in your rule book mean--and live by them.

 

 

 

 

Exactly, ........and that is what happened in this discussion about authority versis permission.  Those who said I was in error concerning my first post, have been shown via Jeff's post, especially the most recent one, it is as I said.  And I was not repeating "what I wanted them to mean"  or discounted as "fourth hand shanty talk"   endmrw0310181015

 

 

 

 

 

Um, no you were in error because you were not clear with the details.  As pointed out by many, what you said was wrong on non GCOR railroads.  And since you never mentioned a railroad in your almost unreadable 1st post, those that pointed out your error were correct.

 

Funny thing is, I weighed in a few times saying about the same thing about authority vs. permission and it's like no one noticed.  I knew the location he was talking about.  That the railroad was UP, involving former Cotten Belt and Rock Island trackage.  I guess I assumed most every one else knew it at least to be UP, too.  I guess I also assumed if I acknowledgded some of what he posted, people might realize we aren't talking NS, CSX or NORAC rules here.

Jeff

[Deggesty]

Well, Jeff, it is true that not everyone is as aware of whom the UP swallowed as you, MC, Carl, Larry, and I are.

I wonder how many people in road service had to re-learn this rule and that rule as a result of the Big Gulps.

[Cotton Belt MP104]

jeffhergert

 

Um, no you were in error because you were not clear with the details.  As pointed out by many, what you said was wrong on non GCOR railroads.  And since you never mentioned a railroad in your almost unreadable 1st post, those that pointed out your error were correct.

  

Funny thing is, I weighed in a few times saying about the same thing about authority vs. permission and it's like no one noticed.  I knew the location he was talking about.  That the railroad was UP, involving former Cotten Belt and Rock Island trackage.  I guess I assumed most every one else knew it at least to be UP, too.  I guess I also assumed if I acknowledgded some of what he posted, people might realize we aren't talking NS, CSX or NORAC rules here.

Jeff

 

 

Thanks Jeff. I had lunch recently with ten of the retired SSW/MoP guys.  Two in the group were of the crew at Brinkley. The fireman said he could care less if anyone knew his name and what happened. Fine w/him.  He also confirmed he had never shoveled coal as he hired out in 1961 and was the last fireman listed on SSW roster.  He laughed when we reminised about the young official who did not know what a fireman did.  

There is a critical update on the incident and I will share that with those who were actually wanting to know about this incident rather than throw it away as nonsense.  In fact I might need your help on details since you can research trackage in detail there.  The one who was at fault was not in the meeting.  He lives in Brinkley and that is sorta why things went wrong.  He commuted to Jonesboro for work.  The brakeman at the lunch, who was off for six months went to his cabin and fished all that time.  At the time of the incident he was waiting to switch far away from the incident and wondered, why the heck are they just sitting there.  Dispatch told them to "Stop, don't move". I am sure there were telephone calls to the officials on site who had no clue what rules infraction had occured.  More later     endmrw0310181150

[n012944]

jeffhergert

 

 

n012944

 

 

Cotton Belt MP104

 

 

Deggesty

 CSSHEGEWISCH

A college professor once told my class that we can use any words we want as long as we agree on the definitions.  Definitions of the various words used in the Operating Rules are what matter.

 

Exactly. You may not act as Humpty Dumpty in Through Looking Glass did, saying that words mean "what I want them to."

 You must know what the words in your rule book mean--and live by them.

 

 

 

 

Exactly, ........and that is what happened in this discussion about authority versis permission.  Those who said I was in error concerning my first post, have been shown via Jeff's post, especially the most recent one, it is as I said.  And I was not repeating "what I wanted them to mean"  or discounted as "fourth hand shanty talk"   endmrw0310181015

 

 

 

 

 

Um, no you were in error because you were not clear with the details.  As pointed out by many, what you said was wrong on non GCOR railroads.  And since you never mentioned a railroad in your almost unreadable 1st post, those that pointed out your error were correct.

 

 

 

 

Funny thing is, I weighed in a few times saying about the same thing about authority vs. permission and it's like no one noticed.  I knew the location he was talking about.  That the railroad was UP, involving former Cotten Belt and Rock Island trackage.  I guess I assumed most every one else knew it at least to be UP, too.  I guess I also assumed if I acknowledgded some of what he posted, people might realize we aren't talking NS, CSX or NORAC rules here.

Jeff

 

 

You also assume I had any idea what railroad you work for (I didn't).  The OP also argued the whole permission/authority in other contexts, ie emergancy vehicles running red lights, which took the whole conversation past GCOR vs CSX/NS/NORAC rulebook wording.  THAT is were some of us took issue with it, and I am not sure why the OP feels the need to play some internet forum victim card when called out for his/her wording.

