signal brackets

[NW Mailing List]

I’m not so sure about this. N&W practice was, unlike many other railroads, not to use diverging signals for converging routes. An engineer was required to know the physical characteristics of the route so did not need a signal to tell him that the only possible route was a converging with a speed restriction. Using a diverging signal for a converging route takes away information if there is also diverging route that should be protected (I experienced that on my Metra commute one morning where we took a diverging clear at a long interlocking and the engineer assumed that it was due to the 15mph switch 1/2 mile ahead at the far end of the interlocking when instead it was due to the 10mph crossover just beyond the signal - oops. Yes, he had to dump it and we went through the crossover well above 10mph but without incident).

From my days working on the Scioto Division 40+ years ago, my timetable from then shows a short section of single track through Chillicothe. And if I’ve figured out where this picture is, it it looking west at the east end of the single track section. But the lack of Clear is not for the end of the two tracks but rather for the resumption of double track 1.5 miles ahead.

Also to note that at least in 1981, the railroad there had TC (CTC) in effect east of Chillicothe on the two tracks and through the single track section but not on the double track west of there where it was current of traffic with a designated eastward and westward track. So the signals in the photo would have displayed Approach Diverging if routed to the westward track at the end of the single track but only Approach if routed to the eastward track since the next signal could only display Restricting for a move to the not signaled for westward moves eastward track.

Per that timetable, the railroad went from two tracks to single track at MP N-655 plus 1535 feet and then to double track at MP N-656 plus 4680 feet. Both turnouts has a 35 mph speed restriction.


-- 
Larry Stone
lstone19 at stonejongleux.com





> On Mar 27, 2024, at 3:15 AM, NW Mailing List <nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org> wrote:
> 
> John:
> 
> This signal was on the Scioto Division- Columbus District, the N&W main line west (compass north) of Portsmouth. 
> 
> The reason for the lack of clear indication is that this is signal  protected the end of double track with an equilateral switch. The best aspect a train could get would be “approach diverging”.
> 
> Eric from the Columbus District
> 
>> On Mar 26, 2024, at 23:20, NW Mailing List <nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org> wrote:
>> 
>> Eric,,
>> 
>> Thanks for the location. Is this on the mainline? Can you explain the lack of 'Clear' on both mast?
>> 
>> John Garner
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> The bracket post mast in question was at Chillicothe, Ohio.  I believe that my photo…
>> 
>> Eric
>> 
>> 
>>> The other double-mast signal (with straight brackets) is interesting in the fact that it cannot display 'Clear' on either side. Anyone know it's location?
>>> John Garner
>> <N&W CPL Signals Chillicothe OH.jpg>
>> ________________________________________
>> 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/