A right of way question
- Thread starter normhart
- Start date
KingConrail76
New member
Around 1900 on an unsignaled line over a pass with signifigant grades in the western US which train would have right of way meeting at a siding, the train headed down hill or the train headed up hill?
The only factor that I can see making a difference would be, who got there first? The first train would have to stop and wait until the second train got in the clear. The second train would be unlikely to stop, unless the first train was longer than the siding, in which case, the second train would stop to allow the first to pull ahead enough to get in the clear.
If both trains were short enough to be "in the clear" (fit in the siding), the train moving would continue moving, or "get priority", regardless of direction of travel or grade.
If you are asking which train the dispatcher would schedule to get there first, as they would have to take the siding and wait for the second train, I would guess the down grade train would be scheduled to take the siding...but I don't think that is how things were done, meaning, I don't think they were scheduled based on "meets", but instead "arrival and departure times". A track warrant would be issued to grant permission to make a specific move, usually worded something like: "Permission granted to move train XYZ from Winslow to Barstow, at Barstow siding wait for train ABC to pass, then proceed to Pheonix.". The opposing train would get a similar warrant: "Permission granted to move train ABC from Pheonix to Barstow, at Barstow siding wait for train XYZ to pass, then proceed to Winslow." Since they didn't have communications ON the train, and no signals, the only way they knew where the other train was, was to pass it...hence, the first train to the siding stopped and waited.
cascaderailroad
New member
Both trains usually had a very descriptive "Train Order Form" ie: WB train # _ _ _ proceed from block #_ _ _, to block #_ _ _ ... wait for EB train # _ _ _to pass ... proceed to block # _ _ _ ... etc ...
It usually was a regimented schedule ...not a first come, first serve basis
It usually was a regimented schedule ...not a first come, first serve basis
OK, that makes some sense, sort of.
The reason I asked is that it would seem to me that trains going up hill that are required to stop and allow a train going down hill to pass at a siding might have difficulty in getting going again where as a train going down hill would not. I sort of remembered reading somewhere that different roads had different policies on this but I have been unable to find the reference. Naturally the first train to arrive at the siding would have to stop in any case whether they were scheduled to or not. Given the very slow speeds of the trains and their probable ability to signal each other via whistle and assuming that both were more or less on time one engineer could slow enough to allow the other to arrive first.
All this is about Rollins Pass which has seven passing sidings between Tolland and Fraser. One is a bit short (Pacific) and only one has any telegraph office nearby (Corona). I was attempting to envision the kind of Train Order form would be used over the pass.
The reason I asked is that it would seem to me that trains going up hill that are required to stop and allow a train going down hill to pass at a siding might have difficulty in getting going again where as a train going down hill would not. I sort of remembered reading somewhere that different roads had different policies on this but I have been unable to find the reference. Naturally the first train to arrive at the siding would have to stop in any case whether they were scheduled to or not. Given the very slow speeds of the trains and their probable ability to signal each other via whistle and assuming that both were more or less on time one engineer could slow enough to allow the other to arrive first.
All this is about Rollins Pass which has seven passing sidings between Tolland and Fraser. One is a bit short (Pacific) and only one has any telegraph office nearby (Corona). I was attempting to envision the kind of Train Order form would be used over the pass.
I think he might have been asking from the physics point of view
The train going downhill would be harder to stop (but would be proceeding with care) and certainly would be easier to get going again.
The train going uphill would be easy to stop as it wouldn't be going that fast but would be harder to get going again.
Dispatcher flip a coin time, lol?
Ben
The train going downhill would be harder to stop (but would be proceeding with care) and certainly would be easier to get going again.
The train going uphill would be easy to stop as it wouldn't be going that fast but would be harder to get going again.
Dispatcher flip a coin time, lol?
Ben
KingConrail76
New member
Yep, that's pretty much what I said. Two trains can not move in opposite directions on the same piece of rail...so one has to wait...the one that gets there first.
Second come, first serve, if you will.
