Train orders serious business

ModelRailroadForums.com is a free Model Railroad Discussion Forum and photo gallery. We cover all scales and sizes of model railroads. Online since 2002, it's one of the oldest and largest model railroad forums on the web. Whether you're a master model railroader or just getting started, you'll find something of interest here.


NYC_George

Well-Known Member
I know a few clubs I have contacted in the past said they operated their sessions on train orders. Sounds easy enough. My biggest fear of my 12 year railroad career was to misinterpret a train order. I can remember entering the book of rules class each year walking by the photo with the eight F3’s stacked on one another. In 1952 two NYC ABBA 100 car freights hit head on just outside New York City west 72nd street yard. The instructor would say as he pointed to the photo this is the result of a misinterpreted train order. Someone got the train order wrong putting the freight’s on the same track going in the opposite direction. I know not much can’t go wrong with these clubs that operate this way but for real railroads it's serous business.

NYC_George
 
I have to agree George, it's way too easy to make a mistake and screw things up royally! Small mishaps can have big consequences on the railroad!!
We repeat orders three times just for that reason.
There's another foreman I worked with that was told to get on the North track and proceed East a while ago. Well due to the winding road he got turned around and went on the South track heading West!
You learn very quickly that when the poo hits the fan it never distributes evenly...
 
You guys bring up an interesting point. I hear train orders being given all the time on the radio, with much phonetic spelling and repeating to make sure all the information is correct. When I was a deputy, we had mobile data computers that dispatch would use to transmit critical information. We could print out the data if needed and there wasn't any question of someone hearing the wrong thing on the radio. We even printed traffic citations direct for the computer. I wonder why railroads haven't gone to a similar system for train orders given the critical nature of the consequences of things going wrong?
 


BN had a big wreck in Montana in 1991 that killed 3 guys and wrecked 9 locos and 31 cars. It was traced to the crew not understanding what the dispatcher said, making a guess and the dispatcher not catching the mistake when they read back the warrant. She had been on that job only a few days but probably spent the rest of her life knowing she made a mistake that ended several lives.
Part of the report: http://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/Office...MT035919910830

Fortunately the consequences on model rrs are much less dire. I operate on two fairly well known model railroads that use trainorders and have never had a problem. Being in a "helicopter" above the train helps with situational awareness and gives an advantage the guys on real trains don't have. I really enjoy the operating sessions with trainorders but don't miss the possible consequences rails deal with on a daily basis.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You guys bring up an interesting point. I hear train orders being given all the time on the radio, with much phonetic spelling and repeating to make sure all the information is correct. When I was a deputy, we had mobile data computers that dispatch would use to transmit critical information. We could print out the data if needed and there wasn't any question of someone hearing the wrong thing on the radio. We even printed traffic citations direct for the computer. I wonder why railroads haven't gone to a similar system for train orders given the critical nature of the consequences of things going wrong?
For the same reason the military does not use them in our patrol cars, $$... Those computer systems cost over $4k a piece. :eek:
 
For the same reason the military does not use them in our patrol cars, $$... Those computer systems cost over $4k a piece. :eek:

I heard that as well. Having worked in areas like property mgmt, I could say that possibly those prices are kind of "encouraged" to go up---"Hey, they're from the government. Of course they can pay more!!"--heard that from one landlord-----:eek::mad:
 
Let's see if I can remember this story--

Back in the first decade of the 20th century, there was an engineer named Bagley on the part of the Canadian Pacific that cuts across northern Maine. He was operating an eastbound freight train in the middle of winter, and he had orders to put his train in a siding, and wait while four passenger specials filled with immigrants just arrived at Halifax passed by on their way inland. So he stopped on the siding and counted the passing passenger trains. And after the third train he pulled out onto the mainline. The resulting head-on collision caused the worst loss of life ever recorded in a railroad accident in the state of Maine.

When the wreckage, inanimate and human, was cleared, no sign of the engineer was found, alive or dead. Some people said if Bagley survived, he might well have taken off on foot. But the cleanup crew didn't move the heap of coal that had spilled from the loco's tender. In the course of the winter, the coal froze to a solid mass, and in the spring, men were sent with shovels to pick it up. And when they had cleared the last of the coal, there underneath was the corpse of the unfortunate Bagley.

The moral of the story is, get your orders clear, and know how to count.
 
No doubt that mobile computers cost money but so do train wrecks, not to mention human lives. Railroads are already spending a bunch of money to switch over to digital radio systems and adding an MDC isn't all that much more money since you can remove the computers from inactive locomotives and only need to have them in the head end unit on each train. The mount and wiring for the computers is less than $500 a unit.

Josh, I'm surprised the military hasn't gone to MDC's just for base security reasons. You can talk back and forth to dispatch and it's virtually impossible for anyone (like terrorists) to monitor the traffic. I could enter a plate number in the computer and get the R.O. information, wants and warrants, and a complete criminal history of the R.O. in five seconds. Sure made me feel a lot safer when I was doing a traffic stop at 0300 with my closest backup fifteen minutes away.

