Approach Restricting, was: "Pole and Paddle" semaphores

[NW Mailing List]

On 8/6/2013 8:53 AM, NW Mailing List wrote:

> I would speculate that N&W and Southern differed in similar ways, to 

> some degree. Southern seems to have had no problem with an approach 

> restricting signal, assuming that the train crews would understand the 

> potential and act accordingly.  Basically, if somebody hit that 

> caboose just beyond the signal, then they weren't running restricted 

> speed in the first place.  It sounds like the N&W assumed the crews 

> would (or at least might) be speeding and not complying with the 

> signal, so to prevent the resulting accident they eliminated the 

> potential by eliminating the signal.  Or maybe I'm just reading way 

> too much into the whole thing. 

The whole idea of an "Approach Restricting" signal seems redundant to 
me. If you came up on an approach signal, then you should be prepared to 
stop at the next signal, which would mean you should be at or below 
restricted speed when you came in sight of the next signal (depend on 
sight distance). If that signal is "Restricting", then pass it according 
to the rules.
I don't know of any "A/R" signals on any line out of Roanoke.
There is also a signal in the rule book that I have never seen. That is 
the "Diverging Approach Diverging" aspect, where the bottom lights are 
flashing. I hear they are out there somewhere, but, I've never seen one.

Jimmy Lisle