By the way

[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).