Sorry, but I have to disagree about 100 percent with Tom Veasey here. His description of the difference between track warrants and train orders is only partially accurate, and the part that is is based on track warrants today, and not when they were implemented, mostly around 20 years ago. Overall, those of use who have moved trains by both methods know that train orders were vastly superior.

Tom is incorrect when he states that track warrants allowed railroads to eliminate stations necessary to handle train orders. Actually, improved communication allow this, not track warrants. Without the excellent radios that today's technology allows, movement by track warrants would not be possible. The radios used by railroads today allow continuous seamless coverage for all trains along their route. For those of us who were train order operators and dispatchers, track warrants are simply "one 'after' order after another. Track warrants are just a lot of busy work that requires additional issuing of instructions for every meet or every situation.

Tom is also incorrect when he states that train orders couldn't be changed until a train arrived at an open station. In the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s, many dispatchers had access to radios, and it was not unusual for dispatchers to issue train orders over the radio. On most railroads, this resulted in a "timeslip" by the nearest telegrapher, since the train crew was copying the order direct from the dispatcher instead of receiving it from a telegrapher (otherwise known as the operator). Most dispatchers from this timeframe of railroading agree that when radios improved to the point that there were no dead spots in radio coverage, it simply would have been best to continue movement by train orders over the radio. The system would have to be modified as there would be no open stations en route, but it would remain superior to track warrants. It would also require that the agreement be changed that telegraphers not be able to "timeslip" (submit a claim for someone else doing their work) for the train orders to be routinely issued to train crews. This was effectively done when track warrant movement was started, so this would be possible. It was easier for the carrier to argue that track warrants were a new technology to eliminate these jobs, and the unions signed off on it, and the telegrapher jobs were eliminated.

When Tom stated, "Train orders were a schedule based system and with the decline in train schedules, trains were run as "extras" and full fledged orders for all movements and meets were required making record keeping a challenge," it frankly showed great ignorance about movement by train orders. It was no more difficult to run a train order railroad as extra trains than with regular trains on a schedule. In fact, in the later decades of train order operation, it was not unusual for dispatchers to annul the schedule of some regular trains and just run them as extra trains, because it was a lot easier and more flexible. And, the same thing can be accomplished using train orders anyway. For example, if No. 1 with engine 1234 was operating from Alpha to Golf on a subdivision, its schedule could be annulled, but the same effect could be obtained by issuing this order:

Eng 1234 run extra Alpha to Golf and has right over all trains Alpha to Golf and wait at
Bravo until 101 AM
Charlie 125 AM
Delta 145 AM
Echo 201 AM
Foxtrot 235 AM

All trains would have to clear this schedule according to the operating rules. In fact, in the above example, this derivative of the "right" order (trains are superior by right, class or direction in train orders) was commonly used to set up a schedule for an extra train. This allowed the train to meet one or multiple trains en route. If, for the sake of argument, Extra 1234 West met an opposing train at all 5 stations indicated above, the clear superiority of train orders becomes evident: This one order could allow all the trains to meet; with track warrants, the 1234 West would receive a track warrant from Alpha to Bravo only, and then after whatever train was in the clear at Bravo, the 1234 West would receive another warrant to Charlie (or a warrant stating "not in effect until the arrival of 5678 East at Bravo), and another warrant to Delta from Charlie, and so on down the line until after numerous numerous laborious track warrants, the 1234 West could get to Golf.

Trains do get delayed, and train orders, as issued, would have be changed. This is where lineside operators could come into play, But rather than dumping the train order system, simply allowing the dispatcher to issue orders to the trains in question would be easier. Being very familiar with train dispatching in a major US facility as I am, it's interesting to note all the territories that were once handled by one dispatcher that now require two or more with track warrants. Granted, traffic has increased on some sections of track, but the cumbersome computerized track warrant system often results in needing to add dispatching positions. No to berate any post-train order era dispatchers, but it is also true that in eliminating the art form that was train order dispatching, we have lost the ability to teach people how to look far ahead and plan their railroad. Track warrants are flexible, if very time consuming, but nothing saves time like advance planning or the ability to do so.

When Tom stated, "PC computer software keeps track of warrants and highlights conflicts and/or errors to avoid collisions. Warrants issued over the open radio allow other trains to hear what's going on and they better know what to expect, and as needed, can suggest to the dispatcher potential better moves to help train get over the road better and help every one get home sooner," I knew that his perspective of track warrants was only based on today's operation and not early track warrant fiascos. When track warrants were first implemented, they were no more than drawing lines on a train sheet in lieu of issuing train orders where multiple parties involved had copies of the instructions. There was no computer backup. This was unsafe at best, but it did allow the elimination of telegrapher positions. As technology has improved, computers have helped bolster the safety of movement by track warrants, and unlike train orders, track warrants clearly NEEDED help! Not that there were not accidents with train orders (as there continues to be with track warrants), but I can't help but think how much better things would be if computerization would have been built on train order authority rather than track warrant authority. We'd have been much further along.

I recall reading an article about train dispatching on the Western Pacific where the author (a train dispatcher) was told by the company officers (none of whom were ex-dispatchers) that train orders were some kind of "secret code" between the dispatchers and train crews that wrestled control of the railroad away from the company officers. Clearly, this has been one of the greatest barriers train orders has faced throughout history. Track warrants are simple to understand. Train order dispatching is an art form, that few really understand and few master. I can't help but think that train orders' main problem was that some people just couldn't understand them, especially in today's society when we expect the computer to do everything for us.

I recall one time working as a train dispatcher in the late 1970s. There was a flood on a nearby subdivision causing numerous trains to detour on a subdivision with no intermediate open train order stations (and it was a weekend on top of it, when none of the daytime operators would have been there). Unlike today where there is flawless, constant radio communication all along this section of track, back then, there was only one intermediate radio, 70 miles from one of the terminals. Since the line normally did not receive a lot of traffic, there was limited places to meet. Three eastward trains were lined up to meet five westward trains. I instructed the terminals to stagger the calls accordingly, and since there was basically no intermediate communication, I set up flat meets (Extra 1234 West take siding at Foxtrot, meet extra 5678 East) between all the trains. None of the trains had departed their initial station on the subdivision when I ended my shift that day. I told my relief, "They're all going to make it, or they're all going to die (expire their hours of service)." When I came back in the next day, they all made it, without an order being changed. The dispatcher who relieved me did nothing on that subdivision except collect OSs and initial out the running orders when the orders where fulfilled. Had this been track warrants, the amount of work required to achieve the same result would have increase exponentially.

That is why, in my opinion, the only ones who think track warrants are superior have never dealt with train orders, or as with the case with some in train order days, are those who never could grasp them to begin with.