Re: (erielack) Erie Signals

[pat.moore_@_att.net]

List...

WDB wrote:  

> Pat is correct.  Now that the memory cells have been jogged a bit, I  
> recall observing approach-lit operation of semaphores in the Cameron area  in 
> the early 1980s, before the single tracking project.  

Thanks for the confirmation!
 
> Why would Erie semaphores have been approach lit (seemingly the  more 
> modern approach) while the color light and searchlight signals, which  came 
> later, were constantly lit?  Hellman suggests an answer.  The  Santa Fe insisted 
> that all signals continuously display an indication.   While he does not 
> suggest reasons why, it avoided uncertainty about whether  a dark signal was 
> burned out (usually requiring a stop), and it undoubtedly was  a great help to 
> track and signal forces, who relied on lineups in those  days.  A semaphore 
> provided a constant indication that could be  observed in daytime and at 
> night when illuminated by the headlight of an  approaching locomotive.  Its 
> approach-lit lamp was merely  supplemental, and the rules permitted proceeding 
> on the indication given by the  blade even where the light was burned out.  
> A color-light signal, on  the other hand, had to be lit constantly to 
> display a constant  indication.

Ah, yes.  That had never occurred to me.  A semaphore always gives an indication whether the lamp is lit or not!

Thanks, WDB...

- -pat moore


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

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

End of EL Mail List Digest V3 #3314
***********************************