N&W signal route diagrams

[NW Mailing List]

Guys - the PRR protected itself against the burned out marker bulb case by making its “stop and proceed restricting” aspect with the marker lit.  Its “stop and stay” was the horizontal top arm with no marker.  BTW – the PRR had interlockings where the tower operator could change his “stop and stay” signals to a “stop and proceed” by lighting the marker, thus authorizing a movement to proceed after stopping.  I think there were a couple of places on the Sandusky line where this was possible.  Why they’d rather do that than have the operator give a “restricting” I have no idea.

The N&W, using the marker for its “stop and stay” indication, protected itself against the marker burnout by putting a small black plate with a white letter “S” beneath the signal number.  That way, if the marker burned out, the letter “S” would govern and it would still be a “stop and stay”.

EdKing

From: NW Mailing List 
Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2013 7:36 AM
To: NW Mailing List 
Subject: Re: N&W signal route diagrams

Jimmy, 
I fully appreciate the need for stop and stay at interlockings, and it has finally sunk through my thick skull that you can't use both "stop and stay" and "stop and proceed restricting" aspects on the same signal because you couldn't be sure that a stop and proceed wasn't in fact a stop and stay with a burned out marker ( I can be a little slow sometimes, thank y'all for bearing with me).  Now then, Ben points out that you could accomplish what I was asking about (allowing a following movement to continue without stopping) by providing a restricting aspect.  This was done on grades to prevent the need to restart heavy trains, I believe.  Were there instances of interlockings that could display the restricting aspect?  I believe Ben indicated that in the majority of instances this was not the case.  My assumption would be that it was felt that the delay was not significant enough to warrant the expense of the additional aspect and associated circuitry.  Any other insights/conjecture?
Thanks again,
Jim Cochran 



On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 9:21 PM, NW Mailing List <nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org> wrote:

  On 9/17/2013 5:41 PM, NW Mailing List wrote:

    I hear you, but I still have the question of why not?  It seems like this would add an unnecessary stop/delay in the case where one movement is following another in the same direction, on the same route through an interlocking.  Any answers, comments, speculation would be greatly appreciated.
  Well, with that kind of thinking, why have any absolute stop signal then? Why don't all traffic lights at intersections have flashing yellow lights?  It is there because that is where they want you to STOP. It is a control point! In the days before rock and roll, if this signal was a STOP/and STAY, this is where you got off and called the dispatcher on the phone box to receive further instructions. Did you ever think that maybe the dispatcher has other plans for you and doesn't want you to follow the train ahead? 

  Jimmy Lisle


  ________________________________________
  NW-Mailing-List at nwhs.org
  To change your subscription go to
  http://list.nwhs.org/mailman/options/nw-mailing-list
  Browse the NW-Mailing-List archives at
  http://list.nwhs.org/pipermail/nw-mailing-list/




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________
NW-Mailing-List at nwhs.org
To change your subscription go to
http://list.nwhs.org/mailman/options/nw-mailing-list
Browse the NW-Mailing-List archives at
http://list.nwhs.org/pipermail/nw-mailing-list/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://six.pairlist.net/pipermail/nw-mailing-list/attachments/20130918/a760b618/attachment-0001.htm>