Looking at the day's and the previous reports it is obvious that the Sumpter Valley's train density per mile was pretty high for a common carrier narrow gauge without commuter service. I see no way the railroad could be safely run without instituting a clear set of rules and it was probably the best option to adopt a form of the Standard Code. Even to run these same trains using a modern system of radios and TWC or DTC would keep a dispatcher hopping to keep up.
I would really like to see the rule book, employee timetable (ETT) and dispatcher's sheets to go with this month. This was not for the faint of heart, and I'm sure there were plenty of near misses that were never recorded by the normal amount of errors that creep in along with those who are a little too casual about their duties.
Passenger trains 1 and 2 are pretty straight forward between Baker and Austin. They would have been First Class giving them priority. One potential issue is that if No 1 became too late it would actually end up running into itself as No 2, but the rules assume that No2 could be a different train. In accordance with the rules, the ETT would have said: Rule S-72 Westward trains are superior to opposing trains of the same class. That would make No 1 superior to No 2 by direction, so No 1 could make Austin late as No 2, real or imagined, would have to wait as the inferior train. While it may seem strange to some why a train would have to stop even though it was to become the opposing train, remember that there was nothing in the rules preventing No 2 from Prairie from running all the way to Baker, so it would be improper and dangerous to assume that there would be no opposing train. Train orders were issued to the conductor and engineer on a "need to know" basis. They only got copies of the orders that affected the movement of their train so would not necessarily be aware of any trains inferior to them.
Between Austin and Prairie it gets a little more confusing. We know the morning train No 7 to Austin comes back as No 2, so somehow No 7 has to have superiority over No 2 in case it is late in getting to Prairie which seems to be a common occurrence. Again, even though there isn't an engine in Prairie to power an opposing train against you, you aren't allowed to assume that. Now if No 7 was designated as a First Class train that would allow it to be superior to No 2 by direction and run on No 2's time when it was late. Designating a freight train as First Class isn't unusual as few priority freights did get designated as such. I actually think No 7 was a mixed based on the following reasoning: Prairie was the end of the line yet rated two daily trains, the SVRy needed at least 6 cabooses almost every day (Trains 5 & 6, the Austin and Whitney "helpers" which often were powering trains independently plus a couple Extras), and since I don't think SVRy had many more cabooses than that it was likely that the Prairie "freight" was a mixed using either a combine or the coach off trains 1/2. This also allowed residents of Austin and Bates (neither of which now exist) a trip to the big city of Prairie, spend half a day on business, and return in the afternoon - all at little additional cost to the SVRy for the extra passenger revenue.
So if No 7 was superior by direction to No 2 (both being First Class), then when No 2 was late it would run into No 1's schedule which was superior. There are several ways around this in accordance to the rules. No 1 between Austin and Prairie could be listed as a Second Class train (not likely unless this was a separate subdivision splitting No 1/2's schedule), or the ETT may have stated "Rule S-72: Exception train No 2 is superior to train No 1 between Austin and Prairie.", or it may have run as Second Class No 4 to Austin where it became No 2. Public schedules (and these summaries) do not necessarily match the designations in the ETT required to comply with the rules. (As an example Amtrak's Coast Starlate ran as different numbers north and south of Oakland because the SP timetable direction changes, yet the public was only shown one designation to avoid confusion.) The afternoon back to Austin might have been Second or Third class No 8, or as an Extra though I don't see any advantage.
Trains 5/6 (should be Second/Third Class) were an interesting operation as they could run clear through layover returning the next day, only one of them might run, or they were apparently turning each other probably at S-Wye or Larch. If only one train was run the dispatcher would issue a train order stating "No 5 due to leave Austin May 30 is annulled." This means that opposing trains No 6 and any extras (being inferior) can ignore No 5's schedule because it doesn't exist that day. Trains 1 and 2 don't care because they are superior to 5/6 by class so don't even need a copy of the order. Now if trains 5 and 6 were expected to trade trains at their normal meeting place and both were on time there would be no issue. But again if the superior train was late the inferior train couldn't move. Since westbound trains (presumably) were superior by direction for the passenger trains, if it was decided that the eastbound loaded freights should be superior then No 6 would be a Second Class train superior to No 5 which would have been Third Class. Again, unless the timetable was split up into divisions it is unlikely trains 5/6 had different class on different sections of the railroad. The easiest way to do this would be to include an exception to Rule S-72 in the ETT making No 6 superior to No 5 between Austin and Larch, allowing No 6 to proceed to Larch against No 5 assuming it would be otherwise the same class but superior direction. If the dispatcher needed them to meet at S-Wye instead he would have to issue a train order first to No 5 as the superior train stating either "No 6 is superior to No 5 between Larch and S-Wye" or "No 5 meet No 6 at S-Wye". Once No 6 has the order it can then be given to No 5 allowing it to proceed to S-Wye where No 6 now has to wait for it. There is something going on here because on this and a previous day No 5 was annulled beyond Larch or Boulder Gorge and then run as an Extra.
