Nostalgia & History > Tower and Mystery Building

This is not a contest; I just don't know the locations. I received a number of prints from an elderly lady at one of my book signings whose father (A.P. Harrington) and stepfather (Sam Fisher) had worked for the Wabash. I suspect these snapshots were taken in the 30s or 40s.

These two images are not identified. The one structure appears to be a yard office or block station and it has an order board signal. (It was not unusual for yard offices on the Wabash to look like depots as some were former depots.) All I can make out on the posting is "NOTICE Non-Residents". Since a couple of other photos were taken in the Toledo area, and the background looks more populated on high ground and some wheel sets are on the ground it could be Toledo.

I suspect the tower photo is Toledo too. Note from my zoomed scan, that at least one of the lines was a Big Four line. Perhaps it is where the Wabash crossed the Big Four.

Edit: The tower is at New Paris, Indiana.


Victor A. Baird
http://www.erstwhilepublications.com/



Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 07/27/14 20:54 by wabash2800.

---

---

---

I've identified the tower as being at New Paris. Can anyone identify the other structure?


Victor A. Baird
http://www.erstwhilepublications.com/



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/27/14 19:07 by wabash2800.

I believe this snapshot (cropped) was taken from the tower the same day as the tower photo. Though the loco number was blurred, I scanned at high res and it appears to be No. 2809.

Victor A. Baird
http://www.erstwhilepublications.com/



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/27/14 19:06 by wabash2800.

---

Any idea as to the third, unintelligible line on the Western Union sign?
TIA!
...Lorenzo

567Chant Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Any idea as to the third, unintelligible line on
> the Western Union sign?
> TIA!
> ...Lorenzo

and cable office??

"Cable Line"?

I went back and scanned at a higher res and still couldn't make out the second word very well. Sorry.

Edit:

I agree with you BaltoJoey. I think it is "cable office" too.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 07/29/14 08:06 by wabash2800.

Nice image of the 2809, but is he really moving so fast that the semaphore has not had time to react?
—Mac

Yes, I believe so.

But having never seen an interlocking semaphore operated by mechanical linkage up the signal mast rather than a motor, I wonder if it would change slower. Anyone know?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/04/14 19:34 by wabash2800.

wabash2800 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes, I believe so.
>
> But having never seen an interlocking semaphore
> operated by mechanical linkage up the signal mast
> rather than a motor, I wonder if it would change
> slower. Anyone know?

That is a 4-way pipeline in the picture. There would be one for the switch, one for the Facing Point Lock, one for the pot (dwarf) on the siding, and one for the high semaphore. The operator hasn't put the lever back into the machine yet.

TAW

Tom:
So with an all mechanical linkage like that, the tower man would have go back up in the tower and manually clear the signal after the train had past? (I remember the semaphores for interlockings with motors behind the signal head where the blade cleared as the train passed much like a searchlight or color light signal.) If I am understanding you correctly, this old, all mechanical system pictured here seems unsafe as potentially a train right behind on the same track could receive a false clear signal if the tower man had not cleared it yet? But, of course, he could not give a clear signal on a conflicting route without clearing this signal, correct?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/05/14 08:07 by wabash2800.

wabash2800 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Tom:
> So with an all mechanical linkage like that, the
> tower man would have go back up in the tower and
> manually clear the signal after the train had
> past?

Right, or if there was nothing to hand on, put the lever into the machine and watch the train from the window (the common approach).


> (I remember the semaphores for interlockings
> with motors behind the signal head where the blade
> cleared as the train passed much like a
> searchlight or color light signal.)

Right. Lots of mechanical interlockings had power semaphores controlled by levers in a mechanical machine, just as there were many with CPL, searchlight, and color light signals and power switches controlled by levers in a mechanical machine. Those changes usually came after the interlocking was constructed and had been used with exclusively mechanical connections. If track circuits and electric signals were already in use on the line, the railroad went with another machine type, such as electric with mechanical locking between the levers (such as GRS "pistol grip").

There were also mechanical signals that remained mechanical after the plant was track-circuited. At 75th Street, the PRR and BRC signals were mechanical, but there were also track circuits to ensure that if there was a train in the plant on the Panhandle or Belt, that the route couldn't be changed after putting the signal into the machine with the train still in the plant.


> If I am
> understanding you correctly, this old, all
> mechanical system pictured here seems unsafe as
> potentially a train right behind on the same track
> could receive a false clear signal if the tower
> man had not cleared it yet?

No more unsafe than anything else on the railroad that requires compliance with the rules. If the semaphores were mechanical and governed the block (part of a manual block system), there could be no following train until the operator reported this train clear of the block to the station in the rear. If it was dark territory and the signal only governed the interlocking, trains were required to stay 5 minutes (some railroads made it 10) apart. If a train could be overtaken by another train (effectively moving at less than the speed limit), the flagman had to throw off lighted fusees from the rear of the caboose at an interval sufficient to keep a following train 5 minutes back. We used to use a train order to flag for a train that had nothing behind it. Part of that was not needing to walk back to flag if they stopped, but it was also to prevent the need to burn a couple of cases of fusees during the trip.

> But, of course, he
> could not give a clear signal on a conflicting
> route without clearing this signal, correct?

Right. That's why, without track circuits like 75th Street had, most railroads required operators to not restore the signal until they observed the markers. Otherwise, there was nothing to prevent putting the signal back as soon as the engine passed, then throwing a switch under it (not really nothing, way long ago there were detector bars-a vertical-moving steel bar parallel to the rail head that could not be raised with a wheel passing over it, but not after something like 1915).

TAW

Thanks Tom.


I've noted a photo of some mechanical semaphores at State Line tower (Indiana) with an N&W train in the late 60s. I could see the linkage going up the outside of the signal mast up to the semaphores, rather than motors behind the blades.