Sorry Steve, but we will disagree. I'm pursuing this with some old timers,
seeking clarification, but what you suggest makes absolutely no sense from
train operations. Having a 9.6 mile yard limit on a remote stretch of track
makes NO sense in that territory. Are you familiar with the territory or
train operations in that country over the years?
You are right, the quoted rule doesn't define where the switch is. My point
is that AT THAT TIME those definitions were made elsewhere and DON'T
APPEAR IN THE RULE BOOK. That's why the rule books got re-written. Part of
the reason why I am digging in my heels here is because I have a huge
file containing the correspondence between the Brotherhood of Locomotive
Firemen and Engineers and the CPR over an interpretation of the rule 93
and 86 (I think it was-haven't time to look) which govern what time the main
line had to be cleared at Penticton. The fight went on for over two years
before a very senior official supplied the answer the union was seeking.
Moreover, the decision had a profound effect and led to changes being made
in the ETT to accommodate the decision across the whole KV territory. Yet
not one trace of the decision appears in the rule book until 1951.
Moreover, the example I gave last night proves my argument. The application
of interpretations of rules had to be consistent whether or not they
appeared
in the UCOR. The example of the yard limits at Tadanac illustrates the
point. Under the UCOR and the prevailing interpretations of the time, what
was
done at Tadanac of necessity would have had to have been done at Taft-Three
Valley. You are correct, Steve, nothing appears in the rule book - that was
the problem. You are incorrect in stating that the only time switches
played a role in train movements was in Rule 93A. By looking at the old
rule books,
you just don't get to see the many interpretations made through the years
before 1951 (usually amounting to a company rather than an industry
practise)
establishing how employees were to be governed.
Joe Smuin
-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Lucas
Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2012 10:31 AM
To: cpsig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [cpsig] Re: CPR Timetables and Yard Limits
I have in front of me CPR BC District ETT's 84 of 27 September 1942, 96 of
24 September, 1950, and the CPR 1909 General, Train and Interlocking Rules
(GTIR), reprinted 5 July, 1949. Both ETT's cover the Shushwap Sub. which
Taft and Three Valley are located on. The GTIR is the applicable CPR
rulebook before the 1951 UCOR.
In both ETT's double track extends between Taft and Three Valley. Thus
double track rules apply per the GTIR. But Rule 93 in the GTIR is not
changed for double track. Rule 93 reads in its entirety in the GTIR--
=========================
Within yards defined by yard limit boards, the main track may be used,
keeping clear of first and second class trains.
The main track must not be so used within yard limits until it is known that
all sections of first and second class trains have arrived.
All trains except first and second-class trains, must, unless otherwise
directed, approach and pass through yard limits prepared to stop, unless the
main track is seen or known to be clear.
Yellow lights must be attached to the yard limit boards, to be kept lighted
from sunset to sunrise.
By night, or in foggy or stormy weather, a red light must be placed on
unattended cars or dead engines obstructing main tracks within yard limits.
=========================
You'll notice that there is no mention of siding switches to define yard
limits in this rule, Rule 93.
About that "Z" in the ETT's. The GTIR does not mention it as a symbol, but
the special instructions in both the 1942 and 1950 ETT's do, agreeing with
Joe's interpretation. But this is an ETT special instruction, NOT per the
GTIR rule book which preceded the 1951 UCOR.
The 1942 ETT shows the letter "Z" to the left of Three Valley, and to the
right of Taft in the station column. So the only possible interpretation is
that yard limits DID extend from the yard limit board to the station or
station name sign. I'm thinking that this was to obviate the necessity to
send out a flagman when stopped to take water and/or turn up or turn down
air brake retainers at these stations.
But the 1950 ETT does show the letter "Z" on both sides of Taft and Three
Valley in the station column. So now there have to be yard limit boards on
both sides of the stations (or station name signs). Perhaps a concession to
longer trains being run?
The only time on the CPR (and TH&B) that the location of siding switches
ever played a role in train movements on main track was in Rule 93A, both in
the GTIR and the 1951 and 1962 UCOR's.
Steve Lucas.
--- In cpsig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "K V Railway" <kvrailway@...> wrote:
I'm afraid that I don't understand your question about yard limits applying
to one track only.
I am saying that under the pre-1951 rules, there was no continuous yard
limit between Taft and Three Valley. I think most
railroaders knowledgeable with the country out here would find that an
illogical assumption too. The yard limit at each place
applied only at that station in the direction indicated. The yard limit did
not extend beyond the station switch at the far end
of the station.
In this case, the ETT holds the key to the matter. One specific example
demonstrates my point perfectly: The placement of the
"Z" symbols at Tadanac and Warfield - which are identical to the placements
at Three Valley and Taft. This example appears in
ETT 73 (Sept. 27, 1936) and later ETTs where the Rossland Subdivision
footnotes state:
"Tadanac yard limits extend from yard limit board located east of Tadanac to
yard limit board located west of Warfield".
