tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3912308714924865824.post7001072869355072223..comments2024-03-03T17:14:05.768-08:00Comments on Robert's Vasona Branch Blog: Operating at TechachapiRobert Bowdidgehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14155962656525181088noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3912308714924865824.post-65374729523627788902013-01-03T19:24:01.801-08:002013-01-03T19:24:01.801-08:00I checked Josserand's Rights of Trains; the co...I checked Josserand's Rights of Trains; the common rulebook he uses in the front shows rule 201 allowing either the Dispatcher or Chief Dispatcher to sign all train orders depending on the railroad. In his discussion of the rule, he says the rule usually requires the chief train dispatcher, but they can be issued over the signature of any designated official from dispatcher to superintendent. The signature only seems to be there as a "yes, it's issued and active" marker rather than the person involved actually having any input into the rules, so I'd imagine it doesn't matter exactly whose initials need to go at the bottom.Robert Bowdidgehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14155962656525181088noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3912308714924865824.post-33730090128533700782012-12-26T07:48:28.855-08:002012-12-26T07:48:28.855-08:00(continuation of David's response)
A typical ...(continuation of David's response)<br /><br />A typical example of a version of rule 201 specifying that the signature of the superintendent will be used on train orders can be found in the 1953 Santa Fe book, in which the first sentence of 201 reads: "For movements not provided for by time table, train orders will be issued by authority and over the signature of the superintendent and only contain information or instructions essential to such movements." the same wording is found in the oldest book I have here, from the Erie Railroad in 1908, the only difference is that they capitalize "Superintendent."<br /><br />Interestingly, Rule 201 in the 1962 uniform Code of Operating Rules, which is Canadian, says: "For movements requiring their use, [whatever that means] train orders will be issued by authority and over the signature of the superintendent or designated train dispatchers, and only contain information or instructions essential to such movements." And finally, from what I believe was the first GCOR (General Code of Operating Rules) in 1985 the wording of Rule 201 is similar: ""For movements requiring their use, train orders will be issued by authority and over the signature train dispatcher and contain only information or instructions essential to such movements." I believe this may have been to only version GCOR to include train orders, as they were replaced by Track Warrants and Direct Traffic Control in the late 1980s.<br /><br />This is just a guess, but I suspect that the reason the superintendent's initials were traditionally used by many carriers is that the first train order in history was improvised in 1851 by an Erie Railroad superintendent. (See .) And while I'm still just guessing here, I'll bet that if you go back through the years, a tendency to use the signature of a dispatcher instead gradually evolved, since dispatchers are much more directly involved in supervising the movement of trains than are superintendents. But I don't have any other rulebooks handy; both Stan Hunter and Greg Luiz have larger collections of rulebooks than I. <br /><br />Welcome to Comparative Rulebooks 101. (The graduate version of the course, Compartative Rulebooks 201, is taught by Professor Luiz -- I'm just a T.A.)<br /><br />Now, to get get back to what I really should be doing....<br /><br />D F W*<br /><br />*In a letter I received from retired Santa Fe operator Chard Walker a decade or so ago, he pointed out that when typing train orders, you always use put spaces between the superintendent's initials at the bottom.Robert Bowdidgehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14155962656525181088noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3912308714924865824.post-25115395767647206292012-12-26T07:48:05.531-08:002012-12-26T07:48:05.531-08:00I asked some of the La Mesa group about the chief ...I asked some of the La Mesa group about the chief dispatcher's initials, and got this from David Willoughby:<br /><br />"Robert, et al:<br /><br />In the SP 1951 and 1961 rulebooks, the first sentence of Rule 201 reads: "For movements not provided for by time-table, unless otherwise provided, train orders will be issued by authority and over the initials of the chief train dispatcher and only contain information or instructions essential to such movements." In the 1943 SP book, the wording is slightly different: ""For movements no provided for by time-table, train orders will be issued by authority and over the signature of the chief train dispatcher and only contain information or instructions essential to such movements." (The only differences are that there is no provision for providing otherwise, and the word "signature" is used instead of "initials, though I suspect that the his initials were what was actually used as his signature.) The 1943 book is the oldest SP book I have at hand, so I don't know how far back this practice goes. <br /><br />The SP apparently shared this practice with the Western Pacific, as the use of the Chief Train Dispatcher's signature is specified in the 1971 WP book in my collection. (Note that they capitalize Chief Train Dispatcher while the SP uses all lower case.) Similar (but not quite the same) wording appears in the 1972 Union Pacific book in their Rule 200, in which they say "Train orders will be issued over the signature of the train dispatcher." I'm not familiar with UP practices, but I would assume that this would mean using the initials of the on-duty "trick" dispatcher rather than those of the Chief. incidentally, the UP book is unique in my experience in using a Rule 200; everybody else starts the Rules for Movement by Train orders section of their book with Rule 201.