Eastern Railroad Discussion > Train Orders to engine #, or to train # ?

Listening to various rail radio feeds from around the country, I was interested to see how orders etc are distributed.

Sometimes, it will be to a train (train 490, permission granted to pass stop signal...), while it other cases it is addressed to a locomotive.  (NS engine 2356 has permission,,,).  Sometimes it will be addressed to C&E, sometimes it won't.

Other than tradition on a particular company's lines, are there are solid reasons why one form works better than the other?

More often, then not, have heard both symbol and lead unit number
​used.  Permission to pass a red usually verbal; sometimes "at
​restricted speed" will be added, but not always, as that is the rule
​anyway.  Depending on the RR's rules, crew may or may not have
​to write in their "books" items such as grade crossing protection and
speed restrictions.

​These are not Train Orders in the sense of the old Forms 19 and 31;
​don't think I've heard the term "train order" for many years.

Am sure others can add much more.

If you talking about the old style TT&TO system using a wide variety of forms such as the Form 19 or Form 31, I believe that those orders and any clearance forms needs to be address to C&E and the engine number with direction-as an example - TO: C&E Engine UP 3985 West.  Much more complex than that but I would recommend getting a copy of "19 East, Copy Three":  The Art and Pratice of Timetable and Train Order Operations for the Railroad Historian and Modeler.  The book is authored by David Sprau and Steve King with a forward from Tony Koester.  It is published by the Ops SIG of the NMRA.  

Marty Harrison
Knob Noster, MO



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/20/17 16:42 by livesteamer.

livesteamer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you talking about the old style TT&TO system
> using a wide variety of forms such as the Form 19
> or Form 31, I believe that those orders and any
> clearance forms needs to be address to C&E and the
> engine number with direction-as an example - TO:
> C&E Engine UP 3985 West. 


Not quite.

A regular train is addressed only as the train number (or section number train number). The engine number was not used. To aid in identification by other trains, the train dispatcher might issue a register check (Form W) to other trains: No22 has engine 12345.

The exception was when fixing sections, in which case it might be Engine 1234 display signals run as first 22 A to F.

An extra train could be, in some cases, created by a clearance, in which case it ws addressed to Extra 1234 east. If created by a train order, it was addressed to the engine (without direction) since the train had not been created.: C&E Eng 1234. Once an extra train wa created, it was addressed as Extra Engine-number-direction, except work extras (authority to move in either direction) which were addressed Work Extra 1234.

In the 21st Century, there are no regular trains, so there are no extra trains. They are just trains. In that cast, they are known as 1234 west or east. The word engine is not required since they are a train (moving on the main track with some sort of authority).

Formerly, identification of a train could only be the train number of a regular train or the engine number.FRA now leaves open the identification of the train. It can be whatever the railroad company authorizes. That means on one railroad it me be only the engine number (the surest identification), on others, it may be the transportation symbol(ZABCDEF, 9999Q, etc.) or a combination of the two.

TAW




Much more complex than
> that but I would recommend getting a copy of "19
> East, Copy Three":  The Art and Pratice of
> Timetable and Train Order Operations for the
> Railroad Historian and Modeler.  The book is
> authored by David Sprau and Steve King with a
> forward from Tony Koester.  It is published by
> the Ops SIG of the NMRA.  

On some railroads old-style trainorders were addressed to numbers of trains in the timetable (including First, Second, etc when applicable) but the text of the order itself would include engine numbers. On Southern you would see an order addressed to C&E NO 229 (and possibly other trains); the text would say something like "NO 229 TWO TWENTY-NINE ENG 3032 WAIT AT PLACENAME UNTIL..." But if the order was to an extra, the address would say C&E EXTRA 5002 NORTH...

I hope I got that right. 

TAW Wrote:
------------------------------------------------------->
> A regular train is addressed only as the train
> number (or section number train number). The
> engine number was not used. To aid in
> identification by other trains, the train
> dispatcher might issue a register check (Form W)
> to other trains: No22 has engine 12345.

====================================================================================
​ Not in my experiences with train orders.  An engine number was always used to identify a regular train as long as it was known and it was required by rule.  Some roads would use "eng unknown" but the Uniform Code I worked under for years did not permit use of "eng unknown."   Obviously if you knew the number you would have used it.   



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/20/17 19:49 by Rathole.

---

---

---

First rule book is NS, second is the Uniform Code.
 

---

---

---

One more from the L&N
 

---

But back to your question, I presume you mean current day operations.  When giving permission past a stop signal, etc we were supposed to give the engine number (with initials if a foreign engine) as an identity because there could be two trains of the same number out and running in close proximity which could lead to a mix-up.   I say "were supposed to" because I retired Sept 30 after 39 years on the rails, and a good bit of that as a dispatcher.  

Clearances would be addressed to (for example) No 22, No 735, Extra 1612 East, Extra UP 3985 West.  An extra train would get a running order addressed to the engine number, authorizing them to run extra point A to point B, but their clearance would be addressed to Extra XXXX West.  The only exception I've seen to this was SP/SSW where in CTC territory only the clearance was addressed to Eng 7156 South


livesteamer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you talking about the old style TT&TO system
> using a wide variety of forms such as the Form 19
> or Form 31, I believe that those orders and any
> clearance forms needs to be address to C&E and the
> engine number with direction-as an example - TO:
> C&E Engine UP 3985 West.  Much more complex than
> that but I would recommend getting a copy of "19
> East, Copy Three":  The Art and Pratice of
> Timetable and Train Order Operations for the
> Railroad Historian and Modeler.  The book is
> authored by David Sprau and Steve King with a
> forward from Tony Koester.  It is published by
> the Ops SIG of the NMRA.  



