Railroaders' Nostalgia > Rule 15 offerings, and single track Aurora to Galesburg?

Not to impose on TAW's post last month on BN's precision TSS implementation, I thought these two questions should be a separate post.
I have tried to find written specifics on what Rule 15 offerings are supposed to address, versus what it actually does (buys time, hides cars, avoids late car reports, etc.). Where can I find info to better understand what Rule 15 was originally designed to do?

Englewood, the single track Aurora to Galesburg possibility just blows.  But knowing who proposed it, and seeing the path of destruction that has occurred to the physical assets since hurricane Frisco began, it is not suprising.  Everybody pays except the platinum parachute builders.  I had a discussion with an elevator operator who was tired of the poor service from this outfit possessed of double track. Service every other day, maybe.  Lo, and behold, the single track sales people sell the elevator op on "every day service" cause you'll be on single track!  You'll be accessable every day.  The MOW people did such a good job converting assets to cash that they forgot to leave both switches in, stubbing the elevator track.  Now, on single track main with a stub elevator track, the elevator op's "improved" service is--every other day, maybe. 

Your message with the chopped wording leaves me clueless as
to what you are trying to post.

Uncle Joe,Seffner,Fl.

      Sounds like there is NO service as he said they forgot to leave 'both switches' in. That could be that they left one, . . . . or none. Not sure but it is 'stubbed off' .

IC1038west Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Not to impose on TAW's post last month on BN's
> precision TSS implementation, I thought these two
> questions should be a separate post.
> I have tried to find written specifics on what
> Rule 15 offerings are supposed to address, versus
> what it actually does (buys time, hides cars,
> avoids late car reports, etc.). Where can I find
> info to better understand what Rule 15 was
> originally designed to do?

Car service rule 15 about unable to receive interchange?

It used to be that per diem was a big deal. There was a goal of get everything possible delivered by midnight in order to transfer per diem responsibility to the connecting road. IHB even ran per diem trains, blasting off from Gibson, Blue Island, and Norpaul late in the evening with the last dregs of traffic that could be delivered by midnight. By the late 80s, in my BN experience, interchange might sit for days. Apparently per diem payments became chump change.

To go with that, delivery had to be possible. If the interchange track was full when delivery was attempted, the delivering road had to have a way to transfer the per diem responsibility to the connecting road. Rule 15 provides the mechanism. AAR is the keeper of the interchange and per diem records, so the procedure is to notify the connecting carrier through AAR.

TAW

Alot of the interchange rules can be (could be) found in the
Equipment Register books. I haven't seen a new book in a number of years.

zr190

If you search for OT-10 (AAR circular) online you can find a copy of the car hire rules.  I believe the ACACSO website has a copy, and probably some powerpoints explaining it.  I know they used to.

Rule 15 is as Mr. White describes.  When a delivering road is able to deliver cars, but the receiving road is unable to take them (due to congestion, etc) a Rule 15 offering is made which transfers the car hire liability to the receiving road, but leaves the cars physically with the delivering road.

According to the rules, both roads have to agree to thisTransfer of Liability (TOL) and both the old paper form and current electronic process have the name of the approving officer as part of the form.  This keeps the delivering road honest.

However, it took a while for the operating department and IT groups to catch up that just because you'd made a Rule 15 offering it didn't meant it actually went through.  This meant some roads (BNSF, but UP too) had some folks who would Rule 15 off a consist just so it would make their dwell numbers look good.  For a period, TSS's car scheduling logic would even do this automatically.  

The process of ending this bad behavior is long and complex.

I have heard stories of IHB telling CNW they have a train waiting at Harbor Hill to enter Proviso right before midnight, when the train wasn't even close.  IHB was counting on Proviso being clogged and CNW not being able to take the train, so the per diem charges would go to CNW who caused the delay.  One night the yard was indeed clogged and IHB said they had several hundred cars waiting, but a more astute CNW person, looking through binoculars at an empty IHB line, told IHB to go ahead and bring them in (there was no train there), exposing IHB's trickery.

RRTom Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have heard stories of IHB telling CNW they have
> a train waiting at Harbor Hill to enter Proviso
> right before midnight, when the train wasn't even
> close.  IHB was counting on Proviso being clogged
> and CNW not being able to take the train, so the
> per diem charges would go to CNW who caused the
> delay.  One night the yard was indeed clogged
> and IHB said they had several hundred cars
> waiting, but a more astute CNW person, looking
> through binoculars at an empty IHB line, told IHB
> to go ahead and bring them in (there was no train
> there), exposing IHB's trickery.

That sounds awfully familiar. I may have been working McCook or C&A that night.

TAW

I mentioned briefly how to correct such trickery.  Now the Rule 15 process is all electronic, but still should be confirmed by phone or email.  If there's a dispute, it usually is resolved by the car hire groups based on which one has better records.  

In the old days of the photos, there should have been an actual paper Rule 15 document signed by both parties.  Any of our posters have memory of that?

Waybiller Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I mentioned briefly how to correct such trickery.

...which depends upon how well the receiving road's representative does his job (gotta remember...I worked for MILW)


>
> In the old days of the photos, there should have
> been an actual paper Rule 15 document signed by
> both parties.  Any of our posters have memory of
> that?