Which brings up the next issue - where could a SVRy train get its train orders? I would assume that there were agent/train order operators at the depots at Sumpter, Larch, Whitney, Tipton, Austin and Prairie. The dispatcher or a clerk issued orders at South Baker. There had to be at least one manned station (and section gang) somewhere between S-Wye and So. Baker. S-wye would be interesting because they would have to run up the spur to the Sumpter depot for orders unless the agent brought them down. I'm guessing by 1916 the railroad made extensive use of their phone system and crews had to check in with the dispatcher at certain "blind" sidings where there wasn't a manned depot. If trains stopped for wood and water anyway, it would be a good opportunity to check in with the dispatcher and get the conductor out of having to help wood up. The crews could copy train orders, but union rules allowed them to claim extra pay for it.
Looking at the day's summary, the following extra train movements needed to be authorized by train order, and overlapping limits between extras somehow protected before the opposing extra is authorized:
ORDER NO 1
ENG 50 RUN EXTRA SOUTH BAKER TO S WYE AND RETURN
There are no conflicting extras with Extra 50, and only engine 50 needs a copy of this order.
ORDER 2
ENG 16 AND ENGINE 18 COUPLED RUN EXTRA WHITNEY TO S WYE AND RETURN WITH RIGHT OVER NO 6
AFTER HELPING NO 6 WHITNEY TO LARCH ENG 16 AND 18 COUPLED RUN LARCH TO SCOTT THEN RUN EXTRA SCOTT TO S WYE AND RETURN TO SCOTT THEN RUN AS TWO EXTRAS TO WHITNEY
AFTER HELPING NO 6 FROM AUSTIN TO TIPTON ENG 14 RUN EXTRA TIPTON TO WHITE PINE THEN RUN EXTRA WHITE PINE TO WHITNEY AND RETURN TO TIPTON THEN RUN EXTRA TIPTON TO AUSTIN
If the first extra with 16 and 18 didn't make it back to Whitney before No 6 was due to leave then they would be stuck. Giving them right over No 6 allows them to get back to Whitney where No 6 must wait for them. Extra 14 and extras 16/18 do not overlap so don't need protection against each other. No 6 between Whitney and Larch must have been impressive with three engines (4, 16 and 18) on 20 lumber loads, 1 empty box and two cabooses (No 6 and 16's as the Whitney day helper).
ORDER 3
NO 2 MEET EXTRA 14 WEST AT TIPTON
The summary indicates that No 2 was delayed at Tipton to meet Extra 14 West, and since No 2 was running late and would be superior delaying the extra, the dispatcher must have wanted to keep Extra 14 moving so created the meet allowing it to go to Tipton against No 2. If the extra delayed the passenger train without a train order, no doubt they got a nasty phone call for delaying a superior train. The meet order confers authority for both trains to run to the designated point and meet.
ORDER NO 4
NO 5 IS ANNULLED FROM LARCH TO AUSTIN
ENG 4 RUN EXTRA LARCH TO WHITNEY WITH RIGHT OVER EASTWARD EXTRAS AND
WAIT AT LARCH UNTIL 315P
WHITNEY UNTIL 430P
TIPTON UNTIL 515P
WHITE PINE UNTIL 540P
The dispatcher had several options regarding No 5 out of Larch. Presumably No 5 has fallen behind schedule which would delay all the other extras. One option is to add a certain amount of time by train order to the existing schedule of No 5. For some reason they preferred to annul No 5's schedule west of Larch and run it as an extra. In all likelihood this was known in advance, and to keep from delaying 14, 16 and 18 already authorized as extras and running in both directions, the simplest solution is to give Extra 4 West right over opposing eastward extras. The other extras have no restrictions running westbound, the same direction as No 4 with all trains providing flag protection as needed against following trains. The other extras can only move eastward by using the time that Extra 4 West must wait at the station to the east. The only other option is to create a meet between Extra 4 West and the other Extras, but if one of the trains is delayed, especially if the meet is at a blind siding, it takes a substantial effort to change the meet. If Extra 4 West is further delayed time can be added to its wait order, or a meet can still be given.
ORDER NO 5
ENGINE 4 WORKS BETWEEN AUSTIN AND LARCH NOT PROTECTING AGAINST EXTRA TRAINS
THIS ORDER IS ANNULLED 659A ON APRIL 30TH
Order No 5 would only be issued once it was known that extras 14, 16 and 18 had fulfilled order 2. Engine 4 had started the day as No 6, turned at Larch as Extra 4 West because No 5 was annulled. Order 5 gives engine 4 the railroad in either direction between Austin and Larch until the next morning. Because their train order and authority will expire at a given time, the dispatcher can begin issuing orders for the day without having to know where Extra 4 is.
Track authority nowadays under TWC or DTC is the "mother may I" variety requiring each train to obtain separate permission for each movement. Dispatchers typically issued train orders covering most if not all extras for the day over a segment of track. The orders might be modified later, but properly done if there weren’t any unusual delays the trains would run on them to the end of their shift. On occasion, if the dispatcher wasn't paying attention, the trains could actually grind to a halt because they couldn't move against each other.
