Nostalgia & History > A few WM for Train Order Tuesday from 1/8/65

A few orders from the WM Hanover Sub. (aka "Dutch Line") dated 1/8/65. A westbound freight led by an F7 (61) making a meet with a Work Extra powered by a chop nose GP9 (40).

---

---

---

Enjoy these train orders.
Thanks for scanning them.
Gary

A beautiful hand! Thanks for sharing these neat looks back at what used to be such common practice. 

Yes, this operator certainly had good penmanship.  I have some 19 orders that are barely legible. Some look like they were scribbled out by a Doctor filling out a prescription !



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/13/21 16:32 by perklocal.

Thanks for these interesting train orders.  It would appear that Work Extra 40 would have to clear up for Extra 61 West by 1:30 PM, either by pulling into the siding at Greenstone, or the siding at Highfield along the Hanover Subdivision.  Work Extra 40 presumably got a similar order at Highfield, notifying them of the need to clear up for Extra 61 West, and that Extra 61 West could be coming west at Jacks Mountain Tunnel as early as 1:30 PM, but not before.  Once Extra 61 West was by, Work Extra 40 could go back onto the main track, but would have to clear up by 3:30 PM.  

Steve Salamon
Valley City, OH

Anybody see the lap? Another problem?

TAW

TAW Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Anybody see the lap? Another problem?

TAW - I was wondering about that.  The Work Extra and Extra 61 West both had authority on the main track between Jacks Mountain Tunnel and Highfield.  Rather than putting specific instructions into the train orders for how Extra 61 West was to get by the Work Extra, the dispatcher seemed to be relying on the discretion of the crews to prevent an accident.  If Work Extra 40 was not in the siding at Greenstone (just west of Jacks Mountain Tunnel) by 1:30, or the siding east of Highfield station shortly thereafter, then Extra 61 West would have encountered the Work Extra on the main track.  One thing that is missing here is the order or orders that Work Extra 40 would have received at Highfield.  Was this sloppy dispatching?  Or undue reliance on the judgement of the train crews?  

The Western Maryland had an accident near Hanover PA, on the same line (Hanover Subdivision) that may have resulted from similar circumstances.  I believe it was also in the 60's.  A local crew was switching industries west of Hanover and was occupying the main track, when it was struck by a westbound road freight, resulting in the death of one crewman.  I can't find the ICC accident report, but it would be interesting to see if there were similarities.  

Steve Salamon
Valley City, OH
 

It is very possible that Work Extra 40 did get orders at Highfield, but I only have the flimsies that were issued to Extra 61 West.

I wrote many train orders back in the day.  Not protecting against eastward trains means that Work Extra 40 has to have a flagman out and protecting against westward trains.   Note that this is a 31 order and not a 19.  31s had to be read and signed by the engineer before proceeding.  I'm sure the dispatcher had a good reason for wording this order the way he did.   We don't know what the circumstances were that determined how this order is worded.   

I am a little rusty since not having issued any train orders in 40+ years.
I do not have a WM rulebook or timetable handy.  I don't try to analyze 
orders on territories I am not qualified on.

That being said, on the ICG Tallahatchie, Meridian and Vicksburg districts, as night
DS I issued many work orders to set up the daylight road switchers.

On the ICG a basic work order required the
work train to clear the time of regular trains and protect against extra trains.

If the work train is relieved from protecting against extra trains then any
extra trains entering the limits must protect themselves against the
work extra.

On the ICG we would have worded it as "not protecting against extra trains except
protect against Extra 61 West after 130pm".

Again, different railroad, different time, different rules.

 



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/15/21 07:25 by Englewood.

Englewood Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I am a little rusty since not having issued any
> train orders in 40+ years.
> I do not have a WM rulebook or timetable handy. 
> I don't try to analyze 
> orders on territories I am not qualified on.
~~
~~


The lap is a general principle, which is why I don't mind calling it out.

Wait for...a work extra is bad practice. Some railroads explicitly prohibited it.

A work order is bi-directional. Wait for doesn't change that.

Let's say 130p was an intentionally strong wait (work train tells spatch they should be done by 130p, but they're dead at 330p, so Spatch flags for them until 130p and ends the order at 330p) or Extra 61 West shows up way early (station work didn't happen, the crew always goes to eat but today they didn't, etc.).

Work Extra 40 is making more than one trip to Jacks Mountain Tunnel for whatever reason. Extra 61 West is in position to see them come and go at Jacks Mountain Tunnel. Nobody on Work Extra 40 sees them for whatever reason (since they are not required to look for them)  It's only 1215p, but they have seen Work Extra 40, so off they go. A little bit later, they go into emergency and sit for 15 minutes. Meanwhile, Work Extra 40 is down the road a piece. They need to return to Jacks Mountain Tunnel. They have 130p to do it, so off they go....and find Extra 61 West the hard way.

Thus, the dispatcher manual of some railroads prohibited using wait for a work extra. On others, old heads taught me the logic I just outlined.

Now, the other part.

A typical requirement of train orders is that they must be brief and clear. The flagging part of the order isn't exactly clear. Does wait for apply to extra 61 west or to the other extra trains, or both? Some folks might read it one way, some the other. Regardless of the wait for a work extra principle, the clear way to accomplish this would have been more work...

