Vera Jct

[NW Mailing List]

Grant,
Thanks for the reply and great seeing you at the con as well.  Your answer
caused me to dig more deeply into the history of N&W aspects/indications
and in particular the horizontal arm over vertical arm aspect that has most
recently been referred to as "diverging clear".  Please refer to the
attached pages from N&W rule books as reference for what follows.

In 1910 it was called "slower speed route clear" when used in conjunction
with one high speed route and diverging routes.  Seems clear this was speed
signaling.

In 1915 it was "proceed under control, being prepared to stop".

In 1930 it was just "proceed".  Does anyone have a copy of the rules
between 1915 and 1930?  I'd like to know what that one has to say.

In 1945 it was " proceed through diverging route at prescribed speed".
This looks like route signaling.  Again if someone has intervening
information, I'd appreciate knowing about it.

In 1951 it was " proceed through turnout route at prescribed speed" which
would seem to indicate route signaling, but the aspect name is "medium
clear" which point toward speed signaling.

In 1961 it was the same but showed the option of a colorized aspect.

As far as I know this was maintained until the end of the N&W.  The term
through diverging or turnout route seems to reinforce my questioning its
use where one line "joins" another.  When I visited Tom Dressler many years
ago, he informed me that going "through" a turnout was to take the
diverging path while going "over" a turnout meant staying on the
non-diverging route.  Both of these would indicate a facing points movement
and wouldn't seem to be readily applicable to trailing points movements.

The NORAC definition of this aspect is something like proceed at medium
speed until you train clears turnouts or interlockings and then proceed at
prescribed speed.  This would seem appropriate for such a situation as we
find at Vera, but I have not seen this kink of definition in any reference
for N&W signaling.

Hope there may be more to the story and would welcome input from anyone who
has experience/knowledge of how N&W signaling worked and the philosophy
used by the system designers.
Thanks,
Jim Cochran






On Tue, Jun 17, 2025 at 7:47 PM NW Mailing List <nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org>
wrote:

> Jim,
>
> Generally. . .
>
> Route signaling is speed signaling by implication.
>
> So, diverging aspects can indicate a lower speed through the diverging
> route of a turnout, compared to the adjacent track speed, and regardless of
> direction.
>
> So, diverging aspects will be used when facing points, and may be used
> when trailing points.
>
> . . . mostly.
>
> Good to see you and All at the Convention.
>
> Grant Carpenter
>
> On 6/8/2025 10:31 AM, NW Mailing List wrote:
>
> Attached is a photo of Vera Jct. showing the signal facing Peavine
> traffic.  Why would the "main stem" from Columbus have been considered a
> "diverging" route in this case?  Perhaps it is in some way analogous to
> middle sidings being signaled for diverging aspects where they rejoin the
> main.  I tend to think of diverging aspects being displayed to facing
> points movements where they are signaled to take a route that "diverges"
> from the one they are currently on.  Of course there are no "joining"
> aspects, so did the term "diverging" cover the act of taking a route that
> your current route is joining?   Any thoughts will be appreciated.
> Jim Cochran
>
> ________________________________________
> NW-Mailing-List at nwhs.org
> To change your subscription go to
> https://pairlist6.pair.net/mailman/options/nw-mailing-list
> Browse the NW-Mailing-List archives at
> https://pairlist6.pair.net/pipermail/nw-mailing-list/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://pairlist6.pair.net/pipermail/nw-mailing-list/attachments/20250618/29bd95a0/attachment.htm>