Eastern Railroad Discussion > Dark Territory-Rights of Trains

A couple of weeks ago I posted a scenario where there were some questions on how trains would be protected in single track dark territory operating under timetable/trainorder rules. The response was very thoughtful and informative.

One of the key elements of the responses, particularly by run8 and Schraman, was that Extra trains do not have right by direction since they have no Class. Yesterday I had an opportunity to present this information to the "old heads" that were involved in our original situation on a model railroad.

I was immediately shown a copy of Peter Jouserand's book "Rights of Trains" which, in Chapter seven, clearly describes a situation where two opposing extra trains meet and choose siding or main track based on superior or inferior direction. (It's in the discussion at the beginning of the chapter on Rules S-71 and S-72, I believe)

I most definitely am not trying to be argumentative here, and I also understand that each railroad can interpret rules pretty much as they choose, but I am interested in your responses to the instructions given in Jouserand's book, particularly run8 and Schraman.

I find this subject a bit intriquing and would value thoughtful responses to this.

P.S. There was general agreement that the Northward Extra should not have advanced as far as it did since it couldn't know whether the Southward Extra was ahead of or behind the First Class train but, the debate raged over whether the trainorder that the extras held reading "Extra North meet Extra South at siding A" was proper or not. And that debate centered around whether extra trains had rights by direction or not.

Having run quite a bit in dark territory and in ABS, I can tell you that extra trains did have an assigned superiority of direction under the rule book I worked under (Uniform Code). That right was defined under Rule S-88, Meeting Points Extra Trains:

"Unless otherwise provided, at meeting points prescribed by Form S-A train ordr between extra trains, the train in the inferior timetable direction must take the siding."

What was the superior timetable direction? That was always specified by Timetable Special Instruction #1:

"Eastward and Northward regular trains are superior to trains of the same class in opposite direction, except as shown on schedule page or general order schedule."

So, for us, it was always eastward and northward trains that held the main at fixed meeting points. But- fixed meets were not the rule- we often ran on "right over" orders. Under "right over" orders, the first named train always hit the last named siding unless the order said different:

"Extra 123 east has right over extra 456 west Dyersdale to Elizabeth and wait at Huffman until 915 am
Martha 945 am
Hull 1015 am
for extra 456 west."

If extra 456 west could run to Martha siding, then extra 456 west would take the siding (because extra 123 east had right over extra 456 west between Huffman and Hull). If however, extra 456 west didn't have time to be in the clear at Martha or Huffman 5 minutes before the end of extra 123 east's waiting time, then extra 456 west stayed at Hull and held the main. Extra 123 east's right to the main ended at the west switch at Hull, and even though extra 123 east was superior by timetable direction, in this instance extra 123 east had to take the siding. The order could be amended by adding "extra 123 east hold main track at Hull", though, and often was.

That's the way it was on the Missouri Pacific.

In my explanations, I speak from SP practise, which didn't really use the Uniform Code although there are a great many similarities. And even though is says "Uniform Code" or "Consolidated Code", each railroad had the unlimited freedom to make its own modifications, and usually did. This is true of the General Code of Operating Rules today.

Josserand was a dispatcher for the WP, and the WP was heavily infulenced by the SP (what in California wasn't in those days?).

After reading powerbraker1's post, I dragged out my old SP book, and Rule S-88 says essentially the same thing. But that is the second paragraph; the first says: "Extra trains will be governed by train orders with respect to opposing extra trains." The SP made a point of deliberately telling you in Rules class that the second paragraph about which extra train was to take the siding DIDN'T confer any superiority. The SP wanted the dispatcher always to instruct which extra train to take the siding, and if he didn't he got a talking to.

Here's a couple of questions you might pose to your old heads: what is wrong with this order:

"Extra 2688 East run Suisun to Lombard"

Assuming the order is correct, what does the 2688 have to do when it gets to Lombard?

> One of the key elements of the responses, particularly by run8
> and Schraman, was that Extra trains do not have right by
> direction since they have no Class.

Be careful of terminology. Right and superiority are two different things. Trains can have superiority over other trains through three things: Right, class, or direction. Superiority by right is conferred by train order, as in: Extra 1234 east has right over Extra 5678 West. Superiority by class is conferred by timetable, since the timetable assigns a class to regular trains. Superiority by direction is conferred by special instructions, since the special instructions identify the superior direction.

Therefore, extra trains do not have right over one another unless a train order is issued specifying one train as having right over the other. Direction does not confer right.

Extra trains cannot have superiority by class, but they can have superiority by direction. Superiority by right supersedes superiority by direction.

> I was immediately shown a copy of Peter Jouserand's book
> "Rights of Trains" which, in Chapter seven, clearly describes a
> situation where two opposing extra trains meet and choose
> siding or main track based on superior or inferior direction.

Correct. That is superiority by direction.

