Steam & Excursion > UP 9000 vs UP X9000

pics removed



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/28/18 14:39 by wigwag.

Generally speaking, the train number indicator boards, on both the UP and SP, displayed the "train number" being hauled. In the case of an Extra Train, i.e. NOT timetable scheduled, the lead locomotive would show "X" in the indicator boards, with the  assigned locomotive number.

Santa Fe operating rules do not require that the train number be displayed, so it was simple 9000.
The X would be added for the impending trip from Riverside to Los Angeles on the UP as it was an extra train there and under the rules only a train identity (as the train was cleared by the dispatcher) could be diplayed.
Example: Train No. 35 with engine 908 would show 35.  If the 9000 was the power for 35 it would still show 35. 
If the 9000 was operating on the main track in yard limits it would be an engine, but not a train and would display 9000.
I don't know whether the Santa Fe tolerated UP trains showing the X on their lines or not.
If not I don't know why this change isn't being done at Riverside.

How'd that thing get to the Fairgrounds considering the interchange was PE?

Out

Can't believe that thing made it around the curves!

coach Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Can't believe that thing made it around the
> curves!

Must have been some serious issues, as their are two locations on #9000 where the axle driving box is blocked up due to "damage" to the axle journals and associated crown brass.

> Generally speaking, the train number indicator boards, on both the UP and SP, displayed the "train number" being hauled.

Hello,

My reply is specific to the UP.  What the indicators on UP were actually displaying was the operating authority that each train used to move across the subdivision.  When authorized to run as a regular train using a timetable schedule (such as "252" or "5"), a train would display the schedule number in their indicators.  When operating as an Extra train (not authorized as a regular train with a TT schedule), indicators would show "X" followed by an engine number, as in the photo.  The simplest way to think about it is that the indicator was to display the same number or designation that was shown on the address line of the train's clearance form.  

It's worth noting that what the indicators displayed could be the same as the "train being hauled", but it often wasn't. For passenger trains, most often the indicators matched the trains being hauled, however, dispatchers did have the ability to use any "live" TT schedule to get a passenger train over the road, such as a Perishable Special running as Third No. 6, or train 24 (the Gold Coast) operating across Wyoming using train 14's schedule,   In that case, you'd have seen "14" in the locomotive's indicator but the train being hauled would have been the Gold Coast (No. 24).  "False identities" like that could be found often on UP back in the 1940s & 50s.  It was most common to have UP freight trains' indicators not show the train being hauled.  UP used symbols for most of their freight trains (such as RV, ACUX, WX, PFE Drag, CBLAF, etc) but there were a few cases when they used numbers (on certain subdivisions, or systemwide during the war years when most trains were assigned numbers, likely for security reasons).  So for UP's freight trains, you'd see "2-252" or "257", or "X9000" in the indicator when the train being hauled was actually 254, or a "PFE Drag" or "CBLAF".

Hope that helps explain things as far as UP's use of indicators is concerned.  As was mentioned, ATSF didn't have that requirement in their rules so locomotives displayed only locomotive numbers when operating on ATSF mainlines; thus the change being made as they moved from ATSF to UP trackage in the photo.

Take care,

Mark         

coach Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Can't believe that thing made it around the
> curves!
If I remeber correctly they used a lot of grease. 

>
> Hope that helps explain things as far as UP's use
> of indicators is concerned.  As was
> mentioned, ATSF didn't have that requirement in
> their rules so locomotives displayed only
> locomotive numbers when operating on ATSF
> mainlines; thus the change being made as they
> moved from ATSF to UP trackage in the photo.
>
> Take care,
>
> Mark      

​Ok so ATSF didnt require the X before the number indicators while on THEIR tracks. According to this footage I have, UP crews removed the X in Yermo just to put it back on at San Bernardino. Why couldnt they just leave it as it was?   Plus, Riverside Jct was where the UP joined its own rails, 10 miles RR west from San Bernardino, so they ran that distance on ATSF rails with X9000 on the indicators.

​ 



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/13/17 12:13 by wigwag.

coach Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Can't believe that thing made it around the
> curves!
​They took it down the South track between Summit & Cajon. They literally had to WALK the engine on the sharper curves. If Im not mistaken, this locomotive has a 30 foot rigid wheel base.

And let us remember that at the end of regular train schedules all freights were designated as extras and then the X's were eliminated on the locos.

Bob Krieger
Cheyenne, WY

Where is this footage from if I may ask?

Here is a view of the 9000 easing around the curve at Cajon Summit.
UP Museum Photo

JB - Omaha


wigwag Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> coach Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Can't believe that thing made it around the
> > curves!
> ​They took it down the South track between
> Summit & Cajon. They literally had to WALK the
> engine on the sharper curves. If Im not mistaken,
> this locomotive has a 30 foot rigid wheel base.

