Re: (erielack) Erie Signals (Semantics)

[Gordon Davids <g.davids_@_verizon.net>]

Subject: (erielack) Erie Signals - Semantics

 > Gordon Davids wrote:

 > > In Erie practice, much of the automatic block and TCS territory used
 > > four-indication signaling, . . .

 > Necessarily, this means that "much of the automatic block and TCS
 > territory" had two-headed signals.

 > Plainly not true. Perhaps the reference was to New Jersey suburban
 > territory?

That is correct, Bill. But that is "much." I didn't say "most" :-) What 
you said is generally true west of Port Jervis.

 > Except for certain higher-density territories, I believe the use of
 > Approach Medium on EL was restricted to governing the approach to an 
interlocking
 > (Clear Medium or Medium Approach) and was not used to govern the 
approach
 > to an Approach signal. I always wondered if the reason for two-headed
 > signals on the NYC in upstate NY and west was because they had a deluxe,
 > 4-aspect system, or simply because they had so many interlockings 
that you were
 > never far from one.

NYC commonly used a four-block system on its principal routes. One major 
difference regarding this subject, is that NYC on Line East of Buffalo 
did not use "Approach Medium" to govern the approach to an "Approach" 
indication. They used a Yellow over Yellow "Advance Approach" (Proceed 
prepared to stop at second signal) for that purpose, and the Approach 
Medium indication only governed the approach to a medium speed route 
through an interlocking. This actually increased line capacity, as well 
as resolving the ambiguity regarding the action to be taken at the next 
signal in advance of an "Approach Medium." The indication "Advance 
Approach" permitted (and permits) the engineman to proceed prepared to 
stop at the second signal in advance, and he does not have to have his 
speed reduced to medium speed at the next signal in advance, which would 
be displaying "Approach." This permits a single-stage speed reduction, 
in which the train typically passes the signal indicating "Approach" at 
a speed higher than medium speed but still able to stop where required.

The D&H also used a Yellow over Yellow "Advance Approach" for that 
purpose, and also to notify a long train to stop in the rear of a "Stop" 
signal and avoid blocking a particular highway crossing.

NORAC did away with the use of Yellow over Yellow for the "Advance 
Approach" aspect, changing its indication to "Approach Slow," which 
comforms to other US and Canadian practice.

 > The previous contributions include mention of "double yellow." On EL,
 > double yellow was sometimes used where the next block ahead was a 
short block
 > (I am using plain English here, not C&S-speak). Today, this would be an
 > appropriate application of Advance Approach (flashing yellow), but 
back then
 > there was no such aspect. Instead, the engineer saw two Approach signals
 > in a row. Examples were the next to the last block signal leaving the 
old
 > main line both near Hornell and Cuba. Approaching CB Junction westbound,
 > for instance, if signal 379-1 in East Cuba displayed Approach it 
probably
 > meant that you were getting an Approach at the distant signal located 
at JC
 > 382.6 (and that you were not lined at CBJ). But it might also mean 
that the
 > latter signal was displaying Stop and Proceed. A green light at 379-1
 > meant an Approach Medium on the distant signal. Same story going east 
west of
 > Hornell.

 > Erie practice, indeed C&S practice generally, is largely undocumented
 > outside the priesthood, so this discussion is welcome.

I’ll second that, Bill. Now for Joe Braun and Bob Bahrs (I love this 
stuff :-)))

