Of course you don't like snow, just like I don't like summer and rain! No one likes the things that they have to battle often. I will not be modeling heavy snow though - very light, beginning of winter snow - so the main color scheme will remain white, but you will still be able to see the green on the trees and odd stalks of dry grass poking through white, light snow etc. Water will still be well above the freezing point thus giving me opportunity to capture a small stream and part of a medium lake (the quay will be beside it) that captures the essence of numerous rivers, streams and lakes in the region. For the semaphores I am planning Tomar H 242 for 3E and 5E. I will be adding a separate fixed Tomar arm to 3E to simulate the medium speed marker which will stay red/stop all the time. Given the lower arm of 5E will remain static as well, I am not going to attach a Tortoise to that, instead I will be making 1W a dwarf Semaphore using NJ International's 1004 and use the tortoise that I had purchased for the lower arm of 5E to operate 1W instead. The idea is to depict that most of New York Central mainline has moved on to color light signals, but the less important branches are still protected by the old semaphore installations that were installed in the hey days of Adirondacks logging. Given the constant decline of the trade in the area the railroad didn't think it makes sense to spend money on replacing them since they expect those railroads itself to close in a few years.
Modifying semaphores... that's an interesting and ambitious approach. I say that for a few reasons, the first is you're proposing adding an arm between the other two? And unlike many colorlight colorlight signals, semaphore signals (at least North American ones) always get taller with more arms: This is to ensure that the arms can be contrasted with the (presumably bright) sky, as far away as possible. On my Medium/Slow diagram, I showed [3E] with three heads only with the idea of it showing Approach Slow (Y/R/G) for a movement past it and then through switch [10] onto the mainline. Whether this aspect and indication would be useful here in real life, I can only guess, but I imagine it depends on how busy that branch line is, the speed limit here, the distance between [3E] and [7E], and how common such a movement would be. Without showing Approach Slow, its depiction on the Slow diagram with only two heads would be quite sufficient, showing Approach (Y/R) when not diverging through the double slip, and showing Restricting (R/Y) when changing to the siding track past the station. This would be the simplest (if not quite as interesting) adaptation to a semaphore, too. I showed [5E] with a lower fixed-red marker because I would expect the majority of movements past this signal to go to the Quay line, so this signal would show Approach most of the time. However, [5E] could be setup to show Approach Medium (Y/G) for a diverging movement at switch [8] and onto the NYC mainline, if you wanted that signal to be ...more exciting. But I like the idea of making [1W] a dwarf semaphore. And I think you could get away with using the NJI 1004 for it too, but you'll want to trim off ≈50% of the blade and paint it to match the others, remove the number plate, and perhaps shorten the whole signal. I like it.
Thank you for another set of diagrams Joseph. Well, in ideal scenario, the height of the Semaphore will surely be an aspect to consider,and I am thinking that may be in that case, I would simply add the fixed arm on top and make it equivalent to 1E. However, in this case, adding it in the middle might suffice, and I might even have to make the signal shorter than the supplied height, because it will sit right outside of a tunnel. My bad that I did not mention this earlier, now that I think about it, I should have. 1E, 3E and 7W would sit right outside tunnel portals. I do not think that it will make much of difference in the scheme that you have already mentioned, because anyway most traffic will be slow moving or restricted, except those three signals will be shorter than usual so that they can viewed by the engineer from inside the tunnel. Here is an initial draft of the track plan, full drawing yet to come.
The distance between 3E and 7E will be about 7 ft, that is a little over 600 scale ft which is not a lot. Another point, 9W and 11W, and 9E and 7E will be on one mast each, on the right of the far right track in the direction of travel; i.e. 9W-11W mast will in the place where you drew 11W, and 9E-7E mast will be where you drew 9E. Something like this:
Yes, that can be a touchy situation. Based on your draft track diagram (looks great!), I think there will be enough of room for [3E] to be normal size. there's nothing wrong with having trains kind-of sneak up on the signal, especially if they'll often have to stop at it anyways. But I think adding the fixed arm on top of [3E] or [5E] would be problematic since both of those signals need to be able to show Approach. Yes, it doesn't really make any difference. It looks to me like only [1E] and [7W] will be crowded by the tunnel portal's proximity. If it were me, I might even consider dwarf signals for those two. But I think I'd have to be pretty desperate on space to pull the trigger on that. Sounds great! Signal towers are definitely appropriate there. And an even better excuse for 3-headed signals there, which you already mentioned you were interested in. That photo is pretty interesting. The right-hand signal in the foreground has a red marker lamp on the bottom with a presentation (a 2-light target but only one hole) I've never seen on any signals like that before.
Well, I was thinking that I could actually keep 3E to show just Restricted, Medium Approach (while taking the straight route through the double slip 2), Slow Clear and Slow Approach - exactly like 1E. I am not seeing any issues with that because it seems to me that 1E and 3E conditions are basically the same except, for 1E there is a true Medium Approach possible because a train can pass through a complete medium speed route, but for 3E, if a train is passed with a medium approach indication towards 7E, 7E will have to slow it down to slow approach. If the train has to stop either at 7E or 9E, 3E can show Restricted, just like 1E. Am I missing something? Well, the 1927 documents of New York Central MOSTLY showed those signals, and if you remember that was the reason I was more confused initially as to why I cannot use just two heads as opposed to three. Here are the documents again - take a look, you will find a lot of difference from 1937 and 1956 versions. There is a vivid example of the working of these color signals and the dispatcher control panel in the Railroad Signaling article, and the entire example shows only 2 aspects. There is a signal plan for the full installation between Stanley and Berwick in both the documents, and none of the 3 aspect signals have 3 lights on any middle or slow speed heads - they are all either two light heads or markers; only high speed heads have three lights. The signalling rules are also different in NY Central guide from 1927 than what you see in 1937 or 1956 versions. I think a lot changed from then and the schema that you designed is much more suitable for the era I am modeling anyway, so I am VERY HAPPY with how it turned out. Signalling is one of the most interesting aspects of railroads, and I am really keen to make it as close to the prototype as possible for this project, and needless to say that your input was a huge help.
That 1927 signal system is a really nice and easy one to implement - even if it does have a lot of heads for not many aspects. I like the way that it shows the narrow target used on the lowest head for placing where clearance might be limited, and no target used on the lower head of the staggered permissive block signals. I can see I might be tempted to make some new graphics for JMRI to enable a good representation of the GRS dispatcher panel. It would be a good panel for beginners new to CTC dispatching to use because it is very intuitive with the one lever to control the turnout and signals all at once.
Yes, I was excited to see that document as well. Interestingly, it is ONLY the restricting speed that required all three heads back then, and rest all indications were possible to be provided by just two heads. The rule numbering was also different - a set of just 6 rules from 701 to 705, and 708. I am still wondering what happened to 706 and 707 though! Also Restricting aspect was different than what we see in 1937 onward - it was R/Y/R instead of R/R/Y. Clearly, 1927 NY Signalling did not work the way Al Krug described in the link that Joseph shared earlier - because the lowest head was always a marker, the middle head always had only Red and Yellow, it's just the top most head that showed all three colors. I don't know for sure, but it seems to me that the concept of each head denoting clear-proceed-stop for a specific speed was not there yet (at least for NYC) - They simply made two or three combination of lights to denote a specific speed and defined its indication, that's all. The 1937 document on the other hand shows all different aspects and complex indications, so things must have got pretty busy for NY Central in those 10 years. There is another interesting thing to notice in the 1927 document: The sidings always had a dwarf, unless there were other lines forking out of those sidings. I loved the GRS dispatcher panel, and my first thought was, if I was modeling in DC, that would be pretty easy to control my trains! Personally for me it would be very interesting to see how it looks in JMRI. Meant to ask you, do you use CATS, or know about it: http://cats4ctc.wikidot.com/? It's a JMRI plug-in that I stumbled up-on and it looks pretty cool. What do you think?
I wouldn't go that way, if it were me. Medium Approach isn't appropriate since there is no divergence. The preceding signal could show Approach Medium, but actually requiring MEDIUM speed on [3E] seems a very unorthodox approach. I can't say it would never happen in real life, but then they did some strange things back in the day. Additionally, [1E] would never show a Slow Clear, either. I kept the Greens on the lowest heads of [3W] and [7W] so the signals could show something better than Medium Approach to a train going straight through the "MEDIUM" route....and the only thing better is Medium Approach Slow (R/Y/G). Showing that is probably a bit of overkill for the situation, but, they did some strange things back in the day. [1E] and [3E] are really rather different, and the biggest difference is [1E] always has a divergence beyond it and [3E] does not. I have prepared a file that shows the logic I envisioned for the signals as I show them on my diagram: Eastbound Signal Logic Image Study that and let me know what you think. Most of it is pretty straightforward; the Approach Slow on [3E] and Medium Approach Slow on [1E] are the only aspects which could maybe be considered exorbitant. The westbound signals are fairly similar, except I presumed the Branch Line is fully signaled so movements to it get as good of indications as possible (e.g. Slow Clear on [7W]). I did look those over before but apparently not closely enough. I'm still a bit in awe of that lower red marker's target. It isn't often I see something like that in signaling I've never seen before. I am glad you believe my logic suitable for the era as well, as that was an important goal. It is definitely most fascinating to study old signal systems and rules. You have rightfully observed that signaling practice and terminology (especially speed signaling) evolved over a great deal of time. Only ten or so years prior to 1927 had the Red-yellow-green system legally supplanted the Red-green-clear color system, and even the concept of "speed signaling" been invented. "Restricted speed" in those 1927 rules surely does not mean the same as it does today. "Medium speed" hadn't even been coined yet, but that's likely what it refers to...or it could mean something else. In old rules like that, there are all sorts of terms for "slow-enough-for-diverging-speed" and they probably changed with every rules change. But as railroads found what worked over the years, it tended to spread, especially as railroads sprang to live, dissolved, and were absorbed. Despite all the differences, the systems around in the 1960s were a lot more homogeneous than 30-50 years before. There were some growing pains, but the logic described by Mr. Krug is what most of it all evolved into. And then kind-of evolved beyond...
I don't use CATS or the Bruce Chubb hardware, it is not really required any more to create a good panel, but it can still be used and there is a substantial group of people using it.
WOW! Thank you, again for another cracking diagram! That makes things really clear. Practically speaking, I am absolutely fine with 1E and all the aspects that you explained. I will be building the signals from scratch and I can do whatever is necessary from the very beginning - so the Medium-Approach Slow stays. My only problem in 3E is where to add that additional arm which I would prefer as static at Red/Stop position so that I don't have to arrange for full mechanism for it. Now there are 2 possibilities: If the Tomar signal has enough space between the two already installed heads, then the problem is solved, and we are all good to go with your existing schematic If that is not the case, then I'll have a situation and there will be two options at that time - I either rebuild the signal itself, or just add the fixed arm on top of the existing two arms. Now from ease of modification perspective I would obviously prefer the latter (doesn't mean that I will shy away from the modification if there is a need). Now, when the time comes to take that decision (which we will know once I get all the components in hand), I'll see if rebuilding an already built Tomar is worth it or not. We will re-look at the aspects where I might have reduce the variety of aspects that I can expect from 3E, or even better, I will simply swap the color light signal of 1E with the Semaphore of 3E since the top head will always be red in 1E! Yes, that would be a slight deviation from my story of keeping the semaphores only for branch lines and converting just mainline signals, but I guess that deviation is more acceptable than having inappropriate signal aspects. And if I have to stick to that story too, what the heck, I will call the upper hidden track as the branch and the lower hidden track as the main - problem solved. There, the benefit of proto-freelancing.
Well, as much as I am tempted to talk about it now, I will start picking on your brain about JMRI when I actually start with that. If you consider my knowledge as '0' about New York Central signalling when I started this thread, then my knowledge about JMRI is about '-100' now, so I need to get my basics right.
After an engaging discussion on the signals, now I have a stupid question one again! I was looking at the diagrams and it occurred to me that if that was in India we would have an East and a West Interlocking tower, a practice that is continuing since the British era following the British Railway practice. However, I am not sure if that's how it was in the US 70 years ago. The documents that I shared earlier says that the dispatcher would have controls of far away turnouts through electrical switches and relays, and could control them pretty reliably from afar, however, at times local signalmen, or even train crew used to align the switches themselves after confirming their orders with the dispatcher over telephone (mind you, the document is that of 1927, the 1956 version doesn't have all these details) - so what should be appropriate in this scenario: do I model one interlocking tower at either end, make one interlocking tower at each end, or don't make any interlocking tower at all and just place a couple of relay cabinets with a telephone beside the track?
It all depends on what the semaphores are and why they were left:- 1. If the semaphores were mechanical there would probably be a cabin at either end to operate them with the main line signals operated from a CTC panel in a power box most likely elsewhere. 2. If the semaphores were left over from a previous power signalling scheme they would most likely be operated from elsewhere too. A lot of the drive to install power signalling (which was expensive at the time) was to reduce the manpower required, so a whole signalling scheme of a line would be worked from a central location. Often the location would be chosen that would eventually be central when a scheme was complete if only a partial scheme was being done. If providing a cabin for a power box it will be for a lot more than just signalling the immediate area.
Thank you! So, I think for the 'story' that I have thought of so far, I can safely not model any cabin in this location. The semaphores basically protect the mainline and not the branches, so if we are in late 40's/early 50's it i safe to assume that they are remote controlled, given the rest of the signals in the junction are all controlled from afar as well.
Since you've decided on semaphores for [3E] and [5E] I have also made a revised logic diagram: Eastbound Logic Image with Select Semaphores It seems to me that the earlier semaphore installation would be more likely to have only two arms per signal, and show the aspects I've described here. This really would work in your favor since you don't really need to do any serious modification to the models you've already purchased. If you really wanted, you could even totally duplicate the proposed colorlight aspects by adding a green marker light below the [3E] lower arm, which would be a cheaply-added-later after-thought to display Approach Slow. I don't believe such practice was common (especially in that part of the country), but it's an option. But not having to modify the semaphore shapes is a great advantage, I think.
Thank you Joseph. That will surely be an advantage (though I have purchased that additional arm also - just placed the order day before yesterday). But honestly, I am not very worried about it, I think you have made a fantastic system and I would like to do my best to do justice to it. I cannot open this new link though for some reason (shows a 404 error) - if you can please resend that image to me, I will study it and will get back to you. But as I said, in the scheme of building the whole layout doing modification (or not!) to that one signal will really not make much difference - as I know myself, I will end up doing the modification anyway if that makes it more appropriate. Besides, depending on how things work out when I receive the signal in my hand, I will anyway get back to you for your advice and figure out what works best for the situation. I am confident in the system that you have built, and that last route diagram was a big help - I can actually start playing with those signals in my head now! What I am going to do next is try to come up with the routes and aspects of west bound signals on my own based on what you have drawn for the east bound ones so that I start understanding the system better. Will send you the full document once done.
The only "stupid question" is one you already know the answer to, but ask anyway. None of us knows everything so we will never learn and know if we don't ask! The US has never really employed Absolute-Block signaling. Manned interlocking towers were utilized where they were needed, but there could be 3-35 miles between interlockings. They were not utilized between interlockings as in Absolute-Block signaling. @Suzie spelled it out pretty well, but I'd like to add that there's no totally right or wrong way to address this. It seems to me it's most-likely those semaphores would be manually thrown, given the locale and era. That would suggest to me an interlocking tower near them (the high signals), but that one tower could also electrically (or pneumatically, but wrong railroad) operate the rest of the interlockings in the area. So it seems to me it's completely up to your whim if you want to model a tower or not. One thing I was thinking about earlier is the designation of the main track and siding might want to be reversed. The track next to and which serves the passenger station makes more sense to me as the main track, making the other become the siding. Speaking of which, what is this location/passenger station called? Even if you don't use that arm here, I am sure you can find a use for it. Even as a scenic detail item! Sorry about that. I caught that not long after I made my post (but before I saw your response)... silly me forgot to upload the file! It should work now. That's the thing... both options are equally appropriate. The signal system is tailored to the needs of the railroad, and as the modeller you can decide what those needs actually are, especially in a proto-freelance mode. I know that if it were me and I had semaphore models that would work perfectly as is, I would employ them as-is. The only modification you'll want to make is to blank-out a few of the roundels (as shown on the newer logic diagram). I am glad you found it helpful. It's easy to show what I suggest the signals be, but showing why they should be that and how they work together is just about impossible to convey without a diagram like that. You doing the same for the westbound signals to test your understanding is a fun idea.
Funny thing is that that's what it originally was! I changed it because most of the other lines were forking out from that track, and ideally you see the mainline is kept as clean as possible and sidings are used to join other tracks - that's why I changed it. Haven't decided yet!The layout takes inspiration from multiple prototypes, but I don't want to just pick one name from the list because that does a lot of injustice to that particular station or locale since the surroundings probably won't match with that place at all. Again, I will have to put a story in place first before I decide on the name! That's the pain of proto-freelancing.
If you're not modelling a real place, I would not give it a name directly lifted from its alleged setting. Though a similar name can be fun. My train hobby time is spent in the PC train simulation world, and I've had fun coming up with location names on fictional routes.
