Home Open Account Help 141 users online

Eastern Railroad Discussion > "track authority" vs. "track warrant" NS?


Date: 12/08/04 19:55
"track authority" vs. "track warrant" NS?
Author: DocJohn

What is difference on NS between a "track authority" (for example number 3XXX) vs. a track warrant (for example #2XX)? Both appear to apply to non-CTC territory.

DocJohn
Macon, GA



Date: 12/08/04 20:07
Re: "track authority" vs. "track warrant" NS?
Author: CJ

Isn't "track authority" relating to MOW work, signal maintainers, track in spectors, etc?

Chris



Date: 12/08/04 20:55
Re: "track authority" vs. "track warrant" NS?
Author: toledopatch

The previous post is correct. Track authority is for MoW or other occupancy of a section of track. A warrant is a movement permit for a train.



Date: 12/08/04 21:47
Re: "track authority" vs. "track warrant" NS?
Author: BobB

At least out west, track authority means the recipient (usually MOW) owns the track between the designated limits and can move around at will. A track warrant means that the recipient (usually a train) can move in one direction from the first designated point to the second. If there's a need to reverse direction the recipient will have to get additional authority.



Date: 12/09/04 04:10
Re: "track authority" vs. "track warrant"
Author: DWHonan

BobB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If there's a need
> to reverse direction the recipient will have to
> get additional authority.

But not necessarily through additional warrants. Two examples:

- Form D (NORAC) allows the dispatcher to specify that a train can "Operate in ____ direction(s) on ____ track between ____ and ____," and I've frequently heard the Indianapolis to Paris, IL, local issued a warrant to "operate in both directions."

- CP's track warrant form handles things slightly differently. Instead of a line 2 "(engine #) (direction) to operate between A and B," the dispatcher issues (I believe) a line 4 to the "Work (engine #) to work between A and B," which is authority to operate at will within the limits specified. The GT21 local commonly gets a warrant like this when it runs from Latta Yard in Jasonville, IN, to the Indiana Southern interchange in Beehunter.

-Dave



Date: 12/09/04 05:25
Re: "track authority" vs. "track warrant"
Author: Cameraman

First remember that Form D dosen't apply to the any NS other than ex-Conrail lines. The poster is from Georgia so no Form D's are used south of the Mason-Dixon line.

NS issues a track and time permit called a 23A in CTC territory that is mostly for MOW but locals and reverse moves of trains can get them as well. It allows use of a section of track as well as reverse movements. Under normal use, in CTC a train running out on the main can not stop and back up without dispatcher persmision.

In Track Warrent territory trains get the "check box 2" operate between two named points. Locals and MOW get "box 3" work between to named points. Operate means get on the track and go one way. Work means do anything you need including move in both directions between the two named locations.

Not sure I have ever heard the term "track authority" used in TWC.

Track Warrent is a really a form of control for an entire section of track that is designated as TWC.

Track authority is for a MOW person to work.



Date: 12/09/04 07:30
Re: "track authority" vs. "track warrant"
Author: XMOP

Cameraman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> First remember that Form D dosen't apply to the
> any NS other than ex-Conrail lines. The poster is
> from Georgia so no Form D's are used south of the
> Mason-Dixon line.

While you railroading may be right on target, your history and geography needs a little refreshing. The Mason-Dixon line is much further north than most people believe. It was established to resolve a land grant dispute in colonial days and defines the southern boundry of the state of Pennsylvania. As I recall, Conrail operated in many locations that were well south of Pennsylvania. But not in Georgia.

Ron Zimmer



Date: 12/09/04 08:15
Re: Mason-Dixon
Author: toledopatch

XMOP Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As I recall, Conrail operated in
> many locations that were well south of
> Pennsylvania. But not in Georgia.

This neatly ties this thread together with a recent posting about interesting detector names. Conrail actually had a detector that announced "Mason-Dixon" on its line between Harrisburg and Hagerstown where the track crossed the Pennsylvania/Maryland border.






Date: 12/09/04 08:29
Re: Mason-Dixon
Author: Cameraman

I will stand corrected. I was using the Mason Dixon line as a GENERAL line to show where form D's were located. The term form D seems exclusive to Conrail and NORAC which is in general northeast of the M-D line.



Date: 12/09/04 14:56
Norac
Author: trainmaster3

Form D is part of the Norac Rules, any rr operating under Norac would have used them. This may have limited their use to a specific region, but only by virtue of the railroads that opted to operate under those rules. NS Rules provide for Track warrant Authority, but NS Lines that continue to operate under Norac continue to use Form D Authority. I trust everyone is now thoroughly confused.



Date: 12/09/04 21:35
Re: 23A's
Author: ns1

uh, anyway, disregarding th irrelevant mason-dixon line stuff,

Cameraman has stated it best thus far.
On former Southern & N&W lines, a Form 23A (aka track & time, or permit,) may be issued to a Maintenance Of Way Employee or a train. The same goes for Track Warrants, they may be issued to either. The difference between the two is a 23A is only issued in CTC territory while a track warrant applies to dark or ABS territory, never to CTC.

NS1



Date: 12/10/04 08:04
Re: 23A's
Author: toledopatch

ns1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The difference between the two is a
> 23A is only issued in CTC territory while a track
> warrant applies to dark or ABS territory, never to
> CTC.
>

Ummm, haven't I heard 23A's issued to MoW people in non-CTC territory, too?






Date: 12/10/04 09:21
Re: 23A's
Author: therock

No (or, at least you shouldn't have) - as NS1 stated above, 23A's are for use in TC (NS' name for CTC or "261"), non-NORAC territory. In some cases, "absolute block" movement may be governed by both TC signal indication and 23A protection (used in cases where equipment may not always shunt track circuits at interlockings).

Dispatchers also have the ability to "lock out" interlockings or controlled signals without issuing a Form D or 23A/707 for limited protection. For NORAC territories, there's a "sequence number" that is associated with that, I believe.

Has anyone heard the CSX EC-1 form used for more than slow orders or grade crossing malfunctions? It has the capability to replace the fixed-limit DTC rules, which was the plan?



toledopatch Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ummm, haven't I heard 23A's issued to MoW people
> in non-CTC territory, too?
>




Date: 12/10/04 22:58
Re: 23A's
Author: csxt4617

therock Wrote:
> Dispatchers also have the ability to "lock out"
> interlockings or controlled signals without
> issuing a Form D or 23A/707 for limited
> protection. For NORAC territories, there's a
> "sequence number" that is associated with that, I
> believe.

I believe they call it "foul time". Not sure if it's still used, but it was in
2000/2001. I know it was used on the IHB (which uses NORAC).



Date: 12/11/04 18:42
Re: 23A's
Author: DocJohn

NS1, belive you are right about 23A's for CTC only. However, my info leads me to believe that NS may have changed the definition of track authority for one of its non-CTC lines in GA.

DocJohn
Macon



Date: 12/12/04 07:18
Re: 23A's
Author: jonnycando

therock Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> Has anyone heard the CSX EC-1 form used for more
> than slow orders or grade crossing malfunctions?
> It has the capability to replace the fixed-limit
> DTC rules, which was the plan?
>
>
>
Maybe not, in territories where DTC is used you won't hear warrants issued. EC1 allows copying warrants so it can be used in areas where form D was required. Turns out there was nothing afoot to change DTC areas to TWC. EC-1 was merely part of the overall effort to consolidate rulebooks. If ECOR ever comes to fruition EC1 or something similar will be a part of it.



[ Search ] [ Start a New Thread ] [ Back to Thread List ] [ <Newer ] [ Older> ] 
Page created in 0.1148 seconds