There you have it. IF YARD LIMITS APPLIED OVER THE WHOLE 9.6 MILE DISTANCE
BETWEEN TAFT AND THREE VALLEY, THE ETT FOOTNOTES
FOR THE SHUSWAP SUBDIVISION WOULD CATEGORICALLY STATE SO. (They don't ... I
checked!) There are other examples which
more or less go along the same line.
One of the handy things about having ETTs which go way back is that you can
see small, curious little details which sometimes explain a lot, if
you know how things worked. There are a number of situations in the BC
District where the Subdivision footnotes make specific mention of
yard limit details. There is even one situation where the 'Z' does not
appear at all beside the station name, but the subdivision footnote
advises that the station is covered by the yard limits of the next station.
Even the official instructions aren't always logical at first glance.
You can rest assured that if you find contradictions or ambiguities in these
rules, so did the professionals and that's why the rule books
get updated as the years pass. The 1951 UCOR was a direct result of a
number of contretemps and black holes in the earlier rule books.
Joe Smuin
-----Original Message----- From: Chuck Johnstone
Sent: Friday, April 06, 2012 5:56 PM
To: cpsig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [cpsig] Re: CPR Timetables and Yard Limits
Hmmm,
So Joe, you're suggesting that the Z denotes that the limits apply to one
track only? That's something I haven't considered.
I got some input from the rwy-ops list here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Ry-ops-industrialSIG/message/70530
They were supporting the idea that yard limits extended between Taft and
Three Valley. But your information sounds pretty convincing. Do you know
if the cpsig has an example ETT I can look that shows the yard limits in the
instructions?
I'll take a closer look at the 1948 ETT.
Thanks for this.
Chuck Johnstone
--- In cpsig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "K V Railway" <kvrailway@> wrote:
>
> If you look at the pre-1951 rule book, the yard will only extend to the
> far
> switch of the station affected by the yard limit sign.
>
>
> 'It make sense if limits extended from East Revelstoke up Eagle pass to
> the
> west switch of Three Valley.' No, I disagree with this statement.
>
> From what I understand from the old-timers this was not the case UNLESS > IT
> WAS SPECIFIED IN THE ETT FOOTNOTES.
> My understanding is that in 1948, the Yard Limit at Taft (for example)
> extended from the Yard Limit Board west of Taft to the
> east switch at Taft and no further.
>
> Put it this way, similar one-direction only yard limits were in place on
> KV
> territory and I know for fact yard limits did not extend between > stations
> as Chuck speculates. There were cases where they did, but I reiterate, > in
> those instances, the ETT footnotes for the affected subdivision
> clearly stated those instances.
>
> After the new UCOR took effect in 1951, a number of provisions changed,
> such
> as the designation of 'passing track.' Yard limits no longer carried > the
> direction-specific provisions in the ETT either.
>
> Joe Smuin
>
> -----Original Message----- > From: Suther-rail
> Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2012 10:40 AM
> To: cpsig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [cpsig] Re: CPR Timetables and Yard Limits
>
> I can't give a complete answer, but yard limits were defined in the > field
> by
> yard limit signs. Yard limits only applied within the limits defined by
> those signs. The timetable indicates stations where "yard limits" exist
> but
> the crews have to be familiar with the actual physical limits so their
> train
> is under appropriate control as they approach the sign. In most
> situations
> that would probably be not much more than a train length beyond the > outer
> switch at each station.
>
> I can't confirm whether or not the position of the letter in the ETT has
> your proposed meaning, although it does seem logical.
>
> John
>
> --- In cpsig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Chuck Johnstone" <chuck.johnstone@> > wrote:
> >
> > A long while ago this note was posted:
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cpsig/message/4906.
> > It explained the meaning of the letters on CPR timetables.
> >
> > This raises a question in how the letters were used. Pacific region TT
> > (http://www.cptracks.ca/data/TimeTables_Employee/ETT_92_1948_Sep26.pdf)
> >
> > It shows the following for the Shuswap Sub (I've only included the > > yard
> > limit letters):
> >
> > Revelstoke Z
> > Clanwilliam
> > Z Three Valley
> > Taft Z
> > Craigellachie Z
> > Malakwa
> > Cambie
> > Solsqua
> > Z Sicamous Z
> > Annis
> > Mowitch
> > Canoe Z
> > Salmon Arm Z
> > etc.
> >
> > I assume that a letter on the left side of a station name denotes > > limits
> > on the west side of a station and letters on the right side designate
> > limits on the east. I'm also assuming that if a letter is missing the
> > yard limit extends to the next station.
> >
> > But if true there many problems. Sicamous works well with the station
> > entirely within yard limits but what about Revelstoke? It make sense > > if
> > limits extended from East Revelstoke up Eagle pass to the west switch > > of
> > Three Valley. Or maybe the limits extend from west switch Three > > Valley
> > to
> > east switch Taft?
> >
> > Does anyone know how the limit letters are paired up to form a > > west-east
> > interval?
> >
> > Thanks
> > Chuck Johnstone
> >
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