The only times that I was handling cars and dealing with interchange instead of handling trains, I was

• on ABL-TOTR, where they hadn't kept any interchange records for a long time (which I was hired to fix, well... that and demurrage records too)
• on MILW where the agent took care of all of that, just like the 7am yard that didn't match the switch lists so the customers wouldn't have to pay demurrage.

TAW

TAW Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Waybiller Wrote:

> ...which depends upon how well the receiving
> road's representative does his job (gotta
> remember...I worked for MILW)

That's for sure, as well as the bluffing and negotiation skills of the car hire claims departments.

> The only times that I was handling cars and
> dealing with interchange instead of handling
> trains, I was on ABL-TOTR, where they hadn't kept any
> interchange records for a long time (which I was
> hired to fix, well... that and demurrage records
> too)

I THINK ABL/OTR would have been OT-28 until that was abolished, so interchange records/per diem wouldn't have mattered

• on MILW where the agent took care of all of
  > that, just like the 7am yard that didn't match the
  > switch lists so the customers wouldn't have to pay
  > demurrage

The more things change... There was a certain Class 1 which wasn't charging demurrage on a certain Joint Facility until a couple years ago...  Just so the customers would "like" them more than brand X

TAW Wrote:
--, delivery had to be possible. If
> the interchange track was full when delivery was
> attempted, the delivering road had to have a way
> to transfer the per diem responsibility to the
> connecting road. Rule 15 provides the mechanism.
> AAR is the keeper of the interchange and per diem
> records, so the procedure is to notify the
> connecting carrier through AAR.
>
> TAW   
Thank you TAW for the explanation.   The times that I have seen the Rule 15 applied on a regular basis are 1) The interchange tracks are full and there is no way for the delivering carrier to get it's power back to home rails, or 2) the receiving carrier does not have the staffing to run an interchange job at the time the cars are being "offered".  In either case, the dwell time disappears, cars sit, and managers don't get yelled at during the next mornings' 8 o'clock meeting.  Thanks for clarifying.

zr190 Wrote:,
-------------------------------------------------------
> Alot of the interchange rules can be (could be)
> found in the
> Equipment Register books. I haven't seen a new
> book in a number of years.
>
> zr190
Thanks zr190, I found my 1979 Equipment Register book, and sure enough, found additional info on Rule 15.  Thank you.
IC1038west. 

retcsxcfm Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Your message with the chopped wording leaves me
> clueless as
> to what you are trying to post.
>
> Uncle Joe,Seffner,Fl.

Yes, I really butchered the second part of my original post, and failed to post my second question.  Englewood had commented in TAW's " BN--I can't do this anymore" thread that at one time certain manager(s) who were employed at that time by the BN were looking at possibly single tracking Aurora to Galesburg.  My question is how far did this proposal get explored?  Did this proposal become the reality check between BN and the manager, precipitating his departure and employment elsewhere?

IC1038west

 

As I recall, as it was all CTC, BN ran it as a single track railroad with portions used as sidings.
I do not know how long they ran their test.
zr190

zr190 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As I recall, as it was all CTC, BN ran it as a
> single track railroad with portions used as
> sidings.
> I do not know how long they ran their test.
> zr190

It was in the 1982-83 timeframe when BN instructed the dispatchers to use only one track between certain CTC crossovers on the Aurora to Galesburg "Main Line".  I don't think any track was actually taken out of service, track inspections and MofW activity continued on both tracks, but the idea was to see if it was practical to eliminate the second track.  The experiment didn't last very long, and trains began using both tracks again.  An unusual case of second track NOT being ripped up between 1950 and 1995.  BSB 

BigSkyBlue Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It was in the 1982-83 timeframe when BN instructed
> the dispatchers to use only one track between
> certain CTC crossovers on the Aurora to Galesburg
> "Main Line".  I don't think any track was
> actually taken out of service, track inspections
> and MofW activity continued on both tracks, but
> the idea was to see if it was practical to
> eliminate the second track.  The experiment
> didn't last very long, and trains began using both
> tracks again.  An unusual case of second track
> NOT being ripped up between 1950 and 1995.  BSB 

Correct. IIRC the "single track" sections were:
-- Bristol (west of Aurora) to Somonauk.
-- Earlville to the "electrics" east of Mendota.
-- Zearing to East Kewanee.
-- West Kewanee to Galva.

On the way down to Railroad Days in Galesburg in 1982(?), I caught radio traffic on the scanner between Amtrak No. 6 and the Main Line Dispatcher. No. 6 was holding at Galva for a westbound to clear the "single track" and someone on No. 6 was asking (rather forcefully) if they could be routed up the dormant track (I believe it was Main 2 between Galva and Kewanee) and the DS replied in so many words that was WAY above his pay grade.

So we set up in town to shoot both trains and maybe 5-10 minutes later the westbound finally arrived. Right after he cleared the switches went over and Amtrak whistled off and had a pretty good roll on 'em by the time he passed us by the depot. On the rear of the train were three BN business cars.

The single-tracking experiment ended not too long after that.

NZ

Wasn't EHH one of the officials in charge of this single tracking project?

Jeff

chitownjeff Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wasn't EHH one of the officials in charge of this
> single tracking project?
>
> Jeff
Don't know if he was "in charge",  but his appetite for destruction has matured for the benefit of alot of shareholders since his BN days.