Westward trains except Extra 61 West wait at Jacks Mountain Tunnel until 330pm for____

Extra 61 West wait at Jacks Mountain Tunnel until 130pm for ____

> On the ICG we would have worded it as "not
> protecting against extra trains except
> protect against Extra 61 West after 130pm".
>

That is the safe (and on at least several railroads, the correct) way to do it.

> Again, different railroad, different time,
> different rules.
>

But there were principles that, even if not specifically against the rules, should be followed (because at the investigation, an argument over what the train order says would tend to incriminate the train dispatcher).

TAW

I crawled into my storage area and retrieved my ICG rule book.
The rule book prescribed the wording I posted previously so 
I guess the topic of "wait fors" in connection with work extras never 
came up because they were not to be used. I have not yet found
my DS manual.

More on the "wait" vs. "wait for" issue.
On all three of the districts mentioned in my previous post there were
second class trains. The work orders would include the wording
"protects against second class trains".  The work order would then
have the waits for the scheduled trains and they were always "wait for 
the work extra". 

I specifically remember this because one of the older DS's was ostracized
by all the old heads on the south end when he was accused of leaving a trap for the second 
trick man.  The culprit was not only lazy but his handwriting was illegible.
The office procedure was to use "wait fors" but one day the culprit
issued a "flat wait" on a work order.  The work extra tied up and the second
trick man annulled the work order.  The train restricted by the flat wait either got
a copy of the annulment order or the order was annulled before it got to the 
point of delivery.  An eastbound already out on the road still held the train order
and used the flat wait to run against the westbound who now did not have the
train order containing the wait. The trains never got together, but got too close
for comfort on a non-signaled 45mph railroad.

Of course the afternoon man was guilty of annulling the work order while the flat wait
was still in effect.  But all us young yankees working the south end were cautioned
about using flat waits on the work orders.  18 months of seniority was not about to
argue with the combined hundreds of years of seniority so we did as we were told.
I suppose the scenario you outlined could just as well happen with a regular train as
with an extra train.

The job the incident happened on was a "man killer".  All dark territory with lots of trains 
and the black hole of Jackson, Miss in the middle.  All kinds of road switchers (work extras)
locals and through trains.  The crews were all hustlers that knew all the tricks of getting over
the road such as putting a flag on a train or using a flat wait on a train order.
On afternoons you sat down, took the transfer, got tomorrow's train sheet to begin filling it out
during the few breaks in the action. Four hours later you might come out of the office to get 
your sandwich from the fridge.  Then it was back in the office pounding out orders for 
four more hours.

 

Englewood Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I crawled into my storage area and retrieved my
> ICG rule book.
> The rule book prescribed the wording I posted
> previously so 
> I guess the topic of "wait fors" in connection
> with work extras never 
> came up because they were not to be used. I have
> not yet found
> my DS manual.
>

Wait for a work extra was specifically prohibited in either the BN or SP dispatcher manual, but I don't remember which (and my books are 'somewhere' in a storage unit). It was also identified as a never do this in conversations with guys I learned from, using the scenario I described. There was emphasis placed on the concept that just because you use a work order for a train that usually goes from here to there and back doesn't mean that it can't do that more than once.

I consulted Josserand (the 1945 edition of Rights of Trains was the best, with extensive discussion that doesn't appear in earlier or later editions) and a history and discussion of the Standard Code published by AAR in 1940. Neither uses any form of protection except as you described: protects against after.

>  The culprit was not only lazy but his
> handwriting was illegible.

I think I relieved him...oh, wait...I never worked for ICG.



> The office procedure


Oh yes...just because it is office procedure doesn't mean that it is right (three guys got canned from Havre West when I was on that job...by following office procedure instead of the book procedure). I was even told in one office that I know that isn't in the rule book, but that's the way we do it here.


> was to use "wait fors" but
> one day the culprit
> issued a "flat wait" on a work order.  The work
> extra tied up and the second
> trick man annulled the work order.

The guys I learned from cautioned against putting too much in an order and to always consider the possibility that something that was still live could accidentally be annulled because of being combined.

> More on the "wait" vs. "wait for" issue.
> On all three of the districts mentioned in my
> previous post there were
> second class trains. The work orders would include
> the wording
> "protects against second class trains". 

...which is why I was taught to issue the waits separately from the work order (and not use wait for). I was fortunate in having teachers who were meticulous and demanded that I be as well.


> The work
> order would then
> have the waits for the scheduled trains and they
> were always "wait for 
> the work extra". 
>

A trick I learned somewhere along the line was to make people read the orders by wording them differently in some way as often as possible to prevent folks from seeing the rubber stamp and not really reading it.


> Of course the afternoon man was guilty of
> annulling the work order while the flat wait
> was still in effect.

...the hazard of 'office procedure.'



> I suppose the scenario you outlined could just as
> well happen with a regular train as
> with an extra train.

Sure could.

>
> The job the incident happened on was a "man
> killer". 


Sometimes, dispatchers could be their own worst enemy. The 'office procedure' shortcuts I saw were often laziness, but were sometimes a way to do more and more on a man killer job. That's how Havre West took out three dispatchers in a year. Management hated me for my train delays (not using office procedure but rather the procedure described in the book) but couldn't do anything about it.



TAW