In relation to extra trains, superiority by direction is rare. The most common form of meet order forced one of the trains into the siding by the rule. If a dispatcher issued a simple meet order, like "Extra 1234 east meet extra 5678 West at Bravo," the rule book specified that the first train named in the order had to take the siding.

If a dispatcher issued a time order for a westbound extra, specifying a set of times like a schedule for the train, it was generally accompanied by another order along the lines of "Extra 1234 west has right over all eastward extra trains." Thus, the eastward trains would have to clear the main line for the extra west according to the times in the train order, since the westbound has superiority by right.

Many railroads, particularly toward the end of train order operations, required that the dispatcher always issue a simple meet order between extra trains. This was to reduce the chance of an error being made by the train crews.

> ... debate raged over whether the
> trainorder that the extras held reading "Extra North meet Extra
> South at siding A" was proper or not. And that debate centered
> around whether extra trains had rights by direction or not.

See the discussion above. Most rule books required the first train named in a simple meet order to take the siding. Superiority by direction didn't enter into the choice. If a railroad didn't have that rule implementation, and I don't know of any that didn't, then superiority by direction would apply. A problem would arise when you had a work extra, which has no direction. The dispatcher would always have to specify which train took the siding in that case.

Yes, my mistake with the use of "right" instead of "superiority". And I knew better too.

With work extras, I thought that they always held the siding since they were considered inferior to all other trains.

My instincts tell me that Extra 2688 must clear the main track at Lombard but, somehow, I get the feeling I'm being set up for a fall on this.

Go ahead, tell me what I'm missing here. This is all in fun anyway! (At least here there are no lives on the line)

Interesting how each railroad modified rules to fit their needs. Insideobserver said the rule I quoted was the second paragraph in the SP rule S-88. In my rule book, there is only the one paragraph I quoted.

My very first day as a promoted engineer I ran a Missouri Pacific train over the SP using ABS and the timetable. I had one running order and one register order (telling who had arrived, who was annulled, etc.) Other than that, all of my meets were running against the times of regularly scheduled trains, and there were 21 trains to contend with. I would look at the timetable and see where we could run to Jeanerette siding for these 3 trains, Patouteville for these 2, and Baldwin for a slug more. No mistakes allowed! My how times have changed!

run8- on the Missouri Pacific, TP, KO&G, Rock Island, and SLSW, we used the Uniform Code. This rule book did not have the first named train take the siding- all meets between extras were governed by S-88 and Timetable Special Instruction #1, which gave Eastward and Northward extra trains superior direction over Westward and Southward extra trains. S-88 just said to be governed by timetable-defined superior direction.

The list of railroads above comprised quite a few miles of track, so this may have been how a minority of rule books handled extra trains, but it sure wasn't how a minority of trains were handled.

So, if someone says that extra trains have no superiority of direction, then they don't speak for all railroads. Don't forget that many a rule and many a timetable schedule were changed, modified, or annulled by General Order. A General Order carried much more weight than the timetable or the rule book, since it had the authority to supersede each.

One cannot make blanket statements about rules- each railroad was free to make its own, and did. I carried the rulebooks and was authorized to run over the MP, SP, KCS, ATSF, ICG, PTRA, NOPB, and HB&T. Everything was usually fine until we got to a red block- then it was time to pull out the applicable rule book, depending on which railroad I was running on at the time. "104C" to me was "663B" to the SP. Operators didn't say "get down and check the switch, and if it is lined for you move you can proceed past the red block signal." They said "be governed by the provisions of rule 104C" or "rule 663B."

It is no different today- many people have to carry different versions of the GCOR and maybe some Canadian rules.

InsideObserver wrote:
>
>
> Here's a couple of questions you might pose to your old heads:
> what is wrong with this order:
>
> "Extra 2688 East run Suisun to Lombard"
>
> Assuming the order is correct, what does the 2688 have to do
> when it gets to Lombard?


First, shouldn't that read "engine 2688 run extra Suisun to Lombard?"

Second, Extra 2688 East should head in at the first siding at Lombard. Not the first stub track or house track, but the first siding - a track designated for the meeting and passing of trains.

powerbraker1 wrote:
>
> Having run quite a bit in dark territory and in ABS, I can tell
> you that extra trains did have an assigned superiority of
> direction under the rule book I worked under (Uniform Code).
> That right was defined under Rule S-88, Meeting Points Extra
> Trains:
>
> "Unless otherwise provided, at meeting points prescribed by
> Form S-A train ordr between extra trains, the train in the
> inferior timetable direction must take the siding."
>
> What was the superior timetable direction? That was always
> specified by Timetable Special Instruction #1:
>
> "Eastward and Northward regular trains are superior to trains
> of the same class in opposite direction, except as shown on
> schedule page or general order schedule."
>

What Powerbraker says is fairly common usage.

A 1968 Uniform Code of Operating Rules for Rock Island and several other states:

S-88. Meeting Points Extra Trains - Unless otherwise provided, at meeting points prescribed by Form S-A train order between extra trains, the train in the inferior timetable direction must take the siding.