---

wigwag Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Hope that helps explain things as far as UP's
> use
> > of indicators is concerned.  As was
> > mentioned, ATSF didn't have that requirement
> in
> > their rules so locomotives displayed only
> > locomotive numbers when operating on ATSF
> > mainlines; thus the change being made as they
> > moved from ATSF to UP trackage in the photo.
> >
> > Take care,
> >
> > Mark      
>
> ​Ok so ATSF didnt require the X before the
> number indicators while on THEIR tracks. According
> to this footage I have, UP crews removed the X in
> Yermo just to put it back on at San Bernardino.
> Why couldnt they just leave it as it was?
>   Plus, Riverside Jct was where the UP joined
> its own rails, 10 miles RR west from
> San Bernardino, so they ran that distance on ATSF
> rails with X9000 on the indicators.
>
Because leaving the X displayed would have been a
violation of ATSF rules, which governed that segment
of the railroad.  Remember, we're talking about the rules
as they existed then.

Also, train symbols had nothing to do with the number
displayed (or with the train orders) and were (and are)
meaningless from an Operating Rules standpoint.
Which is why you will never find train symbols used
with Track Warrants.

The forth driver doesnt look to have much rail under it also look like that outer rail is greased ahead of the pilot.

wigwag Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> ​Ok so ATSF didnt require the X before the
> number indicators while on THEIR tracks. According
> to this footage I have, UP crews removed the X in
> Yermo just to put it back on at San Bernardino.
> Why couldnt they just leave it as it was?
>   Plus, Riverside Jct was where the UP joined
> its own rails, 10 miles RR west from
> San Bernardino, so they ran that distance on ATSF
> rails with X9000 on the indicators.

Because the ATSF rules require the locomotive number, and nothing else. The locomotive in this case is 9000, not X9000.

But it gets better. The ATSF used red-yellow for markers. The UP was a green-red marker railroad. So not only did the UP have to change the indicators (when they were in service), they had to change the markers. Which is comical, because the ATSF had trackage rights on the SP from Mojave to Kern Jct. The SP used red-green for markers. But the SP didn't force the ATSF to change out markers, nor did they force them to use indicators. I know a few people who worked for the UP in the days, when the SP and ATSF were separate entities. They all hated dealing with the ATSF, but felt the SP was always reasonable to work with. It may have been just their experiences, and not a general trend. But the tale of two landlords would seem to bolster their claims.

When the engine made its trek to the Southland, the 1956 LA Division ETTs definitely states that UP​ shall be govern by ATSF time table and ATSF rule book between Daggett and Riverside Jct., so I'd say this changing out is premature, unless the train had a note from the DS stating otherwise.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/13/17 17:18 by BCHellman.

> And let us remember that at the end of regular train schedules all freights were designated as
> extras and then the X's were eliminated on the locos.

Hello,

It's correct that freight trains had to run as extras after TT schedules were eliminated from the various subdivisions (at least until TWC / DTC appeared...).  On the UP, the number of schedules that appeared in timetables was reduced each year starting in the 1950s, but there were still some TT schedules (freight and passenger) that lasted into the 1980s.  However, the requirement to display train number (operating authority) in the indicators was done away with in the mid-1960s.

Take care,

Mark

> ​Ok so ATSF didnt require the X before the number indicators while on THEIR tracks. According
> to this footage I have, UP crews removed the X in Yermo just to put it back on at San Bernardino.
> Why couldnt they just leave it as it was?  Plus, Riverside Jct was where the UP joined its own rails, 10 miles RR west from
> San Bernardino, so they ran that distance on ATSF rails with X9000 on the indicators.

Hello,

As others mentioned, there were changes in track ownership & rules to be complied with as trains operated through that territory: UP to Daggett, ATSF Daggett to Riverside Jct then back onto UP again into LA.  I suppose what you're hitting on here is the disconnect between the changing of the indicators and the actual location where track ownership & rules changed.  Here's what I think they were doing... 

I believe they had an operational agreement that would have permitted a slight "bending" of the rules to permit trains to change their indicators while they were sitting somewhere so as not to disrupt traffic.  Since trains were stopped at Yermo anyhow (crewchange location & yard) that was the logical place to change over to ATSF indications (engine no. only), rather than having to stop at Daggett to do it which could delay trains.  Same deal on the west end of the ATSF I suppose; San Bdo was (as I recall) a station stop for UP passenger trains, the place were helpers were added to most eastward trains, retainers reset on many westbound trains, etc.  So since nearly all (all?) UP trains stopped there for one reason or another anyhow, it was probably a good place to have crews change the indicators back to meet UP requirements, as opposed to messing with them right at Riverside Jct (which, again, could delay trains out on-line).  

I have a faint recollection that I saw something about this in print somewhere, perhaps in an old UP Special Rules or on a Supt's Bulletin or similar document but I sure can't remember where at the moment.  If my foggy brain clears and I remember it, I'll let you know.

