Automatic Block System, by itself, does not grant any authority to use any tracks. ABS is simply a system of dividing up the main track (s) into “blocks” and the signals only indicate whether or not the block is occupied or not (clear). Some other set of rules governing authority: Timetable & Train Order, Track Warrant Control, Centralized Traffic Control, Direct Traffic Control, Interlocking Rules, etc. must be superimposed upon ABS equipped trackage to grant authority (permission) for movements.
Automatic Block System, by itself, does not grant any authority to use any tracks. ABS is simply a system of dividing up the main track (s) into “blocks” and the signals only indicate whether or not the block is occupied or not (clear). Some other set of rules governing authority: Timetable & Train Order, Track Warrant Control, Centralized Traffic Control, Direct Traffic Control, Interlocking Rules, etc. must be superimposed upon ABS equipped trackage to grant authority (permission) for movements.
G'day,
I have recently discovered this threat about Train Orders and Track Warrants.
I was aware of such safe working systems, having visited the USA and New Zealand.
But, I did not work under such systems until Train Order Working was implemented here in NSW in 1997.
TOW was chosen to replace the traditional single line manual systems of Ordinary Train Staff and Ticket plus Electric Train Staff.
I grew up with these systems and enjoyed working under them.
The TOW implemented here is not similar to the original USRR version.
Excepting that it features Yard Limits.
Any train movement within TOW must possess the necessary Train Order.
The system is computerized and the Orders are generated with specific Security Codes to ensure safety.
Train Order Control is not permitted to posses and paper or writing implement in the office.
ALL action, including the Train Graph must be accomplished via the computer.
Once the Order has been generated, transmitted to the train crew, read back and authorize, it then vanishes into the computer memory.
Only the input of the specific Security Codes upon fulfilling of the Order or Clearance of a location, can then permit the block to be released.
Our Train Order permits movement to one of three locations;
The Yard Limit board; Clearance point on the Main Line, or Clearance point on the Loop Line.
Within Yard Limits where regular shunting (switching) occurs, Shunt Limit boards can be provided.
The provision of shunt limit boards permits another train to proceed to the Yard Limit board while shunting occurs.
Where Shunt Limit boards do not exist, another train cannot proceed to the Yard Limit board if shunting is in operation.
A Shunt Order can be issued to a train to shunt within a location which occupies that location for the duration of the Order.
The Train Order can authorize minor shunting prior to departure, en route, or upon arrival, via the Shunt Access facet.
When the wheels fall off, the Mishap Order is utilized to rep
good replies all and especially RWM, I had heard both terms but thought maybe it was just some railroads called it orders, which is the term I am familiar with and some called it track warrants. Don’t ever remember that term being used by Dad. He worked in yard office most of his Frisco career but the road crews hung around in the office waiting for their trains to be made up and ready, so he picked up a lot of knowledge listening to them. The telegrapher was in Dad’s office too, he sent out a signal down the line at 8:30 am to all stations to make sure everyone was on the correct time. He would also let Dad know when Sunnyland passed a certain spot, giving Dad time to call me and Mom on the phone and hang the receiver out the window so we could hear the train passing and the horn. I wonder how many passengers ever noticed a phone hanging out the window and wondered what was going on. It was a fun place to work, the super would just close his door and as long as the work got done, he never said a word about the horseplay or stupid pranks. Dad was dead by the time BN took over, but my godfather was still working and it was not the same. More business like and lost the family feeling that Frisco had.
When I worked at Lithonia (GARR) under TT&TO in the early 70’s I would receive and string up orders for most eastbound trains. They were almost always meet orders. The trains virtually never ran on time. Lithonia is just east of Atlanta, and by the time a train was approaching me, the dispatcher knew how late that day’s version was running.
The train had timetable authority over the line to a certain point, based on when it would arrive there if on time; and meet an opposing train if it was on time. Once the DS knew how late the trains were actually running, he would change the meet locations by train order.
A typical order would simply read something like this: “Train number 103 meet Train number 108 at Union Point.” There was priority by direction, and priority by class. I can’t remember the particulars, but let’s just say eastbounds had priority; if the classes of the trains were equal, the westbound would be the one to take the siding, and the EB would hold the main. I believe that the rules specified that the train taking the siding would always re-line the switch for the main, entering and leaving; everything was manual.
