By the way

[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?

[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.

[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 

[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.

[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 "

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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 

 

[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

[Cotton Belt MP104]

 

1. I am not a railroad employee

2. The following observations came while being a crew carrier

3. This information is being posted as there have been many questions asked about procedure between crew and dispatch, especially in view of the Cayce/91 accident

4. Incident A.  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 and I had to take them home

5. Incident B.  It just so happened that one of the crew I carried was one of the last “firemen” employed by UPRR.  Also the officials who were observing this reenactment and subsequently fired the crew were so young, when they approached this gentleman to inquire of his position in the crew ……..they did not know what a fireman was……when asked what he did……  he “motioned shoveling coal”     to the young man ….. I don’t know if the young man ever realized what a fireman was

6. Incident C.   Many people don’t realize how easy it is to get fired then reemployed by the RR.  Because of this, trainmen will buy job insurance to tide them over until employment comes after a hearing on the rules infraction allows them reemployment.  In this incident the engineer had paid a high premium and thus was getting paid better than the others who had insurance but did not buy the best.  Thus, the engineer was in no hurry to have the hearing and the others suffered.  Most people do not realize the when THE TRAIN is involved in a rule infraction the whole crew is fired.  Rules are so important/serious that when a train is operating, EACH PERSON IN THE CREW HAS TO MAINTAIN THAT ANY ACTION TAKEN BY THE TRAIN IS IN COMPLIANCE. 

7. Incident D.  In the above scenario, don’t ask me if anything happened to the dispatcher.  I doubt it, in that the crew should have realized they were not “qualified” to operate on that territory.  I don’t know who caught the error, either.  I do know we did not stay there very long and my friends had to wait out a while before they got back to work.  How could they have made the move and been legal, don’t know, I know they got fired and that was the reason.

8. 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”.

9. 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. ………..    Okay the signal is red, someone said over the radio, “…… the signal must be messed up”     another voice said     “no, it’s not”        well, guess who put a shunt on the rail to “throw up red”?    A weed weasel was waiting to see if the train given authority to pass red ……… ACTUALLY STOPPED HIS TRAIN, before proceeding.    No stop…… then restart rolling the train = no job, fired, …….you just been tested, and failed by committing a rules infraction.  It is so easy to keep easing forward with the train rolling, knowing that it will NOT BE NECESSARY TO ACTUALLY STOP  …….wrong, if caught.     Endmrw0224181616