[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
Re: (erielack) Odd signal
I can see the C&S guys point of view, but I'm sure that from an operations
point of view having the longer blocks was advantageous, although three
miles seems to be a bit excessive in length.
Chuck
"Tom Beckett"
<tabeckett_@_stny.rr.
com> To: <erielack_@_lists.railfan.net>
Sent by: cc:
erielack-owner_@_list Subject:
s.elhts.org Re: (erielack) Odd signal
08/12/2005 02:32 PM
Please respond to
"Tom Beckett"
It's hard to tell at this point in history, as many of the original Erie
signals have been removed over the years, but it appears that the block
length was approximately a mile on the main line in the general area of
Binghamton-Elmira-Hornell, sometimes a little longer. I'm going by signals
I
knew existed, and some that there was evidence of-old concrete bases,
masts,
relay cases, etc, though I don't think the distances were uniform.
There presently are some long gaps. For example: 236-2, then 233-2, then
229-2, then 226-2, then 224-2, then 221-2, then 216-2, which is the distant
signal for JOHNSON, formerly WEST BD. The C&S guys were not especially
happy
when some of these blocks were lengthened. It makes looking for things like
broken bonds a long tedious process, especially in the winter.
Tom B
- ----- Original Message -----
From: <Charles_Walsh_@_Berlex.com>
To: "Hank Sundermeyer" <sunderhj_@_att.net>
Cc: <erielack_@_lists.railfan.net>; <erielack-owner@lists.elhts.org>; "Paul
R.
Tupaczewski" <paultup_@_optonline.net>
Sent: Friday, August 12, 2005 1:18 PM
Subject: Re: (erielack) Odd signal
>
> A couple of questions: Did the ERIE have a standard signal block length,
> e.g. 2 miles? Or was it shorter in higher-density areas? Did the ERIE
> have 3- or 4-block protection on its mainlines?
>
> Chuck
The Erie Lackawanna Mailing List
Sponsored by the ELH&TS
http://www.elhts.org
The Erie Lackawanna Mailing List
Sponsored by the ELH&TS
http://www.elhts.org
------------------------------