 > In a message dated 12/2/2009 2:33:15 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
 > joebraun_@_optonline.net writes:
 >
 > I used to regularly watch #1 pass through Glen Rock on the Erie Main 
Line.
 > I'd look westbound up toward Ridgewood Junction and see what I can now
 > accurately refer as the three-armed, vertically aligned signal before the
 > junction. Invariably, it would be red over green over red. I just now 
used
 > my 1964 EL operating rules to finally educate myself to the old 
question as
 > to what this meant: "Proceed through crossovers...with entire train 
at not
 > exceeding medium speed..." #1 would be entering Rwd Jct on Track 4 and
 > crossover to Trk 3 and then to Trk 1 for its station stop at Ridgewood.
 > Makes sense!
 >
 > YES
 >
Actually, No. 1 was on Track 1 when approaching WJ from Paterson. Both 
the Main Line and the Bergen County Railroad had their main tracks 
numbered, from north to south, 1 and 2. West of WJ, to SF, the tracks 
were numbered 1-3-4-2. I believe No. 1 normally used Track 3 from WJ to 
SF, and Ridgewood had an island platform to accommodate station stops on 
3 and 4. Main Line Track 1, if extended straight through WJ, would run 
into Track 4. Since Track 4 was signaled for eastward movements only, 
the westward home signal from the Main Line into WJ could not indicate 
"Clear." The best indication on that signal would be "Clear Medium," and 
there was only a red lens in the top arm.
 >
 > Further questions:
 >
 > 1. Are three arms used simply because three different arms allow for more
 > varied patterns? In other words, is there any significance to any one 
arm
 > or
 > simply whatever pattern is showing? A guitar has six strings and a 
uke just
 > four; so the guitar can give more complex chords, sounds, and patterns --
 > but no guitar string per se has special meaning.
 >
 > EXACTLY. YOU NEED THREE LIGHTS TO GIVE A SLOW CLEAR AND ONLY TWO TO GIVE
 > A MEDIUM CLEAR. THERE ARE MORE ASPECTS THAT USE ( NEED, REQUIRE ) THREE
 > LIGHTS
 >
 > 2. I presume these signals were controlled by the tower, at least during
 > hours when it was manned? Would all arms on that mast have been dark 
in the
 > absence of a train? When would the signals be illuminated by the 
tower? -
 > on
 > notice from a previous tower?
 > BACK IN EL DAYS ALL INTERLOCKING SIGNALS WERE ALWAYS LIT. MOST BLOCK
 > SIGNALS WERE TO, BUT AT CERTAIN LOCATIONS APPROACH LIT SIGNALS CREP 
INTO THE
 > SYSTEM OVER THE YEARS. THIS IS MORE THE NORM TODAY, AS IT SAVES BULB 
LIFE.
 >
Interlocking home signals, and the intermediate signals governing the 
approach to those signals, were commonly continuously lighted. The 
reason was that the interlocking system has to check the actual display 
of the correct aspect on all signals governing conflicting routes before 
it will clear a signal for the desired route. It checks those aspects by 
measuring the current through the lamps on those signals. Where signals 
are not continuously lighted, the illumination is commonly controlled by 
track circuits in the rear of the signal so that the approach of a train 
will cause the illumination of the signal. I never saw an instance where 
the signalman at an interlocking had to manually illuminate a signal. I 
can speak definitely on that regarding WJ, having spent many hours there 
when I was the Assistant Division Engineer at Hoboken.
 >
 > 3. What was the sequence in the Ridgewood tower (or any tower) with, 
say, a
 > #1 due and approaching? Turnouts/crossovers set first? Then signals? 
Or did
 > the aspect on the signals change automatically as the towerman set the
 > route?
 > I'LL LET THE TOWER MAN ANSWER THIS, BUT I WOULD ASSUME THAT THE SIGNALS
 > WOULD HAVE TO BE SET FIRST THEN THE SWITCHES.

First, all signals governing possible conflicting routes must be at 
“Stop,” and the system will also check the signals governing the 
approaches to make sure that they are displaying “Approach.” Then the 
signalman operates the controls to line the switches for the desired 
route. When the route is set, he operates the controls to clear the home 
signals governing movement over that route. The aspects displayed by the 
signals are determined by the system, and not by the signalman, except 
that in some cases the signalman can manually display a “Restricting” 
indication over a route instead of the normal speed indication. The 
signals governing the approach to the home signals are controlled 
automatically by the system, and not by the signalman unless there was a 
special provision for him to use them to hold a train clear of a highway 
crossing or some other unusual condition.

