Train A drops is rear half more than a train length before the siding before entering the siding with the front half. It had stopped previously more than a train length before the siding to drop the A trainman who was then positioned to do the uncoupling and to set the hand brakes. the switch to the siding is thrown by the A engineerif it not aslrady set for the siding.
Train B runs through the main adjacent to the siding until locomotive is just before rear half of train A. On the way, he stops before the switch so B’s trainman can position himself at the rear of that train and at the switch. He sets the switch for the main if it has not already been set for the main. After the rear passes the switch, sets the switch for the siding. B also neeeds to stop before the A-enter, B-exit siding to restore the switch to the main.
Front half of train A now leaves siding in its forward direction until rear of front half is more than a train length beyond siding.
Or do what CSX did here. The siding train which was supposed to fit did not. ~ 1 - 2 cars too long. Long train just coupled to and pushed last cars to next siding and proceeded with only a 1/2 hr delay for both trains.
Sorry, can’t do it. I used to get switches that were immediately in front of the engines, but not anymore. It’s not because of a “it’s not my job” thing, which it isn’t, but because managers started writing up engineers for leaving their engines and train unsecured when getting their own switches. To be able for an engineer to get a switch, he/she would have to tie down all the engines in the consist and a sufficient (or prescribed by bulletin) number of hand brakes on any cars attached. Then do a release test to make sure the hand brakes hold. Then they can go line a switch.
So I no longer get my own switches. If one’s against me, I call for the conductor. If it takes 20 minutes for him/her to get to the switch, and it has, so be it.
Can’t leave the train without it being secured, yet you can’t secure the train without stepping off of it. Kind of a catch-22.
Also, in the original, a unless the crewmember is a utility, he can’t work with two crews (with our railroad - but I think that’s a federal regulation thing - I’m not sure). So that means conductor A can’t couple up to cars with engineer B, and then turn air in, knock brakes off, etc. He can watch shoves in our little railroad universe. Don’t know the case with others.
Perhaps only on regionals and short-lines, and not on Class Ones, but there are two-man crews where both men are qualified as conductors, trainmen, and engineers.
The his rule against engineers throwing switches seems very stupid to me. After all, to tie down handbrakes on a standing cut of cars, one has to assume that the airbrakes will hold after the cut is made until the hand brakes are applied. This takes as much time as an engineers leaving the lcoomotive, throwing over the switch, and returning to the locomotive.
In fact, if engineers throwing their switches is illegal, than remote control of switcher locomotives by engineers/trainjmen on the ground is also illegal. Shure the man on the ground has a controller in his hand, but not at the times when he is throwing switches or coupling and uncouplikng cars.
Either your raiklroad is inconsistant or the FRA is inconsistant.
I’m truly amaxed at this bit of blatent stupidity.
Yes. Even more stupid is the attempt to cut corners on proper operation. Busy lines should be double-tracked with sidings. There should be shorter, less heavy trains with adequate crews. If the rails cannot afford to run trains the way most other industrial nations do, then it is about time for RoW to be nationalized and brought into the 21st century. Let the freight lines compete to run trains on that RoW as is the case elsewhere.
I agree with your sentiments. Again, I do not see sawbys as normal operations. But say a short line or regional parallels a Class I, and for some reason for the Class I route is disrupted. Sawbys could then permit some of the Class I trains to detour over the short line or reigional until the disruption is cured.
As for this idea that engineers may not dismout to throw a switch, do engineers have to wait until the conductor is the cab to make a potty call in the nose?
The CSX runaway with locomotive 8888 and train was caused by an Engineer leaving the locomotive to throw a switch. Many more rules than just leaving the locomotive were broken by this engineer.
Runaway CSX 8888 must have been caused by more than just leaving the locomotive to throw a switch. Had he made a full service brake application to bring the train to a stop? Had there been a check to insure that all brakes on all cars were working? WAs the end-of-train device working properly and did the engineer pay attention to whatever message it was sending? Was the trian on a heavy grade?
I do not think my sawby technique is applicable, even in emergencies, if there is a heavy grade, many sharp curves, trafficked grade crossing immeidate in the vacinityof the siding or through the siding, and htere may be other constraints.
Assume any of the adverse conditions listed. Assume the siding A passed before reaching the siding in question is nearer than the siding that B passed. Then A has to reverse to that siding, leave half its train there, return to the siding in question, allow B to pass both halves on the two sidings, reverse again followiing B to p;ick up its second half. Then proceed.
As I stated - a whole host of rules were broken, not just leaving the engine, a moving engine and train.
The carrier rule books these days are written so as to never put an employee at the risk of injury, if the rules are followed to the letter - railroading efficiency is not a consideration. Rules written by injury and tort lawyers, not railroaders.
I believe most shortlines and regionals use one of the “big” rulebooks (GCOR, NORAC, etc). There may be local variations, based on local requirements, but the basis will be the same.
CSX has it own rules. The former Conrail lines used NORAC for a while, but were eventually folded into the CSX rules. Can’t speak to NS.
All that said, rule numbers notwithstanding I think you’ll find that the rulebooks are remarkably similar.
It’s not saving them a whole lot of money by being stingy on the single tracking. They still have to pay property taxes on their full 200 foot wide ROW in most cases regardless of how many tracks they have on it. Going back through history, how many times have they redone the length of rail sidings because of changing technology (pretty sure we are on the 4th iteration of this)? I can understand not double tracking the full length of a route but C’mon get some common sense here and put in a second track or if it makes you feel more cozy call it a 6-10 mile long passing siding. Railroads need to look to the future and the past when they make engineering decisions and not just think of the here and now.
I did have the good fortune of watching UP RR replace a C&NW railroad bridge that over passed I-94 West of Milwaukee recently. They didn’t just replace the span but they lengthened the span correctly figuring out that at somepoint in the future the freeway would widen more and the expanded span would save them another service interruption in the future or having to argue with the State of Wisconsin over splitting the cost…thats an example of the common sense I am referring to. Same with lifting bridges over rivers a little higher in some places to account on future forecast increases of floods instead of just the past 100 years of floods…that we get with a changing climate. Why wait until the line floods to do that?