[Cotton Belt MP104]

Angela Pusztai-Pasternak

Please keep this to friendly conversations about railroading and not nitpicking one another about language usage. Happy Fri-Yay! Ang

 

Um, no you were in error because you were not clear with the details.  As pointed out by many, what you said was wrong on non GCOR railroads.  And since you never mentioned a railroad in your almost unreadable 1st post, those that pointed out your error were correct.

Is this an example of what you mean, Ang?

For the record I did point out exactly the location, if they did not know what railroad was there it is not my fault they are lacking in full railroading knowledge across the United States

"As pointed out by many" are folks that insisted I was wrong but are I guess Eastern US crew.  It is important to note that one who has clariied the situation and agrees with me is a real railroader and they still want to qualify/ignore his remarks   

If this is your new assignment, monitor the blog, boy you will have your hands full. Years before posting anything I watched the words fly fast and furious.  Then a posting rules update occured last year........same ole  same ole  endmrw0310191254

[jeffhergert]

Well, I think most everyone who's a regular on here knows who I work for.  Or at least that I use GCOR since those are the rules I cite for current operations.

Jeff 

[Cotton Belt MP104]

n012944

 Um, no you were in error because you were not clear with the details.  As pointed out by many, what you said was wrong on non GCOR railroads.  And since you never mentioned a railroad in your almost unreadable 1st post, those that pointed out your error were correct. 

Funny thing is, I weighed in a few times saying about the same thing about authority vs. permission and it's like no one noticed.  I knew the location he was talking about.  That the railroad was UP, involving former Cotten Belt and Rock Island trackage.  I guess I assumed most every one else knew it at least to be UP, too.  I guess I also assumed if I acknowledgded some of what he posted, people might realize we aren't talking NS, CSX or NORAC rules here.

Jeff

 You also assume I had any idea what railroad you work for (I didn't).  The OP also argued the whole permission/authority in other contexts, ie emergancy vehicles running red lights, which took the whole conversation past GCOR vs CSX/NS/NORAC rulebook wording.  THAT is were some of us took issue with it, and I am not sure why the OP feels the need to play some internet forum victim card when called out for his/her wording.

 

Please, how many times have I shared that I DO NOT work on any railroad. I was a crew carrier. I didn't assume anything, if anyone asssumed wrongly, it was those who are not paying attention to the ORIGINAL post.

Turn it loose, please, it's over, case closed (for my part).  I will discuss privately with those truly curious about the incident   endmrw0310181317

Sorry for the example of the emergency vehicle, but then he used the trip to the store.  I have a copy of Arkansas statutes that I am sending him, and it says exactly what I said.  He can cite his states laws but I have wording that actually says what I said in our statutes.   endmrw0310181312

[BaltACD]

Cotton Belt MP104

I have a copy of Arkansas statutes that I am sending him, and it says exactly what I said.  He can cite his states laws but I have wording that actually says what I said in our statutes.   endmrw0310181312

Arkansas has never been considered progressive, except for inflicting the Clinton family on the country.

[Overmod]

BaltACD

Arkansas has never been considered progressive, except for inflicting the Clinton family on the country.

That May be so, but it's immaterial.  Less immaterial is that the 'rules violation' involved in starting all this controversy took place in that state.

[tree68]

Cotton Belt MP104

two questions: does the kid have a valid drivers license and what is a framis 

We will assume that everything is legal, license, registration, insurance, etc, etc.

A framis is a key component of a divariable fribersitcher.

[zugmann]

Cotton Belt MP104

If this is your new assignment, monitor the blog, boy you will have your hands full. Years before posting anything I watched the words fly fast and furious. Then a posting rules update occured last year........same ole same ole endmrw0310191254

I think she's doing a fine job.

[tree68]

Cotton Belt MP104

I have a copy of Arkansas statutes that I am sending him, and it says exactly what I said.  He can cite his states laws but I have wording that actually says what I said in our statutes.

Actually, what you sent me was the recommended instructions for a judge to give a jury.  Even with that, at no point in the pertinant state laws does it say that an emergency vehicle has the authority (the power or right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience) to disregard V&T laws.  In fact, it specifically uses the word "privilege" (a right, immunity, or benefit enjoyed only by a person beyond the advantages of most), and then only with due regard.

The only time the word authorized appears in any of the pertinent V&T laws regards defining the requirements for an authorized emergency vehicle.

Back to the current programming.

[Electroliner 1935]

Larry, 

What I mentioned earlier about the rules for a conflict between a postal vehicle and an emergency responder vehicle was caused by an event that happened back in the late 50's while I was in college. One of my friends worked for the Postal service and had an experience where (and here my memory gets a little fuzzy) there was some contest for ROW between him and an ER vehicle. And he told me and the group I was in at the time that Federal Law trumps (parden the word) State and Municipal rules and that the ER had to yield to the Federal vehicle. I don't know whether this was/is true but it something I remembered. Comment please. 

