Railroad towers have always been fascinating to me. These days what little railroad photography I do is often based on locating and photography existing towers, either in service or retired.
Fortunately in Chicago and NW Indiana there are still several towers still in operation. To gain an invitation inside is very rare, but quite a special experience.
Ok, this is not about nostalgia, but rather the functionability of towers at certain junctions. At a fairly busy or complex junction, such as Fostoria, is it more efficient to have local control, in form of a tower and operator rather than centralized dispatch hundreds of miles distant? Perhaps my question is better phrased as “does a local tower operator keep the traffic moving more efficiently than central dispatch?”
I fully understand the cost consideration involved and the labor saved, but there sure seem to still be a number of towers still in existance. Why? (hopefully this will not jinx those still in operation).
The nearest operating tower to me is West Chicago, which is operated by EJ&E and controls the UP crossing there. The EJ&E’s operations through there were fairly straightforward, but UP has always been complicated, with scheduled passenger (Metra) trains, through freights, locals and some manifests going either into the yard or to the Belvidere Sub, and so on. It’s become a little more complicated with the new (several years ago) connection from the EJ&E to the UP right at the tower.
As things stand, the UP dispatcher has no control over any of the switches within the plant, so it’s up to the operator to line trains up if they’re doing anything other than using the straight route for their own track. He also has no knowledge of anything happening on the EJ&E, unless it’s actually within the interlocking limits, blocking his own tracks.
Were this plant to become an automatic interlocking, I’m sure the UP dispatcher would be given control of the crossover switches in the plant, as well as the switch leading to the Belvidere Sub and the yard. The EJ&E dispatcher would get control of the switch for the connecting track off the EJ&E. The crossing would be under nobody’s control. So the EJ&E dispatcher wouldn’t know–or particularly care–if the coal drag that he wanted to get off his track and into the connection was going to be fouling the crossing on Metra’s time.
I’m not sure what the cost savings would be for automating this plant–three operators, maybe a signal maintainer, and the upkeep of the tower itself if it were not needed to house any other equipment or offices. Savings to UP would probably be zilch, and signal department employees would be further overtaxed.
That a question that has bedeviled management through the ages.
I bet there is no one working in Calgary at the 12 St. E. Tower that knows that Calgary once had three towers, they have been so successfully integrated. But at other times it has not gone as smoothly.
Before CTC was fully installed on the Brooks Sub. east of Calgary there used to be operators at Gleichen, Bassano, and Brooks. Gleichen to Brooks was about 60 miles and Brooks to Medicine Hat was also about 60 miles. But Bassano, almost exactly halfway between Gleichen and Brooks, was also a Division Point for the Irricana and Bassano Subs., so it had it share of train order action. Brooks was open and closed several times during the 70’s and 80’s because the railway felt the 30 mile distance between Brooks and Bassano was too close. But, and I thought of this situation when I read it, in an interview in a TRAINS article several year back the President of the FEC said one of their capital improvement plans for that year was to replace a siding that they had earlier taken out, because no matter what they did in the office the trains just wanted to meet there!
There are newer examples of this situation still happening on the CPR but I’m not qualified to speak on it. Local dispatching in the Toronto area while the rest of the system in dispatched out of Calgary, for example. So I think there will always be situations where there is no substitute for having a local man at the scene of the action.
ZOO Tower on Amtrak’s former PRR NorthEast Corridor, about a mile north of 30th St. Station in Philadelphia, is supposedly too busy or difficult to automate. It’s the junction of several different passenger and freight routes - and hosts SEPTA commuter trains plus NS freights to and from various places in the area.
As far as cost savings: There’s 168 hours in a week = 7 days x 24 hours. At 40 hours per person per week, that requires 4.2 people minimum without any overtime or allowances for lunch breaks, etc. Add in vacations, sick days, holidays, etc. and it’s probably the equivalent of 5 full-time operators, plus a signal maintainer as Carl suggests (although the maintainer might still be needed even if the place is automated). So call it 5 positions that cost the railroad about $100,000 per year (say $25 to $30 per hour in base wages) = $50 per hour, $400 per day, with wages & fringes & OT & extras all added in = potential savings about $500,000 per year. That will easily support a investment cost to automate of up to around $5 million, which will cover most situations.
Whether those savings are not then lost through increased train delays and other costs from lack of operational flexibility or quick response times, etc. is a separate question. Probably is different for each location.
Simple. Towers (not all “towers” were towers, some were non-elevated shacks, some were inside stations, etc.) were placed where there was a confluence of tracks, usually more than two tracks and definitely more than one switch. The towers operated the switches by electricity, air, or (first)mechanically by “strong arm” plants so that all switches and signals in a given interlocking location could be minipulated from one point. The switches and the attneding signals were interlocked so that no conflicting movements could be made; usually within a quarter of a mile (strong arm) to maybe up to a mile and a half (electric, air). Eventually C.T.C. was developed which allowed, by electricity, electronics, and telecommunications, that an interlocking location could be manipulated from an infinite distance. The more sophisticated the electronics, the more intracate the interlocking which could be remotely controlled. I really can’t fathom how today, one man can operate several complex interlockings of a commuter system at from one location all at the same time. But I do see it is done with very little difficulty and complete success.
