It will sometimes occur that an order must be sent to a disabled or other train away from a telegraph station. It must, in that case, pass through additional hands, and great care is necessary to guard against error. The conductor or messenger who carries the order should be made accountable for its delivery in proper form, by himself signing for it and getting "complete." The order being addressed to the conductor and engineman of the train "in care of" the messenger selected, the latter should be furnished with an additional copy, on which he is to take the signatures of the conductor and engineman, as if they were at a telegraph office. This copy should be delivered as soon as practicable to an operator, who should forward the signatures, completing the process.
Although when these paragraphs were first written the method of transmission described did not correspond entirely with any practice that might be termed general, it agreed in essential points with the practice upon several roads where most careful consideration has been given to the various risks in train dispatching and to methods for avoiding them. The process detailed indicates the points to be guarded, and furnishes what has proved a practicable and satisfactory method, and corresponds with the regulations now being rapidly adopted on our principal roads.
The rules should determine the course to be pursued if the telegraph fails during the process of transmitting an order. If this occur before its correct reception is assured by repeating back and giving and acknowledging "O K" for any office concerned, the process is not sufficiently complete for the men of a train at such office to be allowed to sign for and act upon it. If, therefore, communication is not quickly restored it is perfectly safe and proper to provide that an operator shall permit a train, in such case, to proceed on its schedule rights without orders. If, on the other hand, "O K" has been given and acknowledged, the correct reception of the order is assured, and a period is reached when the men of a train may, and often must, be permitted, on arrival, to sign for and act on the order before the arrival of the other at the point where the order is awaiting it. If the men of one train have thus proceeded, and the other on arrival cannot be communicated with, it would be obviously unsafe for it to proceed upon the order awaiting it for which signatures cannot be transmitted, because, although the opposing train may be on the way to execute the order, this is not known to the train that is cut off from communication. It would therefore be improper for it to proceed either in accordance with the order or on schedule rights. It would appear, therefore, that an order wholly or partly sent by the process detailed, and for which "O K" cannot be given and acknowledged by reason of the telegraph failing, should not operate to hold the train addressed, but that an order for which "O K" has been given and acknowledged should have this effect. The rule should therefore be that, after "O K" is given to an order and acknowledged, the train to which the order is addressed shall not be permitted to pass until the signatures are transmitted and "complete" obtained, or until the train can be communicated with by the Dispatcher. This is based, of course, upon the presumption that the plan is followed of assuring the accurate transmission for both trains, and that each operator has acknowledged the "O K" before "complete" is given to either. The delays arising from the operation of this rule cannot be frequent, and it is better to submit to these than to run the risk involved in a different course.
In the use of the "19" order, to which the signatures of the trainmen are not taken, the order becomes of effect only when "complete" has been given and acknowledged; and until this is accomplished it should be treated as of the same effect as a "31" order for which "O K" has not been given and acknowledged.
If the practice is followed of delaying the repeating of the order until the signatures are obtained and sent, then the presence of the order in the operator's hands should serve to hold either train if the telegraph fails, as neither can know but that the other train has received the order and proceeded on it. It must be seen, however, that there is some risk in depending on a train being held by the mere presence of an order, the correct reception of which has not been fully acknowledged, as the receiving operator may even have made an error in receiving the number of the train for which the order is designed; and this offers an additional reason for repeating back at once on the receipt of the order. These considerations as to the holding effect of an order when the telegraph fails, do not, of course, apply to a general order, as one annulling a train, until such order is specially addressed to a train. It should be understood that operators hold trains a reasonable time for the resumption of communication broken during the transmission of orders.
It is important that the holding effect of an order not signed for should be clearly understood, so that the Dispatcher may run trains with confidence against a train so held.
A careful Dispatcher will observe that the inconveniences arising from a train being held by the incomplete transmission of an order will be greater as the distance is greater between the point to which the order is sent for delivery and the point where it is to take effect.