One notable feature of WJ was the use of two home signals in the 
interlocking for westward movements. The first westward home signals 
were high three-arm signals to the right of Tracks 1 on the Main Line 
and the BCRR, and dwarf signals for movements against the current of 
traffic off of Tracks 2, all located at the interlocking limits. Then, 
west of WJ tower and still in the interlocking limits was a signal with 
two masts on a bracket post, each mast with three arms. I remember 
scratching my head over the reason for the second home signal, and I 
eventually figured it out, but after 40 years it has escaped my memory.
 >
 >
 >
 > 4. If the signals were controlled independently of the turnouts, 
would each arm have its own
 > "switch"?
 > I BELIEVE SO ON THE SIGNALS, AN ENTIRE CROSS OVER WOULD BE THROWN BY ONE
 > LEVER.
 > AGAIN I'LL DEFER TO THE TOWER GUYS.
 >
At WJ, each crossover had one lever to control both switches, so both 
switches of the one crossover would be either Normal or Reverse at the 
same time. Each signal had only one lever to control whether it was 
cleared or at “Stop.” When the lever was operated to clear the signal, 
if all of the routes and locking controls in the interlocking system 
found it safe, the signal would display the aspect that was set by the 
configuration of the interlocking system for the route that was governed 
by the signal.
 >
 > 5. If say, Track 1 had just become blocked by a stalled train or whatever
 > and Train #1 was sent straight up Trk 4, the signal would have been (I
 > believe) green over red over red. Would it be standard procedure for the
 > crew of #1 to have gotten a train order somewhere along the line that the
 > normal track would not be used?
 > IF THE TRAIN WAS GOING UP A TRACK THAT WASN'T SIGNALED IN THE 
DIRECTION THE
 > TRAIN WAS HEADED, THEN IT WOULD NEED A TRAIN ORDER. 4 TRACK WAS ONLY
 > SIGNALED EAST SO A TRAIN ORDER WOULD HAVE BEEN NEEDED. A RESTRICTING 
WOULD
 > BE AS GOOD A SIGNAL AS A TRAIN COULD GET GOING INTO A TRACK AGAINST THE
 > CURRENT OF TRAFFIC. OF COURSE A TRAIN ORDER SIGNAL ON THE TOWER WOULD BE
 > LIT, TELLING CREWS THEY HAD AN ORDER TO PICK UP. THE RED OVER GREEN WHICH
 >TODAY IS A MEDIUM CLEAR, WOULD ONLY BE IF THE TRAIN WAS CROSSING OVER 
TWO A
 > WESTWARD SIGNALED TRACK.
 >
Bob is correct, of course. If Track 1 was blocked, Track 3 was signaled 
for westward traffic so that would be the normal route. As I mentioned 
above, No. 1 normally used Track 3 anyway.
 >
 > 6. I presume that an engine crew approaching such a junction with red 
over
 > green over red would only know (from the signal) that a diverging 
route was
 > to be taken but would not know what track it would wind up on? Or would
 > train orders or dwarfs convey this somehow (I don't remember if Ridgewood
 > had dwarfs at the crossovers)?
 > SINCE THERE WAS ONLY TWO WEST WARD SIGNALED TRACKS THEY WOULD KNOW WHICH
 > TRACK THEY WERE GOING UP BY THE SIGNALS THEY WERE GETTING. CLEAR IF THEY
 > WERE NOT CROSSING OVER , MEDIUM CLEAR IF THEY WERE. OF COURSE ADDITIONAL
 > SIGNAL INDICATIONS MIGHT BE HAD DUE TO TRACK OCCUPANCY AHEAD.

That would have been one purpose for the second westward home signal in 
WJ. If No. 1 received a “Clear Medium” entering WJ and a “Clear” on the 
second home signal, he knew he was going west on Track 3. If he had a 
“Medium Clear” on the second signal he knew he was going up Track 1, and 
would be crossed over to Track 1 beyond the second signal.

The only dwarf signals at WJ were westward from Tracks No. 2 on the Main 
Line and BCRR, and eastward on Tracks 3 and 1. They governed entrances 
to the interlocking by movements against the current of traffic on those 
tracks.

By the way, Erie and Lackawanna, even pre-merger and then afterward, 
were unusual in using the name “Clear Medium” for that indication over a 
medium speed route through an interlocking. Most roads named it “Medium 
Clear.” Erie and the DL&W had good reason for that, though. When calling 
signals across the engine cab, sometimes the first word is not clearly 
heard but it is more likely that the second word will be well 
understood. If the indication were named “Medium Clear,” the first word 
“Medium” might be lost in the noise, while the second word “Clear” might 
be clearly understood, setting up a dangerous situation. With the words 
reversed, the word better understood would be “Medium,” which is 
inherently more restrictive than “Clear,” which also stands alone to 
describe a “Clear” indication.
 >
 > BOB BAHRS
 >
 > Thanks in advance.
 >
 > Joe Braun
 >
And thanks for another chance to exercise the memory banks.

Gordon Davids


	The Erie Lackawanna Mailing List
	http://EL-List.railfan.net/
	To Unsubscribe: http://Lists.Railfan.net/erielackunsub.html

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