Take care,

Mark

    ​ 

mamfahr Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> .......I have a faint recollection that I saw something
> about this in print somewhere, perhaps in an old
> UP Special Rules or on a Supt's Bulletin or
> similar document but I sure can't remember where
> at the moment.  If my foggy brain clears and I
> remember it, I'll let you know.

The late Walter Thrall wrote of this in the July 1951 issue of Trains magazine. In his article he describes having ​two​ sets
of numbers, one for the schedule number while on the UP and a second set using the locomotive number only for use on
the Santa Fe between Riverside Jct and Daggett. 
As he relates it, after leaving the station stop at Riverside and before reaching Riverside Jct, (a distance of 0.7 miles), 
he went into the nose compartment and exchanged the numbers. His story was describing a trip as the fireman on train 104
the City of Los Angeles.
I agree with you Mark, there was a practice, although not formalized that allowed some wiggle-room so as to prevent stopping at
​either Dagget or Riverside Jct solely for the purpose of making the indicator change. I sure would not be happy with crawling out
​alongside the boiler and hanging on to the smoke box while running just so that the proper numbers were hung at the exact
​point where Santa Fe rules became effective since these places were usually passed without stopping while 'on-the-fly'.

Charlie



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/13/17 20:58 by cewherry.

mamfahr Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> I believe they had an operational agreement that
> would have permitted a slight "bending" of the
> rules to permit trains to change their indicators
> while they were sitting somewhere so as not
> to disrupt traffic.
>

I see no where in any ATSF LA Division (1920-1960) or UP Los Angeles or California Division ETT (spotted) that relieves any UP train of not conforming to Santa Fe's Time-Tables or Rules between Daggett and Riverside Jct, meaning that markers and indicators were to follow Santa Fe's practices.  That it was inconvenient to the UP was of no concern to the Santa Fe. In fact, I'm sure they were secretly pleased that the UP had to stop and disrupt traffic, because it would have been on UP rails, not Santa Fe's. The two had a history of bickering over each others operation, accusing each other of sabotaging each others trains. For the longest time, the UP assigned a Trainmaster at San Bernardino in order to keep an eye on the Santa Fe's 1st and 3rd District's DS. I don't think UP crews would or could cavalierly disregard Santa Fe's Rules or Time Tables for the sake of convenience or expediency.

Santa Fe's Los Angeles Division No. 104, dated February 21, 1937, in the Special Instructions, under Rule 83A (Check of Trains), Rule 343: "At register stations, conductors must personally register their train, unless relieved therefrom by Form T order, except at Riverside, Union Pacific trains will register their arrival and/or departure at Riverside Jct. in Santa Fe register at Union Pacific depot." So while Santa Fe could enjoy registering their trains on the fly by ticket, the UP was required to bring its trains to a stop at Riverside and register. This included UP's ultra-hot City of Los Angeles (coincidentally in steep battle with the Super Chief), even though Riverside was not a scheduled stop for No. 103 or No. 104. By 1956, this requirement was dropped. I'll check as to when, but my suspicions is when Santa Fe completed the double track between Colton and Highgrove.

No such restrictions existed on the east end at Daggett, but they did at Barstow, except eastward trains and No. 103 and No. 104. For eastward UP trains, I'm sure the Santa Fe was anxious to get UP trains off its railroad.  And as you were saying, I'm sure UP prepped its westward trains for running on the Santa Fe at Yermo. Unfortunately I don't have a UP SI for when the short portion between Yermo and Daggett was ABS, so I'm not sure if UP relieved its own crews of displaying scheduled and extras in the indicators. But in a capitulation to Santa Fe's rules, the 1956 No. 14 UP SI for the California Division allows "Markers displaying yellow instead of green lights may be used on California Division."

But to what disruptions this may have caused the UP at Riverside perhaps was minor considering the following. As poster cewherry stated from the Walt Thrall article, the fireman could change the numbers on the move for diesels. As for steam locomotives, all passenger trains save for No. 103 and No. 104, stopped at Riverside. The worm and the early versions of LA1-2-3 didn't have indicators. This would leave steam-powered freights bearing an unnecessary stop at Riverside for the purpose of changing the indicators, but it would be just one of many before arriving Yermo, and the Santa Fe will likely do way more damage to its running time once it gets on the 1st District.

There are very few photos of UP trains on the 3rd District between San Bernardino and Riverside Jct. during the days of indicators.  Looking at Jeff Asay's "Union Pacific in the Los Angeles Basin" (where he states indicators were swapped at Riverside), shows all trains having locomotive numbers in the board, save for 2. A railfan special in 1954 featuring 2709, a 2-8-2, showing X2709 in the indicators at both San Bernardino and Colton Tower. And train No. 3, with F3 964A, at San Bernardino. Unless either train, and x9000 at San Bernardino, had a note from the DS, these trains were in violation of the Rules. Whether the crew got busted by a ATSF official, is unknowable.



 



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/14/17 01:54 by BCHellman.