[Overmod]

Electroliner 1935

One of my friends worked for the Postal service and had an experience where (and here my memory gets a little fuzzy) there was some contest for ROW between him and an ER vehicle. And he told me and the group I was in at the time that Federal Law trumps (parden the word) State and Municipal rules and that the ER had to yield to the Federal vehicle.

Here is where ownership and authorization part company.  Just because a vehicle is owned by a Federal agency does not 'authorize' it as an emergency vehicle (or, for that matter, permit it to violate state MV laws).  The situation is different for vehicles with diplomatic plates ... but for different reasons.

Note that even a legitimate ambulance with qualified crew cannot run 'lights and sirens' to get to lunch or get someone to an appointment early.

 Now, if you were to threaten a postal employee even peripherally there are all sorts of surprising penalties, and that may include 'road rage' like encounters over perceived right of way.  But I have yet to see a particularly fast-moving postal vehicle, let alone one recognized as an authorized emergency vehicle under any applicable law.

A further wrinkle: in New Jersey, doctors were issued special MD plates.  If the police caught one of these "speeding" they would follow, perhaps RLAS, but not make a traffic stop until it was clear the doctor was not responding to an emergency.  I do not know if a citation would subsequently be issued in the emergency room once a legitimate 'speed emergency' was over...

[tree68]

Electroliner 1935

Comment please. 

Haven't researched federal law, but I can't see where a vehicle not designed for emergency response would have precedence over a vehicle operating in emergency mode, regardless of who owns it.

I can see where a postal vehicle might be exempted from certain restrictions (like parking), but on the road it would be just normal rules of the road.  I wouldn't want to be the driver of such a vehicle involved in a collision if I was, in fact, at fault.

The explosive ordnance disposal team at a nearby military base had to get permission from the state to run red lights on their vehicles. They had to convince the state that they were operating emergency response vehicles.

The problem that comes up in situations such as you describe is that at some point someone either hears something to that effect and takes it to heart, or reads something to that effect and misinterprets the scope and intent.

 

 

[tree68]

Overmod

A further wrinkle: in New Jersey, doctors were issued special MD plates.  If the police caught one of these "speeding" they would follow, perhaps RLAS, but not make a traffic stop until it was clear the doctor was not responding to an emergency.  I do not know if a citation would subsequently be issued in the emergency room once a legitimate 'speed emergency' was over...

Here in NY, volunteer firefighters are still authorized to display a blue light when responding to a call.  The light is specifically called a "courtesy light" and confers absolutely no privileges to the driver.  They still have to observe the speed limits, stop for stop signs and lights, etc.

Every now and then I'll hear a police patrol ask dispatch if there's an emergency in such and such an area.  Most generally there is.  Folks running blue lights may bend the rules a bit, and other drivers will often yield as they would a true emergency vehicle, but they are under no obligation to do so.

There have been a few cases of folks observed bending the rules a little too far.   Oftimes upon their return to the station, they'll be met by a police officer, if for nothing more than a "talking to." Unless they did something really stupid...

Unfortunately, adrenaline sometimes overtakes common sense, especially with the younger folks, occasionally with tragic results.

Overmod

Note that even a legitimate ambulance with qualified crew cannot run 'lights and sirens' to get to lunch or get someone to an appointment early.

As often as not these days, you'll see ambulances headed for the hospital sans lights and sirens (and sometimes even going to the scene quiet).  There were those who used to believe that if there was a patient in the back, they had to run with the lights.  Now we know that the danger of having an accident goes up greatly while running lights and siren, so we go in quiet.  If you see an ambulance headed for the hospital RLAS, odds are there's a really sour patient in the back.

[Murphy Siding]

RLAS?  Running with lights & siren?

[tree68]

Murphy Siding

RLAS?  Running with lights & siren?

Just "Red Lights and Siren."

I suppose for police in the southeast it would have to be BLAS...

Sometimes it'll just be "lights and siren."

[Cotton Belt MP104]

zugmann

 

Cotton Belt MP104

If this is your new assignment, monitor the blog, boy you will have your hands full. Years before posting anything I watched the words fly fast and furious. Then a posting rules update occured last year........same ole same ole endmrw0310191254

 

 

I think she's doing a fine job.

 

                I agree

 

But I am curious why this post below came in my email and not posted on the blog thread:

 

RE: By the way

 

Reply by charlie hebdo

 

In the spirit of the Pythons, "Stop! Stop! This sketch is not funny!"

 

I agree to this also     endmrw0312180859

 

[Murphy Siding]

Cotton Belt MP104

 

zugmann

 

Cotton Belt MP104

If this is your new assignment, monitor the blog, boy you will have your hands full. Years before posting anything I watched the words fly fast and furious. Then a posting rules update occured last year........same ole same ole endmrw0310191254

 

 

I think she's doing a fine job.

