Talk:Train order operation

	Trains Portal
DYK	2006-09-21

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by the Operations task force.

Explanation of train order depicted in image

When the train order says "To: C & E Exa 2005 Nth" how does that translate to "conductor and engineer of Extra 2005 North at VN Tower" ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.31.134.84 (talk) 05:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected interpretation of sample train order

I believe that the old interpretation of the sample train order misinterpreted it as primarily to Extra 2005 North. In fact, it was primarily to No 123 setting a meet with the Extra at one station, with a scheduled train and an extra at a second, and a scheduled train at a third. The meets are expressed in two statements to emphasise which trains take the siding at each meet.

MAndrewWaugh (talk) 23:28, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of quote from 'When the Facts Change: Essays 1995–2010'

I believe that the lengthy quote from 'When the Facts Change: Essays 1995–2010' in the introduction should be deleted.

This is because:

The quote is *wrong* when discussing the topic of the page. The only mention of train orders in the quote states "More elaborate time tables, called train orders,..." Train orders were not timetables. Nor were train orders issued to maintenance workers, station personnel (except to operators), or repair and maintenance crews. Judt is confusing train orders with employee timetables.
The quote is *misleading* when it states "If bad weather disrupted the system, telegraphers relayed immediate corrections and updates throughout the system." It would be more accurate to name dispatchers rather than telegraphers.
The quote is primarily about the use of standard time, not about the use of train orders.

MAndrewWaugh (talk) 23:46, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the quote in question.Sturmovik (talk) 13:19, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's a reference, not a quote; I checked. However, I agree that somebody got poetic and carried away with that paragraph. You are welcome to rephrase or cut it down to size. — voidxor 16:06, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of train order operation

I have changed the start to lead with a formal definition of train order from a (US) railroad industry publication, and distinguished train order operation from systems where authority to move is given by fixed or cab signal.

Note that the formal definition (correctly) would also cover operation by DTC and Track Warrants in the US, and electronic train order operation in Australia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MAndrewWaugh (talk • contribs) 02:12, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So does this mean we need to move this article to Train order? Anybody? — voidxor 23:10, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, not at all. The definition of train order naturally flows into operation by train order, and a distinction between operation by train order and operation by fixed or cab signal or other authority (e.g. token working).

What it does mean, which is what I was trying to allude to, is that there are many more forms of train order operation than just the classic US form (and Australia). The UK, for example, used train order operation prior to 1889. In particular, both DTC and Track Warrants are forms of train order operation.

Of course, if this change is not agreed to, it can be reverted. Which is why I carefully mentioned what I changed and why, hoping to spark exactly this conversation.

MAndrewWaugh (talk) 05:41, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]