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/20/17 21:32 by Rathole.

---

---

---

Rathole Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> TAW Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> ----->
> > A regular train is addressed only as the train
> > number (or section number train number). The
> > engine number was not used. To aid in
> > identification by other trains, the train
> > dispatcher might issue a register check (Form
> W)
> > to other trains: No22 has engine 12345.
>
> ==================================================
> ==================================
> ​ Not in my experiences with train orders.  An
> engine number was always used to identify a
> regular train as long as it was known and it was
> required by rule.

For example, BN, MILW, and SP did not require the engine number of a regular train. I wish I had my rule books handy, but alas....

SP had train indicators, so it makes sense the engine numbers were not required. We were required to use the engine number in anything we put out against a regular train unless the engine numbers of regular trains were in the form W:
Regular trains due at East Mojave at or before 1201am have passed
Third 811 has engine 7900

MILW and BN did not require the engine number of regular trains. For the most part, there weren't that many of them, but I always stick out a check with the engine number and used the engine number in anything I stuck out against a regular train.

The MILW-UP line between Tacoma and Black River had regular trains that basically didn't represent anything that really ran, but the dispatchers used them to help avoid laps. They used then indiscriminately, so the trains were not necessarily running in the order they were in the timetable, and sections would be intermingled as the dispatcher randomly picked a train to hang rags on. The MILW and UP crews would bring cardboard and a black marker. They would put their train number on the cardboard. The head man would go out on the front platform to display the sign to trains they were meeting.

A UP crew in the Dalles tried that on the Oregon Trunk with less success. The UP local to Bend was fixed on an engine they didn't have. They didn't notice until the got to OT Jct to get on BN. Apparently they finally decided to have a look to see if they could go and had to maybe watch out for anything, Hmmmm.....We don't have that engine. They did have cardboard and a marker with them. The engine number they were fixed on was written on the cardboard. The head man went out and held it up for trains, gandys, and operators to see. They didn't make it to Bend before a trainmaster showed up and pointed out that he was not amused; they could go home now.

>  Some roads would use "eng
> unknown" but the Uniform Code I worked under for
> years did not permit use of "eng unknown."  
> Obviously if you knew the number you would have
> used it.

I relieved guys who would not only use that for regular trains (which I thought was stupid) but also for extra trains (Extra engine unknown west), which I thought was Industrial Strength Stupid. 

TAW

To simplify what you are hearing in modern terms on the radio needs to be put in context of the rules used by the railroad and type of territory.

In general, most of the railroads operating are using the GCOR. The GCOR come in a universal edition - and then railroads modify it to suite their operating conditions.

In the northeast, you will find NORAC.

Chicago has CORA.

Now with all that, different rules apply within those for the type of *authority* the train requires for the territory being operated on (CTC, ABS, TWC).

*Generally speaking* under GCOR rules you will have an engine as the identifier "UP1234 East, BNSF 6789 North".

In NORAC you may have the train ID/symbol (Amtrak 491, CSO3, etc).

GCOR refers to their rules as "10.1, 6.28, 15.1" whereas in NORAC you may hear Rule 103, Rule 140, Rule 241, Form D, etc)

Although there is more to it, a Form D in NORAC is a cousin of a Track Permit or Track Warrant in GCOR. They give authorization for someone or a train to be somewhere on a main track.

Both Rule books are similar, just done in a different fashion as they have to comply with the CFR and FRA regulations.

So when you hear a dispatcher give a Form D, you know it's a NORAC railroad. Track warrant/permit, GCOR.

So as a short example again, if you hear:

"BNSF 1234 South, make this track warrant number 763-54, X box 2..." GCOR - and it's a dispatcher giving a train (or MOW, etc) authority to be or go somewhere.

If you hear:

"Form D number A123 issued to C&E (conductor and engineer) Train #55 Engine 123 operate north direction..."

That's NORAC.

If you look at a GCOR track warrant Form and a NORAC Form D they have many similarities.

In CTC you may not hear a thing other than track permits for MOW (even then many foreman have laptops and can request and receive permits without talking on the radio).

Where I work we are CTC and our authority is based on signals. All bulletins print with out paperwork and updates are verbally given to us by the dispatcher over the radio.

Some railroad employ both Rule books depending on where that section of track is.

Then you have NS and CSX, who follow neither GCOR or NORAC, and have their own operating rules.

Yeah, you could live in the south a long time and never know about GCOR or NORAC.. unless you stumbled across a short line that uses one.

MW810 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> In general, most of the railroads operating are
> using the GCOR. The GCOR come in a universal
> edition - and then railroads modify it to suite
> their operating conditions.
>
> In the northeast, you will find NORAC.
>
> Chicago has CORA.
>
Unless something has changed in the past couple years, CORA is not a rulebook as such.
It contains sections for each of the railroads in Chicago.  Each section contains that railroad's rules
applicable in the Chicago area.  Prior to CORA you would be required to carry the rulebooks and 
timetables of all the railroads you operated over.  All that could fill up a grip fast.  

That's why I like electronic rules and Dropbox :)

Posted from iPhone