Caretta Branch - Abandoned Signal

[NW Mailing List]

Could it have been that where the approach signal was located was a bad 
place to start a tonnage train?  So rather than take put a crew in position 
to have to start at an awkward place, they simply stopped the train at this 
signal and when the whole route was clear, gave him the high green.

EdKing

-----Original Message----- 
From: NW Mailing List
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 3:15 PM
To: 'NW Mailing List'
Subject: RE: Caretta Branch - Abandoned Signal

Grant,

You have to specify a time period for your statement that Caretta was the
largest producer on the Dry Fork..

Between 1922 and 1936 there were three tipples on Caretta Branch. From 1936
into 1950 there were 2. After 1950 there was 1.

Bishop No. 33/34/35 on Jacobs Fork was a larger producer than Olga No 2 and
Caretta No. 5  on Caretta Branch from about 1945 through 1973. Once Caretta
No. 5 shut down in 1950, Pond Creek No. 1 was a larger producer on the Dry
Fork Branch from 1951 through 1961 than Olga No. 2 on the Caretta Branch.
Olga No. 2 on Caretta Branch out produced Bishop from 1976 through 1979. It
was Bishop in 1980. Amonate No. 31 was the larger producer from 1981 into
1988.

Alex Schust

-----Original Message-----
From: nw-mailing-list-bounces at nwhs.org
[mailto:nw-mailing-list-bounces at nwhs.org] On Behalf Of NW Mailing List
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 12:33 PM
To: nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org
Subject: RE: Caretta Branch - Abandoned Signal

The Caretta Branch was a slow-speed spur to a single tipple about 2 miles to
end of track and would not normally rate an approach signal except for road
crossings about 1/3 of a mile from the junction. Caretta was the largest
producer on the Dry Fork and could deliver 150 loads a day. Third Dry Fork
worked it daylight plus a night job when needed and could easily block the
crossings if stopped at the junction waiting for a signal. Ready to start
back to Auville and holding clear of the crossings, they would call the
dispatcher (a phone was here and at the junction) and wait for a clear on
this signal, knowing they would not have to stop at the junction.
The entire spur was slow-speed with no register / second movements (barely
room for one movement) and no need for track circuits or other
aspects--simply a go/no go hold-out signal, in effect repeating the home
signal, to protect the crossings.

Grant Carpenter


> Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2014

>

> That is possible.  How short a block are we talking about?

>

> And, is there an Approach Distant signal on up the branch, or is this

> the only signal?

>

> Ben Blevins

>

>

> On 3/4/14, NW Mailing List <nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org> wrote:

> > Ben,

> > Could it have been the fact that the distance from that signal and

> > the home signal was extremely short and therefore a restricting

> > indication would be safer?

> >

> > Nathan Simmons

> > trainman51 at gmail.com

> > http://www.t-51.org

> > KI4MSK

> >

> > On 3/4/2014 16:13, NW Mailing List wrote:

> >>

> >> If I knew more about how the track circuits and distant signals to

> >> this location were arranged, then I could tell you exactly why this

> >> signal was set up this way.  There was a reason.

> >>

> >> The approach aspect was omitted because they did not need it.  It

> >> could be as simple as that another train would never follow one

> >> out, meaning a train passing the signal would never need to

> >> "Proceed prepared to stop at next signal", as the Approach aspect

dictates.

> >>

> >> Ben Blevins

> >>

> >> On Mar 4, 2014 2:49 PM, "NW Mailing List" <nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org

> >> <mailto:nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org>> wrote:

> >>

> >>     This is the automatic advance (or approach) signal for the home

> >>     signal a

> >>     short block ahead at the junction with the Dry Fork Branch. The

> >> nearby

> >>     grade crossing (mostly) necessitates the short block and the

> >>     signal's use

> >>     as a hold-out. A Stop and Proceed here indicates a Stop and Stay

> >>     at the

> >>     junction, but allows movement ahead to the home signal without a

> >>     violation

> >>     if the rear can clear the road crossing (hold-out signals usually

> >>     display

> >>     Stop and Stay). In this branch line situation, with a permissive

> >>     indication

> >>     at the junction ahead, a Clear suffices as an Approach Diverging,

> >>     making

> >>     the signal act much like a repeater.

> >>

> >>     Grant Carpenter

> >>

> >>     > Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2014

> >>     >

> >>     > I have a question regarding this old signal on the Caretta

> >>     Branch.  Does

> >>     anyone know if this was the home signal for the branch's junction

> >>     with the

> >>     Dry Fork Branch main or a distant signal?  Someone had asked me

> >>     why it only

> >>     had aspects for "stop" and "clear".  I thought it would've had more

> >>     available aspects than what it shows.

> >>     >

> >>     > http://www.pbase.com/railfire/image/153050851/original

> >>     > http://www.pbase.com/railfire/image/154680221/original

> >>     >

> >>     > Jeff Hawkins

> >>     >

> >>     > www.railsinvirginia.com <http://www.railsinvirginia.com>

> >>     > www.railfirephotography.com

> >> <http://www.railfirephotography.com>

> >>


________________________________________
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/