Western Railroad Discussion > BNSF Warrants - Boxes All Changed

Hello-

Within the last week or two, BNSF switched over the Front Range Subdivision (here in Colorado) to a new track warrant system. After searching a bit, I found that such a change was not unexpected:

http://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?1,1282258
http://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?1,1115438

As mentioned in the first thread I linked to, warrants on the Front Range Sub now include a prefix - 763 - indicating the warrant is for the Front Range Sub. That is all fine and good. However, it sounds like BNSF has made a complete and total departure from the GCOR "recommended" track warrant scheme.

Box 1 still voids an old warrant, Box 2 still gives "proceed-from" authority, and Box 4 still gives "work-between" authority. However, from what I've heard, that's where the similarities end! If I remember correctly, Box 3 is now the old Box 10 (clear main track at last named point). If I remember correctly, Box 8 is a "joint track warrant" box. Box 12 is the old Box 21 (permission to leave the following switch in reversed position), if memory serves.

Does anybody happen to have a list of all the boxes on BNSF's new track warrant? And, does anybody know why in the heck it seems they made such a radical departure from the industry "standard" (if there is such a thing)?

Ahh, operations never gets old, does it? :)

Kevin Morgan
Arvada, CO
ColoradoRailfan.com

I have no inside information as to 'why' BNSF made any of the changes you describe, but it seems to me that it's quite logical to have the "Clear main track at [location]" line positioned right after the primary line granting occupancy authority.

What took them so long to change??? We have been using the new system on my turf for over a year.

It was explained to me that is is to make one common authority. Here they are. First one old, second is the new one.

---

---

These are our warrants on the Stockton Sub:

"Track Warrant 488-47, to the BNSF 4253, 4-2-5-3 West, w-e-s-t. X in box 2, t-w-o proceed from East yard limits Richmond, to east siding switch Collier on the main track. One box marked, two, dispatcher GMO, over"

Steven

Thanks for the info guys. SD45X, it sounds like they are trying to reduce the number of different forms that crews have to carry and know. It is also probably logical to revamp the warrants as I've never heard several boxes from the "old" form used on BNSF. Boxes 5, 6, 7, 15 and 16 come to mind. Box 8 I don't think is used anymore either since trains just get warrants to the end of a siding (rather than to the "station sign" for the siding).

Steven, the warrants are still read in basically the same fashion here on the Front Range Sub too. A few syntax differences (like saying "void authority number ____" instead of "track warrant number _____ is void" when reading a Box 1). Otherwise, it really just seems to be the boxes themselves that have changed.

To answer your question frnocom (and this is only a guess since I don't work for BNSF), I would assume that the Front Range Sub has been lower on the priority list since it is a lower-capacity line. It usually only sees 4 to 8 trains per day. The other lines in the area (most of which are CTC on BNSF) changed quite awhile ago, based on the track and time authority numbers.

Kevin Morgan
Arvada, CO
ColoradoRailfan.com

The changes signify the switch from the "Legacy" CTWC system on BNSF (developed by BN and CN) to the new TMDS track warrant system.

I can't fathom WHY the box numbers have to change around. . .why not leave em like they are? To me, it would seem that train crews and dispatchers alike have been so used to the traditional TWC format that to change it now would create a confusing and dangerous situation. The company is always hammering on the dispatchers and train crews on missed repeats, but in this case, the railroad is setting them up by changing what were well-understood numbers. Box seven? Box ten? Ah, we gotta change all that.

After months and months of complaints by dispatchers and train crews about this new TMDS CTWC, it would appear as though the company is beginning to heed their bitching and moaning. . .a user survey on TMDS CTWC is now being circulated on the floor of the BNSF NOC in Fort Worth, the first time I can recall that management solicited advice and feedback on a large scale from those that have to work with the damned thing.

Another reason I'll only work CTC!

Love that scanner SD45X uses!

FrontRange Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I've never heard several boxes from the "old" form
> used on BNSF. Boxes 5, 6, 7, 15 and 16 come to
> mind. Box 8 I don't think is used anymore either
> since trains just get warrants to the end of a
> siding (rather than to the "station sign" for the
> siding).

Out here on the BNSF Gateway Sub. in Northern CA it was quite common to issue a box 7. A NB train would clear his warrant on the siding at Westwood. He would then get a NB departure warrant with a box 7 "not in effect until after the arrival of BNSFXXX south at North Siding Switch Westwood". This was very common when BNSF bought the line from Keddie to Bieber, CA back in 1996\97. Then there was a incident somewhere else on the RR and the use of Box 7 was limited to use only for Box 4 warrants. Now it seems a Box 7 can be given out but only when the opposing train is within a certain distance of the point being referenced.

I haven't been to my place up there in a few weeks but the "old" style of TWC was still in use at that point.

Mike Leland
Clear Creek, CA

I have now been using the new track warrant system on the Front Range for a close to 2 weeks at this time. TMDS has several meanings to the Dispatchers. TMDS can stand for This Makes Dispatcher Slow, This Makes Dispatcher Sick, This Makes Dispatching Suck, and may other forms such as this. One of the big things is that we can no longer run directionally through a Box 4 Work Between such as I use between mp 74 and mp 81 around Ft Collins where we share the main track with the Great Western Railroad or Omni track switching services. There are some advantages and disadvantages in the system. Example, in the old Legacy system there was a screen that I could easily look at and see from each side of a column in the middle where each warrant directed each train going in the prescribed direction. Now, I am looking at a linear system like a computerized CTC system that the id do not move unless I physically pickle the id and go through a series of pop up boxes and correctly complete each step. Any one misstep and you have to start all over at the beginning. Learning curve is long and the process is much slower even though I am adapting to the system. It simple takes more time to do 1 things. The fonts are too small but the magnifying mouse does help. A train coming off another division has to be released to me from the connecting division or I cannot control it or move the train. In the morning I no long have to "sign" for each authority already out , I just check where everyone is at and go. Track restrictions,crossing problems, drivers getting stuck on the rail, all have to be protected with "restrictive tags" that will not allow warrants through unless I answer yes to the pop up boxes that come up putting out warrants to the trains and gandy dancers. I will reserve any further comment on the system as I grow accustomed to it and the programmers continue to make it "improvements" in the system. In the end we will end up something like were we are now and a little closer to the Legacy System that TMDS replaced.
CWR

The BNSF Gateway Sub. in Northern California is still using the 'old' forms as of today. It might not be a bad time to switch to the 'new' forms, ain't hardly any trains running.

DaveL

I do have to say, I was funny to hear the DS trying to give the warrants the first couple of days.
~wko