Every time a train passed a station operators would “OS” (means on-station) the train; that is, call the DC and say, for example, “Number 25 by here at 8:46.” This is how the DS “saw” the progress, and could arrange the most efficient meet. The GARR had long stretches with no sidings, so sometimes it was inevitable that one train would be waiting a while, because no ideal spot was available. Let’s say that EB #103 is about two hours late, but has (worst-case scenario) 12 hours to go the 171 miles to Augusta, so it’s not in any trouble. #103 is a first-class train. But let’s say that lowly WB local #24 has had a hellish day and is in danger of “going dead” per the “dog law.” If it can’t get to Atlanta in 90 mins., a new crew will have to be driven out t
On a single track railroad operating under TT&TO method of operation with both Schedules and Class and needless to say Direction. Schedules remain in effect for 12 hours only. One direction would be specified in the Timetable as being Superior. Class superiority is self explanatory. Additionally Extra Trains can and must be individually authorized when operated.
Dispatchers, in my experience, used two philosophies in running ‘their’ railroad. One method was to issue Train Orders to specify meeting points and who would take siding at the meeting points. The second method is to use Train Orders to modify the schedules of Superior trains, thus giving inferior trains a option of how far along their route their train can operate and STILL CLEAR the Superior train operating on the modified schedule, with the inferior train taking siding. Most Dispatchers I worked with used a combination of both methods when issuing Train Orders to the various Operators.
There were several order types for modifying schedules. One method I to issue a orders such as - “NO 1 ENG 1444 RUN ONE HOUR LATE STORRS JCT TO SHOPS”.
Another method was to issue ‘wait orders’ such as “NO 1 ENG 1444 WAIT AT CW CABIN UNTIL 845 AM WAIT AT MILAN UNTIL 930 AM WAIT AT BUTLERVILLE UNTIL 1015 AM”. Inferior trains could use those times as the ‘schedule’ times to advance in the face of Number 1 without regard to the times printed in the timetable for Number 1. ie if a inferior train holding the order could make CW Cabin by the time they would proceed to CW Cabin, if they COULD NOT they would clear there train at a location before CW Cabin.
Train Orders remain in effect until Fulfilled, Superceded or Annulled. A meet order remains in effect until the
I definitely remember typing those Run X hrs./mins late orders, and Wait orders also.
The train orders that I read gave the number of the lead engine of each train, so that opposing crewmen would know for certain just what train they were meeting.
Johnny, you are exactly right. I had forgotten.
It would always be, for example, “Train number 103 Engine 365 meet train number 24 Engine 248 at Conyers.” Or maybe just “Eng” was used.
(Actually, on the GARR at least, the entire orders were in all caps: ENGINE or ENG.)
And yes, it was totally critical that the trains cound be identified that way.
I believe it was standard for typed train orders to be all in capitals.
I have seen orders written in longhand.
At first, all train orders had to be written by hand. Later on, speed restriction orders could be typewritten. Eventually, all types of orders could be typewritten.
When using a typewriter, they were supposed to be in all capital letters. I have some in my collection that weren’t all capital. I’ve seen a set of orders on another site where the operator also used punctuation, another no-no on train orders.
Lithonia Opr, you’ve opened a can of worms concerning the origins of OS. I’m in the “on sheet”, as in station record or block sheet, camp. Others are in the “out of station” camp. Those who’s only knowledge of OS is in the modern context of the OS being the interlocking or CTC control point, the trackage between the absolute signals, think it means “over switch”.
Jeff
B&O rules permitted all train orders to be typed and required the typed orders to be all caps. A standard piece of office equipment was the billing machine typewriter that only had capital letters. Billing machines were used to create waybills which also were required to be done in capital letters.
Yes, despite a similar sounding term in the name, the NZ system you describe is not remotely at all similar to what we mean when we talk about “train orders” in North America. Here, that term is always intimately associated with timetable operation, as described throughout.
G’day Chris,
Yes, it would appear that there might be some variations of the Original Safe Working formats around the globe.