If the grade was significantly long, the downhill train would want to stop to cool the brakes. As temperature rises, effectiveness goes down, and you have the making for potential disaster. Not from brake failure, but from wheel failure. The most well-known publicity pic of a UP 4000 is actually one of these mandatory stops. And Southern Ry steam locos running on Saluda had pipes ducting water to all braking wheels to keep them cool en route.
Interesting - I hadn't thought of that (heat).
On the other hand the uphill train wouldn't get the "running start" when it started back up the hill like it did at the bottom. Even the K-36 that pulled my train on the Durango & Silverton got a running start at the beginning of the grade (all 12 to 15 MPH of it, lol).
Ben
On the other hand the uphill train wouldn't get the "running start" when it started back up the hill like it did at the bottom. Even the K-36 that pulled my train on the Durango & Silverton got a running start at the beginning of the grade (all 12 to 15 MPH of it, lol).
Ben
KingConrail76
New member
Sounds plausable, maybe even probable...I'd go with it.
A train or engine needs specific authority to occupy or use the main line from it's start to the finish. The situation of who get's there first is not likely to happen in the real world railroading
Trains are authorized by timetable schedules under rules of superiority of trains, which can be modified by the dispatcher. A hotshot TOFC/COFC would not be waiting at the bottom of the grade waiting on a work extra to climb the hill. If both trains were hotshots, meeting, the rule would be superior by direction, east/west or north/south. Railroads have in their timetables which direction is superior to the other train.
Also track warrants are issued that authorize a train to occupy a track section, either between mile post or control points. Track warrants do the job timetables & train orders.
If you take a look at most single track high traffic density lines, the graded portion would be doubled tracked for the length of significant grades, if not there were be passing sidings that would accommodate the longest consists on that route, where the dispatcher would have a rolling meet, neither train would stop.
John
Trains are authorized by timetable schedules under rules of superiority of trains, which can be modified by the dispatcher. A hotshot TOFC/COFC would not be waiting at the bottom of the grade waiting on a work extra to climb the hill. If both trains were hotshots, meeting, the rule would be superior by direction, east/west or north/south. Railroads have in their timetables which direction is superior to the other train.
Also track warrants are issued that authorize a train to occupy a track section, either between mile post or control points. Track warrants do the job timetables & train orders.
If you take a look at most single track high traffic density lines, the graded portion would be doubled tracked for the length of significant grades, if not there were be passing sidings that would accommodate the longest consists on that route, where the dispatcher would have a rolling meet, neither train would stop.
John
Last edited:
KingConrail76
New member
Whoa there John....we are talking 1900's, not modern day. Things were operated differently back then.
Although, I will still argue simple physics with you; Please tell me how two trains, regardless of era, or point in the space-time continuem, moving in opposite directions can pass each other at a specific siding if only one train is there "on-time"? Or, if one is longer than the siding, and it gets to the meet/siding first?
The only possible answer...one train stops.
Are you aware that RR timetable operation begin before the US Civil War? Before the 1900's in the US, railroads that had two-way traffic on single track operated by timetable and train orders.
As for the length of the train being longer than the siding; typically this would not happen, as I have stated, train movements from the Civil War to the early 1900's were governed by a Timetable, which the lengths of passing sidings. Each section of railroad is divided into block each block has a station agent, trains move between blocks, the agent at each block informs the agent in the block ahead when a train has passed his station, he does this by telegraph. The agent at the station will know when and where the trains ahead and behind are in relation to his location. If the train on the hill has stalled on his climb, and has to double the hill, the agent at that station, because that train has not passed his station by a certain time, he will inform the agents along the line and all trains will be held until the stalled train proceeds pass his station. That's one of the reasons for train order boards
A dispatcher would not dispatch a train longer than shortest passing siding along that trains route. As for 2 trains passing/meeting each other at a specific time and place, that's what the timetable and train orders were used for, they did all of the time.
John
This should answer all of your questions:
http://www.wx4.org/to/foam/sp/train_orders/primers/to_primer1.html
Last edited:
KingConrail76
New member
1. You were referencing TOFC/COFC Hotshots...NOT 1890-1910 era Train consists. Sorry if YOU were unclear on what you were trying to say.
