RE: (erielack) "Phrom" our postcard collection

["Tupaczewski, Paul R (Paul)" <paultup_@_lucent.com>]

Lynne,

> I am on the local historic preservation commission, where we 
> monthly address questions about tear-downs and rebuilds. I 
> hope that the weekly historic photos encourage people to 
> consider how our lives are enriched by history. Perhaps the 
> railroad-related images you all have helped me with will 
> spark a bit of that same nostalgia for the railroad.

I think the majority of this list completely supports your efforts!



 
> I would like to describe this postcard image to the layperson 
> (such as myself!), so ... 
> 
> 1) If I understand this all correctly, the Phoebe Snow was 
> the name of ... an engine? Lots of engines? When did the 
> Phoebe Snow first appear?


Phoebe Snow was a mythical character that the DL&W used in the early 20th century to extol the virtues of their use of anthracite (or "hard") coal in their locomotives. Anthracite tended to burn very cleanly, emitting little ash or cinder out of the locomotive's smoke stack.

The idea here was that Phoebe had a bright white dress on, showing how confident she was of the Lackawanna to get her to where she was going without soiling her dress with coal soot.



 
> 2) I gather the advertising campaign came about to trumpet 
> the new, cleaner way to travel, in a train with an engine 
> fueled by coal. Is that correct? 

See the above. Most railroads used bituminuous (or "soft") coal, which tended to burn less cleanly than anthracite and emit sooty debris. The DL&W put out many of these advertising cards with catchy rhymes on it to promote all aspects of the railroad, but the Phoebe Snow character was originally designed to show the advantages of clean burning anthracite (note also the DL&W's slogan that appeared on their hopper cars was "The Road of Anthracite")


 
> 3) What was the fuel that was used to generate steam before? 
> Wood? If so, was coal really so much cleaner? 

See above discussion re: anthracite vs. bituminous.


 
> 4) Wasn't coal known as a fuel source as far back as when the 
> first steam engines were built? If so, was it just not used 
> because of accessibility?

Coal had been in use for a long time before this promo card was done. Wood was used only at the beginning of the railroads.


 
> 1) I gather from what I see in this image, that the tower man 
> was able to shift the tracks with the levers, thereby 
> redirecting rail traffic if need be. Is that correct?

More or less. In the Ray Ruff photo I posted earlier, you can see that towers didn't change much over the years!

A tower usually controlled an "interlocking plant" (hence, they were often called "interlocking towers") - an interlocking plant was basically an area of switches on the tracks that could route trains from one direction to another. Of course, the towers has interlocking machines that would ensure a towerman did not line up one train into another train's path via a series of (surprise!) interlocking linkages that would only allow certain routes to be lined up.

The postcard image implies that the towerman is lining up routes for the passenger train through an interlocking, to possibly overtake slower freight trains, so that the rider's travel was fast and smooth.

Later, centralized traffic control (CTC) removed the need for many towers - a single dispatcher in a centralized location could remotely control many, many interlockings.


 
> 2) I only know of the one tower near here. How frequently 
> were towers found along the rail? What determined where they 
> were placed?

They were placed at interlockings (see above). Wherever trains could be switched over to different tracks, there was usually an interlocking. There was an interlocking at Millburn (two tracks from the east expanded to three tracks at the west to get to Summit) - the towerman would control this. Later on, this interlocking was "remoted" (controlled remotely) from, I believe, Summit (anyone confirm?)


 
> 3) Did the tower man also control the signals? 

That was part of the interlocking machine. Yes, he did, for that particular interlocking. The signals were usually derived from the routing the towerman provided.


 
> 4) When did they stop using tower men -- or have they 
> stopped? If so, what/who does the job now, when a train has 
> to be rerouted?

Towermen are still used at VERY busy interlockings or at areas of importance, such as river crossings. In northern New Jersey, they're almost all gone on the Erie and Lackawanna lines (with the exception of Terminal Tower in Hoboken). Towers were closed when CTC was implemented - remember, in business the idea is to keep costs down, and towers are a huge expense.

Towers began to be phased out starting in the late 1960s on the EL. NJ Transit closed most of the remaining towers by the mid-1980s.


 
> Thank you *so much* for your patience with my questions.

Our pleasure! :)

	- Paul

	The Erie Lackawanna Mailing List
	Sponsored by the ELH&TS
	http://www.elhts.org

------------------------------