Though, I do believe that most railways on the planet with single line working did possess ETS (electric train staff) interlocked instrument token working, inlcuding in Canada.
Here in NSW, the British Tablet token working was firstly adopted, but this was subsequently replaced with ETS system.
I was not all that impressed with our Train Order Working when introduced in 1997.
The Mishap Order to rectify an operational incident was very problematic, something to do with the computer software.
I will post links to examples of both the NSW Train Order and Tasrail Track Warrant.
http://s3.amazonaws.com/rrpa_photos/121487/Train%20Order%2040150%20oct%201999.JPG
http://s3.amazonaws.com/rrpa_photos/121487/PNT%20protect%20against%20Trackwarrant.JPG
Steve.
Jeff, I think that at the time I probably just figured it meant “on station,” not that anyone told me that, or I saw that written somewhere. And never having seen anything challenging that, until now, that meaning just stuck, for me. So there’s a good chance I’ve just been wrong all this time.
While indeed there was some electric staff working in Canada, it was quite rare and generally only for a short section of track, often in an urban setting with both local switchers and through trains using a piece of single track. I can think of three locations that had them in the second half of the 20th century, and I know there were others. None remain. “Train Order & Timetable” was the usual method for the vast and mostly single track network without interlocking signals.
John
G’day John,
I based me comment concerning Canada on a PDF document that I scrounged some time ago.
It was a Canadian rail document published about the ETS safe working system.
Yes, very old, but very detailed and also included circuit wiring diagrams for interlocking the various ETS instruments.
The system also providing for Divisible ETS, the token rod being unscrewed into a couple of portions, the STAFF portion, and one or more TICKET portions.
This enabling following train movement, worked under section time, the first train / s travelling on the Ticket portion / s, the final train travelling on the Staff portion.
We had divisible ETS working in NSW, though I never worked it here in the Central West.
However, we did have Bank Engne Key ETS working here, also detailed in the Canadian ETS document.
Westbound trains requiring banking to climb the 6 km long 1 in 40 (2.5%) Tumulla Bank.
The bank engine dropping off the rear at the 260 km peg at the top of the climb, to return to the staff station in the rear while the train continued to the staff station in advance.
The Bank Engine Key locking the instruments while the bank engine was still in the section.
There were two types of ETS in use here in NSW, the Miniature Staff was the common, but we also had Large Staff in use.
The exchange hoop used for the miniature staff to be exchanged on the fly (25 kph during day and 15 kph during night) when performed by hand.
Automatic staff exchangers did exist in some high traffic regions, though I never worked those regions.
I enjoyed working under ETS
Steve.
G'day,
During the test period for the proposed development of Train Order Working, two mechanical points indicators were trialed.
The standard USRR green and yellow switch vane, and the QR black board with pivoting white arm.
The QR board was chosen as it was visible for a greater distance on approach due to our summer foliage colours.
All mechanically operated points within Train Order territory were then provided with the QR black board indicator.
It was also decided to utilize a slightly different Main Line Indicator compared to the normal Running Signal.
Within Train Order territory, the MLI would exhibit a pulsating lunar white light to indicate Clear proceed.
The MLI would also exhibit Yellow for Caution proceed and Red for STOP.
An MLI was to be utilized where track circuited level crossing protection existed.
Plus, to permit entry into Train Order territory from a Controlled location, a Starting MLI would exhibit Clear.
To exit Train Order territory into a Controlled location, a normal Running Signal would grant permission.
Begin TOW and End TOW boards being positioned at the entry and exit of such territory.
Originally, all points at a Train Order location were mechanically operated by the train crew.
Recently, radio controlled motorized points are also provided at certain locations for Loop switches.
An MLI exists at such points and has the adapted Turnout Indicator.
In 1959, the NSWR gradually implemented a slanted three subsidiary lamp turnout indicator.
Similar to the Pennsylvania Railway Position Light signal, but I believe not sourced from such.
This applied to Main Running Signals of the Single Light type at locations of Main Line loop or refuge turnout.
Originally, three subsidiary white lamps provided the indication below the Main Running Yellow indication.
However, this caused crew confusion and after some derailments, the indication was altered.
The trio of slanted subsidiary lamps becoming Yellow and the Main Running indication being