Joh, that's a great story. I've heard variations of it before and don't know if it's a railroading version of an urban legend or really true.
 
Well, here's how I heard the story of Bagley and the coal.

I have a model railroading buddy whose grandfather was an engineer on the CP in Maine. One day my friend showed me a family heirloom, a piece of railroad paperwork from the CP listing all the trains that ran on some particular day, with their engineers and conductors. He pointed out one name--"That's my grandfather, there", and then he moved his finger down and said "And that guy, a few years later, caused the worst railroad accident in the history of Maine..." and it was Bagley, and my friend told the story at that point. Now, that was a few years ago, and my memory isn't perfect, and how much had oral history changed the truth before I heard it?

Here's what I found by Internet searching:

The accident really happened, but later than I said: it was December 20, 1919, and the passenger extras were from St John, not Halifax. Bagley really was the eastbound freight engineer, and there was a question of how many westbound trains were running, and where they were, but it was more complicated than just counting trains past a particular point.

Here's a report from the New York Times the next day:
http://www3.gendisasters.com/maine/5891/onawa-me-train-wreck-dec-1919

But here's the complete report on the accident, from a site titled "Train Order Accidents; A review of 68 accidents under the American system of time table and train orders from ICC reports, 1911-1966". It's at http://mysite.du.edu/~jcalvert/railway/trainord.htm . No mention of coal, however, so maybe that part is indeed "urban legend".

The Canadian Pacific has a direct line from Montral to New Brunswick that passes through Maine just north of the settled areas, from Megantic, Que. to Adams Junction, N.B., which was part of the Atlantic Division. The Moosehead Subdivision extended from Megantic to Brownville Junction, 117 miles, forming the western half of this line. In 1919, this line was operated by time table and train orders, with dispatching by telephone, except for electric train staff blocks near the termini: Megantic to Boundary, 15.2 miles, and Barnard to Brownville Junction, 8.5 miles. Traffic was quite heavy, about 41 trains per day.

... On the morning of 20 December 1919, first class passenger train No. 39 was moving west in four sections. Third 39 carried steerage passengers from the liner Empress of France that had been landed at St. John, and were bound for Montreal. Engine 783 had 11 cars: a wooden boxcar baggage, a coach, two colonist cars, two tourist sleepers, one colonist car, one cafe car, one tourist sleeper and two cabooses. At Brownville Junction it received three Form 31 orders, numbers 20, 28 and 38. Order No. 20 stated: "First No 39 eng 818 late Second No 39 eng 852 on block Third No 39 eng unknown run four 4 hours and twenty 20 minutes late Barnard to Boundary." Order No. 28 was: "Order No 20 is annulled. First No 39 eng 818 late Second No 39 eng 852 on block Third No 39 eng unknown run five 5 hours late Barnard to Boundary." Finally, order No. 38 said: "Engine 783 display signals and run as Third No 39 Brownville to Megantic."

In these orders, each section was mentioned, with the comments "late" or "on block," which was not common practice, but apparently was required by the dispatching manual of the Atlantic Division. Adding this information was not part of the Standard Code. Third No. 39 departed Brownville Junction at 6.25 am, 5 hours and 5 minutes late, passed Barnard at 6.51 am, and the open office at Onawa at 7.09 am, 5 hours and 10 minutes late. At 7.14 am, 2.3 miles west of Onawa, it collided head-on with eastbound freight First No. 78. The wooden box baggage car absorbed a good deal of the shock, but 19 passengers were killed in the coach and first colonist car, as well as the engine crews of both trains.

First 78 was made up of engine 2516, 30 loads and 2 empties, and a caboose. It left Megantic at 6 pm the evening before, 30 minutes late. Six cars were set out at Holeb. At the non-telegraph station of Moosehead, it met First and Second 39, as well as Extra 3470 West, which delivered order No. 28, Form 19 to it. Helping orders can be forwarded to non-telegraph stations quite safely this way, on Form 19, since non-delivery would at most result in delay. This order gave First 78 five hours on Third 39, so they had ample time to make Morkill for it. First 78 arrived Greenville at 6.30 am, where fresh copies of orders No. 20 and No. 28 were received. They left Greenville at 6.40 am, and arrived Morkill at 6.57 am, where they took siding.

Dispatcher Shaw noted the progress that First 78 was making. He was interested in getting them to Brownville Junction before they had 16 hours of duty, so promptly gave them time against Fourth 39, in order No. 47: "Third No 39 eng 783 late Fourth No 39 eng unknown run 8 hours late Barnard to Megantic." This order was transmitted to operator Kingdon at Morkill, who repeated it and received complete. When First 78 pulled in, he had it ready and ran out to hand it up to the cab and the caboose. At the caboose, he handed it to engineman Chase, who was deadheading, who in turn gave it to conductor Manuel. Flagman Gardiner read it when it was laid on the caboose table.

Brakeman Austin heard engineman Bagley say to the fireman: "We have eight hours on Third 39." Conductor Manuel and flagman Gardiner had the same opinion, "Eight hours" was heard to be exchanged. Little thinking was going on here. They had just received five hours on Third 39 just half an hour before at Greenville, but did not wonder how it could have lost so much time so quickly. In their eagerness to reach Brownville Junction, First 78 left Morkill, and operator Kingdon OS'ed to Dispatcher Shaw. Both of these men thought that the train might be going to Bodfish for Third 39, but a consideration of the time would have shown the futility of leaving Morkill at 6.57 and having to be clear at Bodfish at 7 am, with the required 5 minutes clearance. Operator Valley, who handled the 8 am - 4 pm trick at Morkill, had arrived on First 78 and thought something was funny, but could not make Kingdon appreciate the situation.

Had this been realized at once, Third 39 could still have been stopped at Onawa, an open office, which it had not yet passed. The chance was lost, and Dispatcher Shaw first realized something was wrong when his phone lines went out of service, as the accident damaged the pole line. The ICC is quite hard on Shaw and Kingdon, but they were not responsible for the accident, though with vigilance they could have prevented it. The true cause of the accident was the mass misreading of order No. 47.
 
Thanks for the information, John. I'm not sure I would have understood such a complicated series of train orders either. You can sure see how things would have gotten confused and later led to tragedy.
 


You guys bring up an interesting point. I hear train orders being given all the time on the radio, with much phonetic spelling and repeating to make sure all the information is correct. When I was a deputy, we had mobile data computers that dispatch would use to transmit critical information. We could print out the data if needed and there wasn't any question of someone hearing the wrong thing on the radio. We even printed traffic citations direct for the computer. I wonder why railroads haven't gone to a similar system for train orders given the critical nature of the consequences of things going wrong?

Real railroads haven't used them BECAUSE of the critical nature and the consequences of things going wrong.

Real railroads operate in lots of area with very poor communication. The train may not be in an area with the bandwidth to cover that. The computer would have to know which tower the train is closest to to send the data. You dispatcher has a pretty good idea which county you're in, but a train that covers nearly 400 miles is more challenging.

In addition, by having an actual person copy the warrants (they don't use train orders any more) means you know for positive sure that somebody has recieved the warrant and has read it. If you just send it blind to the engine, you may not know if the crew actually read it.

You probably don't swap out police cars with your neighboring county or city, so you have the same equipment recieving the same messages eveery day. Railroads share engines all the time, so whatever system the UP uses would probably NOT be compatible with what the BNSF was using with what the NS was using with what the CSX was using with what the FXE was using, with what the CN was using, assuming any or all of them were using something.
 
This all reminds me of when we switched with hand signals! :eek:
You were pretty much on your own on when riding the first cars on the hills or around curves...:p
 
Dave, you're wrong about MDC's. They are generally more reliable than voice radios because they broadcast a digital stream at a higher frequency than voice and are less prone to interference. Granted, there may be dead spots, but there are just as many dead and weak spots for the voice VHF radios now in use.

The computer knows nothing about what towers are there. All it knows is that it sends a transmission when it has a strong enough signal to send at less than a 1,000 bit per second error rate. The dispatcher will know where the train is by the almost universal use of GPS on Class 1 railroads.

You wouldn't be sending anything blind. The engineer or conductor would have to acknowledge the warrant by pressing a function key and sending a code word indicating he read and received the track warrant. It really no different than how it's handled by voice now except that the crew has a screen copy of the track warrant rather than one scratched out on paper while the engineer or conductor is trying to listen to the radio. In bad radio areas, it's very easy to mistake one phonetic with another and get the warrant wrong and neither party will know it. With an MDC, there should be no doubt about what the warrants says and that the crew read it.

The National Association of Police Chiefs developed a very comprehensive set of standards for MDC's. All MDC's put into service in the past three years receive in the same band of frequencies. Not all departments use the same frequency to prevent interference but they are all capable of operating on the 67 frequencies set aside for MDC use. If you are called to another jurisdiction for mutual aid, it takes one minute for a new system key to be sent over the air and your MDC will operate on any other department's frequencies. There's no essential difference between the standard AAR radio channels and doing the same thing with MDC's.

Railroad radios are about to undergo a big change with the refarming of frequencies. Railroads currently operate with 15 kHz channel spacing. This is going to be reduced to 12.5 kHz spacing by 2011 and a very tight 6.25 spacing by 2018. While digital is not required, it's almost impossible to operate on a 6.25 kHz channel spacing without using digital. This gives railroads the chance to upgrade their entire communications infrastructure. Adding MDC's will not cost a lot, reduces both dispatcher and train crew workload, and frees up voice bandwidth. I'm assuming the railroads are looking at these possibilities.
 




Affiliate Disclosure: We may receive a commision from some of the links and ads shown on this website (Learn More Here)

Back
Top