From nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org Mon Jun 30 09:28:22 2025 From: nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org (NW Mailing List) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2025 09:28:22 -0400 Subject: forest signal bridge In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Jim, ??? Nothing special. Signals controlling three tracks in the opposite direction that the train pictured is heading in. It appears that the track on the far left was the old main line down into town. I don't know the history of when it was shortened to what is now called Halsey Spur. Jimmy Lisle On 6/29/2025 10:03 PM, NW Mailing List wrote: > The?forest signal bridge (pict attached) doesn't look like any other I > have seen on the N&W.? Does anyone know anything about this signal > installation? > Thanks, > 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/ From nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org Mon Jun 30 10:32:55 2025 From: nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org (NW Mailing List) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2025 10:32:55 -0400 Subject: forest signal bridge In-Reply-To: References:

Message-ID: Jimmy, Thanks for your reply. I was most interested in the actual construction of the bridge itself. It seems to be of different construction than the ones I have seen. Most I have seen pictures of are like the one in the attached photo. Note the "extra" diagonal supports under the heavy top cross member and curved braces on the one from Forest. Jim Cochran On Mon, Jun 30, 2025 at 9:55?AM NW Mailing List wrote: > Jim, > Nothing special. Signals controlling three tracks in the opposite > direction that the train pictured is heading in. It appears that the > track on the far left was the old main line down into town. I don't know > the history of when it was shortened to what is now called Halsey Spur. > > Jimmy Lisle > > On 6/29/2025 10:03 PM, NW Mailing List wrote: > > The forest signal bridge (pict attached) doesn't look like any other I > > have seen on the N&W. Does anyone know anything about this signal > > installation? > > Thanks, > > 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/ > ________________________________________ > 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: tank.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 173861 bytes Desc: not available URL: From nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org Mon Jun 30 10:55:23 2025 From: nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org (NW Mailing List) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2025 10:55:23 -0400 (EDT) Subject: forest signal bridge In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Speaking of the signal bridge at Forest: N&W Norfolk & Western SD45's w/Freight @ Forest, VA 1982 Original Slide | eBay https://www.ebay.com/itm/388650945075 Jeff Hawkins > On 06/29/2025 10:03 PM EDT NW Mailing List wrote: > > > The forest signal bridge (pict attached) doesn't look like any other I have seen on the N&W. Does anyone know anything about this signal installation? > Thanks, > 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: From nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org Mon Jun 30 12:36:34 2025 From: nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org (NW Mailing List) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2025 11:36:34 -0500 Subject: East Bluefield Re: Diverging signals In-Reply-To: References:

Message-ID: Jim, Site of RD Tower, my few recollections of specifics at this interlocking go back to the 70s. This is looking east into the Christiansburg District of the Radford Division.? The westward home signals are on the distant cantilever and the eastward home signals are about the same distance behind the photographer on the main line past a crossover. Here, in the middle of the interlocking, two westward tracks each diverged from the WB main under the 611's train, thus the two eastward diverging home signals. The left signal governed the Radford Pull-In Track that ran up the north edge of the yard, and the right signal governed a third (freight) main that ran up the south side of the yard. Confused, I don't know why only three tracks are visible in the photo. A second trailing crossover permitted eastbounds to pull out of the yard while westbounds used the Radford Pull-In. Yes, the next controlled signals east were at Blake. Grant Carpenter On 6/29/2025 9:21 AM, NW Mailing List wrote: > OK, I have looked at more pictures/maps of the East end of Bluefield > yard and it appears that the signals in question are associated with a > crossover(s) between the mains before you get to the highway bridge.? > This plant appears to be un-signaled from the Westbound side