<br />Robert Bowdidgehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14155962656525181088noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3912308714924865824.post-55609750293272476782012-12-23T23:45:22.734-08:002012-12-23T23:45:22.734-08:00Odd that the orders were being issued over the ini...Odd that the orders were being issued over the initials of the chief dispatcher, rather than the division superintendent. Was that SP practice? The CCOR (UP-NP-GN-SPS-MILW etc.) would have issued under the division superintendent (through 1970); after 1970 I believe BN switched to the operator's initials.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10686600568717965063noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3912308714924865824.post-79178807562880889002012-06-14T20:58:12.066-07:002012-06-14T20:58:12.066-07:00Ah, you're absolutely right:
"A section ...Ah, you're absolutely right:<br /><br />"A section may pass and run ahead of another section of the same schedule without train-order authority, however, when the reversal of positions is ordered by the train dispatcher it must be done by use of form F, example (5) train order. In either case the conductors and engineers of both trains must exchange train orders (not clearances previously received) and, under no circumstances is the train dispatcher permitted to relieve them of this duty."<br /><br />Sure you haven't done this train order thing before?Robert Bowdidgehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14155962656525181088noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3912308714924865824.post-43356690344147480782012-06-14T15:14:14.393-07:002012-06-14T15:14:14.393-07:00Third paragraph of Rule 85 in La Mesa's rulebo...Third paragraph of Rule 85 in La Mesa's rulebook (and it might be the same in the SP rulebook, but I don't have it near me) says 4-802 could pass you only if it assumed 3-802's identity and the crews have to exchange orders. <br /><br />So I still think I was safe from 4-802 until you left Bena. :-) <br /><br />I can't see it working any other way actually. Choas would ensue - or train orders would have to written with all possible future sections in mind.Tom Campbellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09808544834275660425noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3912308714924865824.post-51648162178383188682012-06-14T11:28:37.894-07:002012-06-14T11:28:37.894-07:00I'm not sure about your train being safe from ...I'm not sure about your train being safe from 4-802; I saw something in Josserand last night saying it was ok for one section to pass another section on its own. The only time a train order was needed was when the dispatcher explicitly requested it.<br /><br />That's not to say I wouldn't have made the same conclusion as you before reading that paragraph...Robert Bowdidgehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14155962656525181088noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3912308714924865824.post-87204205257133598562012-06-14T11:24:16.326-07:002012-06-14T11:24:16.326-07:00Oh.. and I had no orders in hand dealing with the ...Oh.. and I had no orders in hand dealing with the section following your Third-802, there wouldn't have been the need for them since I had rights over your section to Bena. I only asked the operator to ask dispatch when you said your train had green signals. They had to write up special orders delivered at Caliente - doubtful that fourth-802 had even left Bakersfield yet so it was probably an easy thing to do. If fourth-802 had already left Bakersfield without a meet order dealing with me I would have been stuck at Caliente.Tom Campbellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09808544834275660425noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3912308714924865824.post-33575683191281566432012-06-14T11:07:50.443-07:002012-06-14T11:07:50.443-07:00Couple/three things:
First, that was a great wr...Couple/three things: <br /><br />First, that was a great write up of our weekend down at La Mesa. Well done. And thanks for scoring me the invite down there; I had a blast. <br /><br />Next- I was the train you exceded authority against, and I chortled much too fully at the time (my apologies again).<br /><br />Someone forgot to send an order with my crew as well (but I don't think it was you... I don't think you had started working in Bakersfield by then), and I had to question my clearance in the same way, but then it was my failure that I didn't check the register and I should have realized that I couldn't have even left the terminal until that situation was cleared up.<br /><br />And third that wasn't a 'slight wreck' near Caliente on Saturday night (around 6 in the morning on Dec 4 in layout time) it was a major, life-ending accident. The organizers of the session deemed the helper crew of that engine that crashed in the tunnel dead. Eight PFE reefers rolled off the tracks - four of them in the river. <br /><br />I have a write up I did for my club newsletter that describes things from my angle as one of the work crews sent to work on the clean up (and other things my time down there). Perhaps I'll post a verion of it to my blog soon... <br /><br />A good time was had by all... unless you were the fictional crew of that helper locomotive that crashed.Tom Campbellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09808544834275660425noreply@blogger.com