Shouldn’t that be transcribed “1823 on the *tongue* [pull on the drawbar], 2389 on the feet” [weight on the wheels]? You can see here how delicate the process of controlling trains via track warrant can be. One mistake in copying could result in a wreck. Which is probably the reason why track warrants are typically only used on track that isn’t very busy at all, where the operations are organized in a way that makes a conflict between two trains very unlikely, even if a track warrant is not copied correctly. This however doesn’t prevent the possibility of a misaligned switch causing a train to derail. It’s no wonder the FRA doesn’t typically allow passenger rail service in dark territory.
this isn't a train, its a transfer, at the top of a track warrant he'd fill out the full designation. Since he only stated the unit number and gave a footage and tonnage that means he was built inside presumably some yard or industry, and he's looking for an authority to get back to the yard or some other industry. If it was a train itd look something like "track authority 12345 to the A321 cn 1234" instead of "track authority 12345 to the cn 1234" the "A321" is a designation given to trains, if it's not given one its classified as a transfer and generally is only doing some spotting or pulling on some industry and headed back to the yard.
No, it is definitely a road train, the U745. They did identify themselves with the symbol prior to the video starting. I've definitely heard plenty of track warrants given without a symbol on CN.
@@ThornappleRiverRailSeries then the rtc, conductor, and engineer made a BIIIIIGGGGG oopsie cause fucking up a track warrant is an instant piss test, and possible fire. On par with running a red
Could it be a difference between the Canadian Operating Rules and CN's US-side rulebook? I've never had a Canadian version to compare the two with. Based on the US Operating Rules book, page 71 shows a sample TA form and it does not have a line specifically for the symbol, only a "to" line, which is where the engine number should go based on all the transmissions I have ever heard in the field. CN certainly would not be alone in the practice of not using the symbol on track warrants - GCOR roads typically don't and the CN US Rulebook is lightly modified GCOR ultimately, which could be the origination of this difference, if this in fact the case. Thanks by the way for not being offended by my question as to whether you're a CN-qualified employee or not - I get way too many comments from people who aren't railroad employees and/or are applying railroad X's rules to railroad Y. Hope you understand!
Shouldn’t that be transcribed “1823 on the *tongue* [pull on the drawbar], 2389 on the feet” [weight on the wheels]?
You can see here how delicate the process of controlling trains via track warrant can be. One mistake in copying could result in a wreck. Which is probably the reason why track warrants are typically only used on track that isn’t very busy at all, where the operations are organized in a way that makes a conflict between two trains very unlikely, even if a track warrant is not copied correctly. This however doesn’t prevent the possibility of a misaligned switch causing a train to derail. It’s no wonder the FRA doesn’t typically allow passenger rail service in dark territory.
All correct. Have a good one.
Usually it's the conductor that takes the track warrant not the engineer.
It was the engineer in this case, as the conductor was walking up from the rear after completing the airtest.
Can u do CSX
How did you know it was u745? How does CN. Label their trains?
I know a number of ways, including them using the symbol over the radio.
@@ThornappleRiverRailSeries what symbol ?
this isn't a train, its a transfer, at the top of a track warrant he'd fill out the full designation. Since he only stated the unit number and gave a footage and tonnage that means he was built inside presumably some yard or industry, and he's looking for an authority to get back to the yard or some other industry. If it was a train itd look something like "track authority 12345 to the A321 cn 1234" instead of "track authority 12345 to the cn 1234" the "A321" is a designation given to trains, if it's not given one its classified as a transfer and generally is only doing some spotting or pulling on some industry and headed back to the yard.
No, it is definitely a road train, the U745. They did identify themselves with the symbol prior to the video starting. I've definitely heard plenty of track warrants given without a symbol on CN.
@@ThornappleRiverRailSeries then the rtc, conductor, and engineer made a BIIIIIGGGGG oopsie cause fucking up a track warrant is an instant piss test, and possible fire. On par with running a red
Are you schooled in CN's rules? Or are you conflating their operating practice with another railroad?
@@ThornappleRiverRailSeries yea, I run the rivers sub specifically
Could it be a difference between the Canadian Operating Rules and CN's US-side rulebook? I've never had a Canadian version to compare the two with.
Based on the US Operating Rules book, page 71 shows a sample TA form and it does not have a line specifically for the symbol, only a "to" line, which is where the engine number should go based on all the transmissions I have ever heard in the field. CN certainly would not be alone in the practice of not using the symbol on track warrants - GCOR roads typically don't and the CN US Rulebook is lightly modified GCOR ultimately, which could be the origination of this difference, if this in fact the case.
Thanks by the way for not being offended by my question as to whether you're a CN-qualified employee or not - I get way too many comments from people who aren't railroad employees and/or are applying railroad X's rules to railroad Y. Hope you understand!