N&W signal route diagrams

NW Mailing List nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org
Wed Sep 18 22:41:56 EDT 2013

I think somewhere out in railroad land some signals have a delayed
aspect situation for this,
any train crossing into a block drops the signal to red, after the train
clears the signal but not the block with a delay built into the signal
it could switch to restricting.

Again the following train of another would already know he has a train
ahead of him and the dispatcher would also know this and understand.
This is how you get around some signal limitations. When working grades
and normal no interlocking blocks, just simple blocks this is practicle,
but when you come to interlockings (such as 2 railroads crossing) you
have to have that absolute stop protection. If you have to stop your
train on a grade that is not a good thing and I hope the railroad
designers work out the signals situation so that circumstance doesn't
happen or kept minimal.


On 9/18/2013 12:00 PM, nw-mailing-list-request at nwhs.org wrote:

> Subject:

> Re: N&W signal route diagrams

> From:

> NW Mailing List <nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org>

> Date:

> 9/18/2013 7:36 AM


> To:

> NW Mailing List <nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org>



> 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 <mailto: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


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://six.pairlist.net/pipermail/nw-mailing-list/attachments/20130918/fcd2accb/attachment.htm>

More information about the NW-Mailing-List mailing list