 

 

 

 

                I agree

 

 

But I am curious why this post below came in my email and not posted on the blog thread:

 

RE: By the way

 

Reply by charlie hebdo

 

In the spirit of the Pythons, "Stop! Stop! This sketch is not funny!"

 

I agree to this also     endmrw0312180859

 

 

If you look closely, I think you’ll see that it didn’t come in an e-mail. It probably came in a PRIVATE MESSAGE, one meant to be private between you and the other forum member.

 

[Murphy Siding]

zugmann

 

Cotton Belt MP104

If this is your new assignment, monitor the blog, boy you will have your hands full. Years before posting anything I watched the words fly fast and furious. Then a posting rules update occured last year........same ole same ole endmrw0310191254

 

 

I think she's doing a fine job.

 

I think she's doing a fine job as well.

[Deggesty]

Murphy Siding

 

 

Cotton Belt MP104

 

zugmann

 

Cotton Belt MP104

If this is your new assignment, monitor the blog, boy you will have your hands full. Years before posting anything I watched the words fly fast and furious. Then a posting rules update occured last year........same ole same ole endmrw0310191254

 

 

I think she's doing a fine job.

 

 

 

 

                I agree

 

 

But I am curious why this post below came in my email and not posted on the blog thread:

 

RE: By the way

 

Reply by charlie hebdo

 

In the spirit of the Pythons, "Stop! Stop! This sketch is not funny!"

 

I agree to this also     endmrw0312180859

 

 

 

 

 

If you look closely, I think you’ll see that it didn’t come in an e-mail. It probably came in a PRIVATE MESSAGE, one meant to be private between you and the other forum member.

 

 

It came to me in my email. Every now and then , I receive in my email something which is obviously a post that does not appear in the thread on my computer.

[Cotton Belt MP104]

 

Deggesty

 

It came to me in my email. Every now and then , I receive in my email something which is obviously a post that does not appear in the thread on my computer.

 

 

 

Did the "mystery" post you got, ever appear public?

 

Exactly what happened to me. I had two emails. One on the private email (it is noted as such). Next was an alert to a new public posting. When this was done I have the text shown w/o going to the forum. I copied that. Who knows it might appear public later on.

 

But I sure agree this bickering needs to stop, but guess who keeps piling on.

 

Thanks for the confirmation of what happened to me happened to you  endmrw0312181021

[Deggesty]

Cotton Belt MP104

 

 

 

Deggesty

 

It came to me in my email. Every now and then , I receive in my email something which is obviously a post that does not appear in the thread on my computer.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Did the "mystery" post you got, ever appear public?

 

Exactly what happened to me. I had two emails. One on the private email (it is noted as such). Next was an alert to a new public posting. When this was done I have the text shown w/o going to the forum. I copied that. Who knows it might appear public later on.

 

But I sure agree this bickering needs to stop, but guess who keeps piling on.

 

Thanks for the confirmation of what happened to me happened to you  endmrw0312181021

 

I do not know if th "mystery" emails ever reached me via the threads.

[BaltACD]

Until a couple of months ago, I would receive an e-mail whenever I was addressed on a PM.  The e-mail would contain the contents of the post that was the PM.  This stopped a couple of months ago.

[Deggesty]

I last received a PM a month ago today--and it was in my email as well as in the proper place.

Balt, have you received such in the last month and were not notified in your email?

[BaltACD]

Deggesty

I last received a PM a month ago today--and it was in my email as well as in the proper place.

Balt, have you received such in the last month and were not notified in your email?

I recieved PM's 2/5 and 2/13 and neither had e-mails.

[charlie hebdo]

Murphy Siding

 

 

Cotton Belt MP104

 

zugmann

 

Cotton Belt MP104

If this is your new assignment, monitor the blog, boy you will have your hands full. Years before posting anything I watched the words fly fast and furious. Then a posting rules update occured last year........same ole same ole endmrw0310191254

 

 

I think she's doing a fine job.

 

 

 

 

                I agree

 

 

But I am curious why this post below came in my email and not posted on the blog thread:

 

RE: By the way

 

Reply by charlie hebdo

 

In the spirit of the Pythons, "Stop! Stop! This sketch is not funny!"

 

I agree to this also     endmrw0312180859

 

 

 

 

 

If you look closely, I think you’ll see that it didn’t come in an e-mail. It probably came in a PRIVATE MESSAGE, one meant to be private between you and the other forum member.

 

 

No.  It was supposed to be a public post.  I know what happened but I would be unwise to say.

[Miningman]

Huh...I always receive an email that there is a PM.. just got one days ago. Must be the Russians Balt!! 

[BaltACD]

Miningman

Huh...I always receive an email that there is a PM.. just got one days ago. Must be the Russians Balt!! 

Vlad calling up the ghost of Stalin!