Back in the 1960s, I discovered an interlocking tower out in the pastoral countryside of Eden Prairie, MN. The operators were friendly, and I spend a lot of time there waiting for trains to ring in and hammer across the frogs. The first time that I was invited inside, I was struck by the incredible feeling of antiquity. The office and interior just seemed downright ancient.
The first story was brick, and one of the operators once showed me all of the names, dates and messages that were carved into the soft brick. There were maybe over one hundred of them. People who had worked there fifty years earlier had left carefully engraved little monograms. On one side of the tower, there was somewhat of a small lawn and garden with mowed grass and colorful lilies.
The interlocking plant had 24 levers, but many were taken out of service because some of the trackage had been removed years earlier. But what was really amazing was to learn that the tower had originally been built in an entirely different location. It was built in 1880 to protect an M&StL/CM&StP crossing. In 1913, the roadbed of the CM&StP wa
I don’t see JB Tower in W. Chicago becoming an automated crossing any time soon. The operations there are just too complex. Multiple grade crossings next to the diamond / tower make it more interesting. Even though the “J” operated the tower, the UP dispatcher (#11) dictated most of the movements through there because there were only a handful of “J” freights and trackage rights trains. Now, with CN taking over and wanting to run up to thirty trains a day through W. Chicago I expect some issues in the near future.
I’m not sure if it can be done but the UP and CN might want to work out some type of joint operation with employees from both railroads working the tower on different shifts. It would make sense to have a UP employee operate the tower on the first and second shifts due to the Metra traffic and a CN employee cover the third shift because I expect a majority of the CN freight will move at night.
The answer is that certain towers have joint-facility agreements that make it economically or strategically unfavorable to close the tower and remote it to a dispatching office. Because until someone proves to me otherwise, I know of no tower that can’t be remoted and trains run more cheaply and just as efficiently if not more efficiently than by a manned tower. The only advantage a manned tower has is the ability to look out the window, and that’s not of much use unless the railroad is running with a smoke-signal mentality.
Example. Suppose XYZ Tower controls the crossing of Railroad A and Railroad B. Railroad B arrived second, and to obtain permission to cross Railroad A, it agreed to build, staff, and maintain the tower, but the cost was allocated on the basis of train movements through the plant. Total cost is divided by number of train movements to derive p
The Coast Guard can make it difficult to remote drawbridges. The “safety” and “right-of-way” requirements can be so onerous that there’s no good technical solution that will satisfy the USCG, even though the man sitting there reading magazines doesn’t necessarily accomplish what the USCG demands, either. The government seeks a zero-defect environment where no change can be approved unless it’s perfect, because the last thing it wants is some tiny thing to go wrong and get called out by the media mouthpieces. That’s a career killer. So instead we have to make do with old, expensive, and highly imperfect solutions. We can live with 80% but God help anyone who proposes 95% instead of 99.99999999% solutions.
I don’t think it’s too complex to remote. There are more complex, busier, interlockings remoted than this one. A joint manning scheme would create complex labor agreement, liability, and efficiency problems. It’s been done but it’s not fun; why create work and problems? Joint-facility agreements spell out priority of trains; it’s not necessary to rotate staff to favor one road over the other.
Irrespective of any Joint Facility agreements and what they may specify. The operator at a Tower or the Train Dispatcher who has direct control of a railroad crossing at grade knows whose name is printed on their pay checks and will give their employer all reasonable (and sometimes unreasonable) priorities.
As I said there is no reason they can’t be remote controlled. Depending on the river traffic, though, many draws are manned only when there is a scheduled river movement. River traffic can be pleasure as well as commercial traffic.
I had a recent experience with a major joint-facilities agreement regarding a tower. I made exactly that point to my railway. My railway had an unusual opportunity to change the agreement and gain control of the tower, which lies on a critical corridor with huge train volumes. The answer back to me was, “No, we’ll live with the other railway keeping control of the tower, because the method you propose to gain control might set precedence elsewhere and we might not like the tables being turned in another situation. We think the language in the joint-facilities agreement is strong enough to protect us.”
The point is not whether the technology exists to do something, the point is whether the USCG and USACE (and now DHS, too!) will be satisified that the technology will do the right thing. It’s not so easy.
Thank you for answer regarding joint tower operation. Your point is well taken that it’s more trouble than it’s really worth. My interpretation regarding the word “complex” was meant to be all inclusive towards the interlocking plant, number of trains, train movements, the “J” being taken over by CN, etc. and not just the physical interlocking plant. One day JB tower will be gone, but not in the near future.
So, I had continue to make it priority to photograph as many towers as possible…and never turn down an invitation upstairs.
I agree with the earlier description of the antiquated environment of towers. In today’s sterile office settings, it is somewhat refreshing to step back in time.
RWM: Although I do not know the geography of that location your statement appears correct. Now one other reason I want to ask about. Would this tower and others in the Chicago area be waiting for CREATE to go into high gear? If this tower and others will be completely eliminated within ten years wouldn’t it be more cost effective to wait? Then the UP could dispatch METRA and UP on its own tracks and CN (EJ&E) would fly over the UP? Do you have a WAG of how much automating West Chicago would cost?
Also wouldn’t the proposed HSR (no wag on when construction will start) also require the various RR lines to be grade separated? Another reason to wait?