and there > don't appear to be any other turnouts until you hit Blake.? Does > anybody know why the crossover would not need to be signaled coming in > off the (is it Radford or Christiansburg District)?? Also, can someone > provide information on the changes to crossover and general > arrangement here over the years?? How long ago was it changed to a > single crossover?? What were the tracks that crossed over the mains at > one point? > Thanks, > Jim Cochran > > On Wed, Jun 25, 2025 at 9:42?AM NW Mailing List > wrote: > > David, > > Looks familiar, where is this? The lower rank of the signal > contributes to its aspect, indicating a siding. The siding's speed > restriction could be as low as that of the turnout by Rule 105, or > even lower by Employee Time Table. This is an example of > variations and exceptions that I hedged/weaseled about in my first > reply. > > Grant Carpenter > > > > On 6/24/2025 5:39 PM, NW Mailing List wrote: >> I'd love to know what is causing that there, a trailing point >> spring switch, not having medium approach medium, .... Idk >> >> You can give clear in the nominal case like this. I only had 3 >> photos on hand. >> >> David Baker >> >> On Tue, Jun 24, 2025, 3:17?PM NW Mailing List >> wrote: >> >> Jim, >> >> With apologies, I'll attempt a reply to your original post >> with some specifics. >> >> Diverging indications notify an engine crew of a speed >> restriction due to one or more turnouts ahead. By 1951, >> anyway, N&W Operating Rule 105 (b) simply stated that unless >> otherwise provided, speed is restricted to 25MPH for >> passenger trains and 15MPH for other trains or engines when >> using turnouts or crossovers. As Jimmy stated, exceptions >> were noted in ETTs and could vary a lot, for example, between >> the Radford and Pocahontas Divisions. >> >> So, diverging aspects are applied to signals in both >> directions "through" the turnout's slower/secondary route. >> BTW, the N&W's CPL version is not included in the earlier >> Rule 283 examples below. The three diverging indications are >> shown here, starting with the distant/advance signal >> indication Approach Diverging: >> >> >> >> >> This is an eastbound at Vera Jct. on the Cincinnati line >> approaching the turnout on the eastbound main from Columbus, >> shown in the lower-right corner. I can't recall specifics as >> to what other signals are here (bi-directional? both >> directions? etc.) in this time frame and with which aspects. >> >> So, what's with the term "medium" and the N&W? >> >> I don't know. I've asked around, and this came up here on the >> List several years ago. As of 1951, it appeared in two >> contexts within N&W signal rules: >> >> In the signal indication description of Rule 285 ? Approach, >> the term "medium speed" appeared: "Proceed preparing to stop >> at next signal. Train exceeding medium speed must at once >> reduce to that speed." It appeared in the Operating Rules >> Definitions as half the max authorized speed, but not to >> exceed 30MPH. >> >> In the name of the three "diverging" indication rules, >> "medium" replaced "diverging," e.g., Diverging Clear became >> Medium Clear. However, the term "prescribed speed" was used >> in the rule descriptions per Rule 105 (b) above ? not medium >> speed. >> >> Neither usage appeared to have much, if any, direct >> relevance, and the ambiguity seemed to be acknowledged later, >> because by the 1981 Rule Book, both instances were deleted. >> "Medium" was changed back to "Diverging" for indication >> names, and the reference to "medium speed" was removed from >> the Approach Rule description and the term was removed from >> the Rules Definitions. >> >> Hope this helps, just my take; edits, thoughts and questions >> welcome. >> >> Grant Carpenter >> >> On 6/19/2025 7:55 AM, NW Mailing List wrote: >>> All signal fans, >>> I just found this definition/explanation for what a >>> "diverging" route can be interpreted to be and it covers the >>> case at Vera: >>> One of these days I hope to understand to signal a railroad. >>> Jim Cochran >>> >>> On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 8:47?PM NW Mailing List >>> wrote: >>> >>> The operating book rules calls out the AAR rules in my >>> '51 and '45 rule book. That is speed signaling, although >>> if you look at the rules as written they do a bad job >>> explaining that. The only thing that usually drove >>> medium speed was a diverging route in a turnout. >>> >>> Is there another facing point turnout ahead? >>> >>> David Baker >>> >>> On Wed, Jun 18, 2025, 6:44?PM NW Mailing List >>> wrote: >>> >>> 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 >>> 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: OhGoAc0qViP9iFTN.png Type: image/png Size: 530674 bytes Desc: not available URL: