Nostalgia & History > 1912 Oakland Ordinance Proves Key Route Ken Right(?)

Here's ordinance no. 267 passed in 1912 mandating flagmen at various road crossings of railroads in the city including First Street and requiring trains not to proceed without a signal from the flagmen: Ordinance 267 at Google Books

There was an alternative to flagmen available under the ordinance: crossing gates operated by nearby towers also operating semaphores controlling the train's movement across the intersection. 

I couldn't find an ordinance book after 1918 but there must have been an ordinance that allowed for wig-wag signals instead of crossing gates. If such an ordinance amended or replaced just the crossing gate part of no. 267, leaving the requirement for semaphores controlled by nearby towers, then perhaps the First and Franklin tower did indeed control the railroad signals on First Street along with the wig-wags.  

Would that make it a kind of interlocking? I think the argument between Ken and others was whether the tower controlled just the crossing gates or the railroad signals as well. 

The 1929 ordinance thread is here: https://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?11,6125764

 
 



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 01/17/26 00:32 by phthithu.

---

---

---

Flagging violation?

EO
Wx4.org

---

I like the crewman in the cab.  Looks like he couldn't care less.

> I think the argument between Ken and others was whether
> the tower controlled just the crossing gates or the railroad
> signals as well.

The argument was about the "tower" at Franklin?

In the 1914 timetable

http://wx4.org/to/foam/sp/maps/zukasETT/1914-10-05SP_Western156-TimZukas.pdf

looks like the Webster St tower controlled signals
on a bridge 700 ft west of the tower, and on another
bridge 400 ft west of the tower, and on another bridge
600 ft east of the tower.

By the way -- four "main tracks" Shellmound to Richmond
in that timetable.

TimZ, Right the argument if you can call it that was what the mystery tower at First and Franklin did. I think Ken thought or hoped it was an interlocking tower. The Key and SP streetcar xings of 1st St. were gone as was Webster tower when the First and Franklin tower showed up. 

The 1912 ordinance requires crossing gates and train signals operated in conjunction by a nearby tower. The 1929 ordinance required a wig wag tower at Broadway, Franklin, or Webster, manned 24 hours a day, and also trains could cross these interesections only when given the signal. The question is: who controlled the signal? 

If the 1912 ordinance hadn't been amended or rescinded by another ordinaince, it seems possible the First and Franklin tower could have controlled the signals that previously were controlled by Webster tower. 

SP's Broadway station had a flagman's house at Broadway. I wonder if they elected to flag that xing rather than use crossing gates for some reason.
  

EO Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Flagging violation?
>
> EO
> Wx4.org

Wow! That's a truly terrifying picture. Someone was going to be taking some time off. And hopefully no one was hurt.  

Here's an article on a 1930 crash between a WP passenger train and a one car streetcar at 12th St. which appears to have been located very close to SP's East Oakland station. Anyone know if the 3 line ran on 12th St? I'm curious about the location in EO's post.   

The article details an automatic signalling system for the intersection using "a tripper" for WP trains and light signals for the streetcar. 



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/17/26 15:45 by phthithu.

---

---

---

Looks like two WP tracks, so not? 23rd Ave.

https://wx4.org/to/foam/maps/2-Zukas/00rmaps/nca/1934KeySystem_map-UCB.pdf



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/17/26 16:55 by timz.

The collision between WP SW1 501 (built 1939) and Key System (East Bay Transit Co.) streetcar 358 occurred at Third and Broadway in Oakland, CA on September 2, 1940.  The only injury was to the streetcar operator (the only person on the car at the time), who suffered cuts on one hand from broken glass and refused treatment.  A very similar photo of the crash appeared on the front page of the Oakland Tribune that evening:

https://cdnc.ucr.edu/?a=d&d=OT19400902

The May 12, 1930 collision was between a WP passenger train and a streetcar on the No.9 line:

https://cdnc.ucr.edu/?a=d&d=OT19300512.1.3

Thanks for the links. That's truly a terrifying accident. Luckily, it had just discharged its passengers. Unfortuantely, nothing on the signalling of that intersection in 1940. 

The postwar views looking west on 3rd St. in this old thread don't show much in the way of signaling on the WP in the blocks approaching Broadway.  Probably just a crossing flagman, with streetcars expected to obey just like rubber-tired street traffic:

https://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?11,3761738

When the ex-WP 3rd St. running was abandoned in 1996, the only crossing with flashing lights (but no gates) was Webster St.  All the other cross-streets except Broadway had crossbucks and stop signs.  At 3rd and Broadway, the traffic lights were interlocked with track occupancy and would go red for Broadway when a train approached.  There were additional lights on the traffic signals pointing down 3rd that indicated to train crews that the traffic signal pre-emption was working.  The only railroad signal on 3rd was a fixed yellow distant signal for westbounds around Brush St. in advance of the SP crossing at Chestnut Jct. (Magnolia).

> Wow! That's a truly terrifying picture. Someone
> was going to be taking some time off. And
> hopefully no one was hurt.  

I wish I knew the details of the photo, which has been hanging on my wall for years and years. Somebody ought to be able to identify the trolley's owner.

As to the old head in the cab window, I suspect that the is busy filling out the application to collect on his job insurance.

EO
Wx4.org

EO Wrote:

> I wish I knew the details of the photo

But...but...I just...four posts up...right there...I mean...*splutter*...*fume*...

Oh well. Yeah, guess we'll never know.  *sigh*

Evan_Werkema Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> EO Wrote:
>
> > I wish I knew the details of the photo
>
> But...but...I just...four posts up...right
> there...I mean...*splutter*...*fume*...
>
> Oh well. Yeah, guess we'll never know.  *sigh*

The really funny part is that the photo has been hanging on E.O.'s wall for years and a source of constant wonder and mystery. I'll pm him the article link. 

No. It does not.

The central question, as I understood it, was whether the "Signal Tower" at 1st and Franklin ever controlled a signal, switch, or anything giving a signal indication, whether it was flag by day or lantern by night, authorizing a train to proceed through the limits of what we loosely define as trains occupying  main track on double track on what is known as the  First Street Line  between Franklin and Washington, or there abouts. So far, there has been no evidence for this to be the case. It seems the only function the tower served at 1st and Franklin was to control the wig-wags protecting the grade crossings.

The SP was specific and concise about listing operating procedures in the special instructions, detailing the control limits of an interlock, a special signal, or whether a train can enter territory by the authority of someone on the ground (like a herder's signal to enter yard territory; for example Mojave). In the Western Division ETTs during this period I have found no evidence that the person occupying the 1st Street and Franklin tower as had any authority to allow a train into the territory. In fact, the tower is never mentioned anywhere in the ETT. As far as trainmen were concerned, it never existed.

Finding city ordinances are helpful in putting context to situations that happened almost 100 years ago, but just because a city ordinance states what a railroad was obligated to do doesn't mean the railroad actually did it or ever put it in practice. During this period SP had a Law Department to battle such directives, and there's the issue of City, State and Federal jurisdiction and whether a city can impose restrictions on railroad operating practices. The City of Oakland was concerned about public safety for pedestrians, vehicles, and horses such that at various times they required the railroad to install a flagman to stop road traffic in the event of an approaching train (later handled by "magnetic flagman"). There may have been some well-meaning councilman who wanted it stated that the railroad will ensure that trains not proceed through the grade crossing without a signal from said flagman. But while the City may have had the legal authority to require the railroad to protect grade crossings, it may not have had authority to dictate how trains should operate with respects to an ordinacne.  

Did the Tower at 1st and Franklin ever control a signal? We can not rule it out completely, but first we need evidence from the SP (not the city of Oakland). I have ETTs from the following, none showing any functions from the 1st and Franklin:

No. 199; July 22, 1928
No. 200; Sept 2, 1928
No. 201; Nov. 18, 1928
No. 202, June 9, 1929
No. 204; June 15, 1930
No. 205; Sept 21, 1930
No. 209 July 26, 1931

1. I am missing No 203, so it's possible 1st an Franklin had some form of control for one ETT issue, but highly unlikely.

2. It's possible there was a Bulletin stating operations concerning crew for tower at 1st and Franklin, but Bulletins eventually make it to the ETTs special instructions.

Do we have a picture of the interior or a signaling diagram showing the tower had control of anything other than the wig-wags?

Just because it said tower and "had a big cable" doesn't mean it controlled anything. Newark was an interlock and did control switch and signals, but it wasn't  a tower and didn't have tower as part of its name.  As tempting as it might be, don't get hung up on physical appearances.

As stated earlier there is a Miscellaneous instruction that:

"But one train should occupy Broadway Station or tracks between Washington and Franklin at the same time. If necessary for two trains to occupy this territory, but one train at a time should be moving. Passenger trains must be given preference."

In this special instruction, it is the train crews responsibility, not the towerman, to see that the rule is observed. Otherwise, the special instructions would state something like "upon indication from the towerman that it is safe to proceed...by 'fill in the blank'"

What I want to know is what craft did flagman belong to on the SP? Was it a separate craft? Or were they Towerman? Switchman?  Was the person occupying the tower a flagman or a towerman? Would he get towerman or flagman wages?  Perhaps that's why the tower may have only been responsible for activating the crossing protection.If he had control of a signal, would he have been paid towerman wages and not?



 

BC, Great post. Thanks taking the time to provide us with an excellent outline of the issues at hand today and historically. I agree with you--not enough evidence right now to say anything beyond that the 1st and Franklin tower had control over some wig wags--and we aren't even sure what wig wags, if my reading of the ordinance is correct. Also, that a signal was required for trains to pass Webster, Franklin, and Broadway.   

Attached is the 1919 USRA timetable that shows Webster Street Tower controlled signals on signal bridges 115-118, which were spread out over 2000 feet of First Street. First and Webster Street tower was closed 1923. So once that tower closed they would have just converted some of these signals into ABS? 

Also attaching a photo Evan shared from the WRM of a 1918 meet on First Street which shows the prescribed signalling practice in action. An eastbound stopped at the signal bridge at Broadway waiting for the westbound to clear the station block. 

Last photo shows that at Webster Street tower the SP took advantage of the crossing gate option there at least.  


 



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/19/26 20:38 by phthithu.

---

---

---

In the second pic above: do we know which way we're looking?
Looks like the Franklin St "tower" down there, but the sun
suggests we're looking west.

TimZ overland house on the right. Looking west.

Posted from iPhone



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/18/26 17:20 by phthithu.

BCHellman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 1. I am missing No 203, so it's possible 1st an
> Franklin had some form of control for one ETT
> issue, but highly unlikely.

Here is No. 203 at the Internet Archive courtesy CSRM: https://archive.org/details/cscrm_2021_02_001105/

Here is a search that should (theoretically) return all of the CSRM Western Division contributions: https://archive.org/search?query=coverage%3A%22Western+Division%22&sort=date&and%5B%5D=creator%3A%22southern+pacific+railroad+company%22&and%5B%5D=collection%3A%22employee-timetable-collection%22

Here is the full CSRM online timetable collection (mostly SP and subsidiaries, with a little WP, Santa Fe, etc.): https://archive.org/details/employee-timetable-collection?sort=date