2. In 1890-1910, double tracking hundreds of miles of mountain pass WAS NOT the norm...again, sorry that YOU are referencing MODERN infrastructure.
The second part of my comment can not be disputed. You, yourself, even state that one of the two trains of the meet must stop for the other to pass.
You say: "As for the length of the train being longer than the siding; typically this would not happen, as I have stated, train movements from the Civil War to the early 1900's were governed by a Timetable, which the lengths of passing sidings." AND "A dispatcher would not dispatch a train longer than shortest passing siding along that trains route."
--Right, that never happened...thus "Saw-by" meets are a figment of imagination. If you believe that that never happened, I've got some swamp land for sale.
-Train lengths were DICTATED by REVENUE, not siding length. If a train was longer than the siding available, the OTHER train would take the siding, and the longer one would pass on the main. If the longer one was "High Priority"...too bad. If it got there FIRST, it would have to stop short of the second switch,and WAIT for the second, "low priority" train to take the siding. Due that the first train was longer than the siding, BOTH trains would have to STOP. Once the second train cleared the main, the first, on the main, could continue.
---THIS situation would be governed by a Track Warrant, which supercedes a Timetable.
Now, while your information on the use of Timetables may be correct and true, in regards to the OPs question, and it's answer, your information on "How train priority was handled by Station Agents" is moot. Unless a specific Timetable for the line and era he is modeling exists for him to reference, then he must guess at what that railroad would have done. Nothing in your history lesson tells him, or us, WHAT was done, only what would have told us WHAT was done; A Timetable.
And in that Timetable, an east bound and a west bound train are to meet...at that meet, the one that gets to the siding FIRST...MUST...STOP...and WAIT. No matter which train has priority, which-ever one that gets there first MUST STOP...or it will pass the siding, and be on a single track ...and have a head-on collision with the second train.
Without having a a Timetable available (which I am assuming the OP does not have) and thus NOT having that "Hard and Fast rule" of WHICH train gets "priority", I used common sense, much like the Railroads did in the 1900s, and said the train in motion would STAY in motion, while the train at rest, would stay at rest, until the second train passed. Regardless of "priority", it is more efficient to keep one moving, even if it is lower priority, than to make BOTH stop, so the higher "priority", but already stopped train, can get moving. By simple logic, it is easy to see how a "High Priority" train may find itself at a meet point BEFORE a lower priority train...it is probably moving a bit faster, thus covering more distance in a shorter time.
Regardless of "priority", for two trains to pass, one MUST stop in a siding that is only just long enough to hold it (Typical of 1890-1910 era railroads, contrary to your belief)
-Unless you're suggesting that by some miracle of all things holy, every train meet was perfectly timed to the second AND that both crews could jump off and throw hand switches, then jump back aboard while moving @ 20 miles per hour. By YOUR OWN Timetable reasoning, the lower priority train would be scheduled to get to the siding first (OK, I can accept that), BUT, that would mean the lower priority train of the meet ACTUALLY had higher priority in the previous block, to make sure it got to the meet in time.
"No" you would say, "the lower priority train would be held until the high priority train got passed". Exactly, one train MUST STOP and WAIT, regardless of where. Be it at a Station, or a siding on a mountain pass, or the bottom of the ocean; IF there are two trains moving in opposite directions toward each other, and on a single track main, with a passing siding only just long enough for one train to fit into completely...which ever one gets there first MUST STOP.
Please let me be clear, I am not trying to prove you wrong, or to come across as being superior in any way. I'm sure you are a better man than I.
-What I am saying is: With the LACK of an actual Timetable, or Track Warrant to reference, and NOT knowing what Train the given Railroad would Prioritize, only common sense can be referenced, and common sense says (as well as unpredictable Trainz AI) first come, stop-wait, second come, if clear-keep moving.
Last edited:
KingConrail76
New member
I read that page, John, and perhaps you should re-read it, because it contradicts more than half of what you claim, in terms of "meets".
KingConrail76
New member
Pretty simple and clear, until you tried to say "use a timetable"....I'd bet that if the OP HAD a timetable, they would not have asked the question in the first place.