[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
RE: (erielack) Signals
>From: Wdburt1_@_aol.com
>Reply-To: Wdburt1_@_aol.com
>To: erielack_@_lists.railfan.net
>Subject: (erielack) Signals
>Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 08:55:17 EDT
>
>Comments on several points that have been raised:
In 1926 or so, CB Junction to Salamanca got the US&S triangular pattern
color light
>signals that started this discussion. In 1930, the old main line got US&S
>color light signals of the "traffic light" type, and this is probably when
>the
>Absolute Permissive Block (APB) system was adopted on this line. In 1942
>the
>River Line finally got automatic block signals supplementing block towers
>at
>River Junction, Fillmore, Belfast, and CB Junction. They were of the US&S
>searchlight type, which it appears that the Erie and many other railroads
>had
>adopted as a standard for new installations due to its superior visibility
>at long
>distances. The system was upgraded to TCS in 1945, resulting in the
>closure of
>the Fillmore and Belfast towers.
The triangular type signal is a Union Switch and Signal Style TR-2, the
sister to the US&S Style R-2
known as the traffic light signal. As William said, it was probably the one
of first color light signals to be installed on the Erie. I have not found
any photographs or paperwork that shows them in service on EL west of MS
Corry tower, with the exception of signal 517-1 in Meadville yard.
>The strategy we can infer is that CB to Salamanca, which had the heaviest
>traffic, got signals first, then the old main line (for passenger safety),
>and
>finally the hard-working but freight-only River Line.
>
>The 1930 and 1942-45 installations were of standard designs promulgated by
>the joint C&O, Erie, NYC&StL, PM Advisory Committee on Way and Structures.
>
>Regarding signal numbering, my understanding is that:
>
>Signal 277-1 would be the first westward signal between MP 277 and 278.
>Signal 277-2 would be the first eastward signal.
>Signal 277-1B would be the second westward signal between MP 277 and 278.
>Signal 277-2B would be the second eastward signal.
When there were 2 signals within 2 mileposts, example between milepost 81
and 82 on the Cleveland line, EB was 81-1 and next was 81-3.
The letter suffex that was found on some signals were second mains off of
the Chicago/New York main line.
B- Buffalo line, number in miles from Jersey City
M- First sub Cleveland to Pymatuning , number in miles from Cleveland
C- Columbus and Erie, the line from Niobe Jct to Columbus Jct via
Lottsville, numbered in miles from Jersey City
R- River line, River Jct to Cuba CB. Miles from JC via River Jct.
G - Graham line?
I know that there was more out there, please let me know.
In my opinion, the telephone train order signal setup was the coolest. They
used very old style PL-1 position light units. Pennsy mainly used a newer
design style PL-3 (a smaller light unit body) with the same giant background
circle. I had heard after the Conrail takeover, that these were removed,
train crews off the PC were confused about their use.
>Conrail substituted the PRR (?) system, using 277E and 277W. I don't know
>what they did if they had a second signal in the same mile.
>
>While we're on the subject of PRR vs. Erie usages, it appears to me that
>the
>Erie had no system at all for designating what we would now call a
>controlled
>point. Interlockings were often just shown as a station (Waterboro, for
>instance). There was also no consistency in distinguishing junctions from
>other
>interlockings. PRR, conversely, had a system which, it appears, largely
>served
>as the basis for Conrail's useful conventions for naming these things.
>
>Erie signal numbering continued westward past Salamanca using Jersey City
>based mileages. For instance, westward signal 444-1 on the east side of
>Jamestown was located just east of MP S 32 (31 miles from the Main Street
>underpass at
>Salamanca, which was MP JC 412.60). Offhand, I do not recall what they did
>on the Graham Line, the River Line, or the Columbus & Erie, all of which
>were
>longer than the original main lines they supplanted.
>
>The old US&S round color light signals should not be confused with the
>Safetran equipment that Conrail installed.
Thanks William, you have filled in another void that I have wondered about.
Joe Schveder.
>
>WDB
>
>
> 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
------------------------------