Let's clear up some confusion.

> "Eastward and Northward regular trains are superior to trains
> of the same class in opposite direction, except as shown on
> schedule page or general order schedule."

Note the fourth word - "regular". Extra trains are NOT regular (i.e., scheduled) trains. There is no superiority of direction for extra trains. Extra trains have no class.

> S-88. Meeting Points Extra Trains - Unless otherwise provided, at meeting points prescribed by Form S-A train order between extra trains, the train in the inferior timetable direction must take the siding.

Note that it doesn't say the train in the inferior direction is inferior, it just says that it will take the siding. It is a fine but important distinction.

My point is that to say that the rules do not define superiority of direction for extra trains is not true. S-88 of the Uniform Code, along with Timetable Special Instruction #1 of the Missouri Pacific, plus General Order #1 of the Missouri Pacific quite clearly defined Missouri Pacific extra trains' superiority of direction as eastward and northward. Our rules did not state that the first named train took the siding at fixed meeting points. If you didn't live up to the rules as stated, you had a good chance of dying in a head-on collision. Right over orders were more complicated than straight meets, and we eventually began to use straight meet orders rather than right over orders when people that couldn't understand the orders began killing each other.

It all depends on the railroad- you can't generalize.

So, those of you that want to quote rules, fine- be sure to say what rule book version you are using. But don't make blanket statements such as "at fixed meets the first named train takes the siding." It wasn't true for us- ever. I once called a westbounder in ABS to see where he was. The engineer told me he was at Hull and they had the switch lined for us to head in. I called him back and told him to line it back for the main, because that was the track I was using. He said that he was on the main. I said well, you better find someway to clear it! I am just glad I had a flat meet with this idiot rather than a right over order in dark territory. Sounds like he came from another railroad- he obviously didn't know our rules. That was the problem with trackage rights- too many trains from foreign railroads that aren't familiar with the rules of the road.

Good grief! I think I'm developing a migraine. I guess the summary of all this would be that meets between extra trains are a "soft" area that needs further definition thru additional rules specifically addressing that issue. Also, exactly how that issue was addressed varied from railroad to railroad. (I've got a 1950's era NYC rule book around here somewhere. Probably ought to dig it out and see what it says)

As I said on the earlier thread, this discussion sure gives me new respect for those T&E people as well as dispatchers and operators that spent there whole career trying to stay alive and not kill anyone else.

A fascinating subject but intimidating at the same time! Thanks so much for your responses.

Here's some relevant quotes from a 1953 B&O rule book.

You can view the whole thing at:
http://members.aol.com/edswebdata/b_and_o/main.html

Extra trains must clear the time of opposing
regular trains not less than five minutes unless
otherwise provided. They must be governed by
train orders with respect to opposing extra trains.


38. At meeting point, except when made by train
order, the inferior train must take the siding and
clear the superior train not less than five minutes.
At meeting point made by train order, the train
order must specify which train takes siding.
Where there is no designated passing siding, the
train order must specify the track to be used.

More....

After chatting with the expert over the phone more details.

IC/ICG/IC did not allow extras any sort of superiority by direction. However, rules varied by railroad, as we have already seen. Some, Mopac and others, did have extras with superiority by direction.

He still states that no dispatcher worth his salt would get into such a situation. If they found themselves in such a situation, they would all have to answer to higher authorities. Perhaps, if things deteriorated to such an extent, the Highest authority ;)

>My instincts tell me that Extra 2688 must clear the main track at Lombard but, somehow, I get the feeling I'm being set up for a fall on this.

You are correct. The 2688 has main track authority between Suisun and Lombard but not at either place; it must "clear main track at first named [siding] switch at last named point".

If the Lombard trainorder office was beyond this switch, and there was calling-on signal at Lombard, it could be used to advance the 2688 to the Lombard train order office on main track in order to pick up more running orders, which better include the phrase "order to eng 2688 at Lombard".

>>"Extra 2688 East run Suisun to Lombard"
>> Assuming the order is correct, what does the 2688 have to do when it gets to Lombard?

>First, shouldn't that read "engine 2688 run extra Suisun to Lombard?"

Precisely. The order is addressed to the engine to create the train, and the clearnace is addressed to the train thus created (we haven't discussed clearances yet).

>Second, Extra 2688 East should head in at the first siding at Lombard. Not the first stub track or house track, but the first
siding - a track designated for the meeting and passing of trains.

Correct because there may be another extra looking for this train in order to check it ("not leave Lombard until Extra 2688 East has arrived"), and if the 2688 ducked into a can or house track somwhere out of sight, then that other train wouldn't be able to locate it [and couldn't leave].

It's been interesting to read run8's and powerbrake1's take on this subject because my experience has been limited to the SP, and it's now obvious that each railroad had its own angle of attack. For example, on the SP, westward was superior to eastward. Unlike what appears to be the case on other railroads, it didn't say that in the Rule Book, but in the Special Instructions.