As I have written elsewhere I have had occasion to travel the Augusta Lower Road and the Rockland Branch, either by train, car or on foot. The derelict seachlight signals and their remnants, left in place by the Maine Central, and GTI/GRS prior to abandonment and sale to the State of Maine are a haunting reminder of the past. Although the remnants of the signal system on the Rockland Branch are just short of archaeological, e.g. signal stand foundations, the Lower Road seachlights have been left in place and are essentially intact.
For those who know enough to understand what they are looking at these signal systems represent the bygone era when the railroads were the primary means of interstate conveyance for freight and passenger traffic in this part of Maine. They were necessitated by the fact that there were heavy enough volumes of traffic to justify the expense of construction and maintenance of these systems. While to some they are just another piece of railroadiana to me they are a unique historial marker of how important these branches once were to the Maine Central and of how important the Maine Central once was to the national railroad network.
There are many interesting developments in passenger and freight rail service in Maine these days. Sometimes there are capital investments being considered that involve reconstruction and placement of advanced Central Train Control systems for protecting passenger and freight movements over the lines. These are discussed in detail elsewhere.
I do however have some questions regarding the remnants of Maine Central's signal system on both the Rockland Branch and the Augusta Lower Road. I have always noticed how the signal blocks on the Lower Road in Augusta appear to be very short perhaps no more than two to three miles at most per block in some cases. When thinking of resumption of passenger or just freight service on the Lower Road I am always struck by the thought of whether or not these systems would be of any use in operations on this line. The immediate answer is perfectly obvious. If there is only one train or maybe two a day then the Form D Control System (DCS) is more than sufficient for operations on the line. However, in thinking of the past, the immediate answer to the placement of these systems isn't always obvious to me.
Are these small signal blocks designed to handle several locals and switching jobs that would have operated on the line when there were several mills and other jobs along the line during the regular workday? If so then the small blocks would seem to make a lot of sense in that they would permit multiple limited local movements along the main line as needed for freight operations.
Second, I was reflecting on the age of the searchlights that are presently still standing on the Lower Road and was struck by the following thought. First, these searchlights are certainly old enough that they were in fact installed by Maine Central. Although this point is obvious due to GTI/GRSs capital spending habits I still think it's important to state the first principle. Second, these searchlights probably replaced an earlier system which very likely were semaphore signals seeing as how there was no intermediate technology between semaphore and searchlight signals, at least to my knowledge not on the Maine Central. Third, there is at least a chance that the signals were replaced in position, i.e. direct replacement of semaphore with seachlight, meaning that the signal block layout as left today may be the same configuation that has been in place since the Maine Central installed block signals potentially as early as ca. 1920. Is this a correct understanding of the progression of signal technology on this part of the Maine Central?
Third, given that The Gull used to travel over the Lower Road headed southbound as Train No. 8 did freight opreations rely on the timetable in order to stay clear of the line when the streamliner came through or were there simply no freight jobs scheduled around 0500?
Finally, was the signal system on the Rockland Branch dismantled under State of Maine ownership or even earlier under GTI/GRS? Of course MEC doing this is possible too I just didn't think it was likely that it happenned that early, i.e. ca. 1980 or earlier.
As always thanks for the discussion.
For those who know enough to understand what they are looking at these signal systems represent the bygone era when the railroads were the primary means of interstate conveyance for freight and passenger traffic in this part of Maine. They were necessitated by the fact that there were heavy enough volumes of traffic to justify the expense of construction and maintenance of these systems. While to some they are just another piece of railroadiana to me they are a unique historial marker of how important these branches once were to the Maine Central and of how important the Maine Central once was to the national railroad network.
There are many interesting developments in passenger and freight rail service in Maine these days. Sometimes there are capital investments being considered that involve reconstruction and placement of advanced Central Train Control systems for protecting passenger and freight movements over the lines. These are discussed in detail elsewhere.
I do however have some questions regarding the remnants of Maine Central's signal system on both the Rockland Branch and the Augusta Lower Road. I have always noticed how the signal blocks on the Lower Road in Augusta appear to be very short perhaps no more than two to three miles at most per block in some cases. When thinking of resumption of passenger or just freight service on the Lower Road I am always struck by the thought of whether or not these systems would be of any use in operations on this line. The immediate answer is perfectly obvious. If there is only one train or maybe two a day then the Form D Control System (DCS) is more than sufficient for operations on the line. However, in thinking of the past, the immediate answer to the placement of these systems isn't always obvious to me.
Are these small signal blocks designed to handle several locals and switching jobs that would have operated on the line when there were several mills and other jobs along the line during the regular workday? If so then the small blocks would seem to make a lot of sense in that they would permit multiple limited local movements along the main line as needed for freight operations.
Second, I was reflecting on the age of the searchlights that are presently still standing on the Lower Road and was struck by the following thought. First, these searchlights are certainly old enough that they were in fact installed by Maine Central. Although this point is obvious due to GTI/GRSs capital spending habits I still think it's important to state the first principle. Second, these searchlights probably replaced an earlier system which very likely were semaphore signals seeing as how there was no intermediate technology between semaphore and searchlight signals, at least to my knowledge not on the Maine Central. Third, there is at least a chance that the signals were replaced in position, i.e. direct replacement of semaphore with seachlight, meaning that the signal block layout as left today may be the same configuation that has been in place since the Maine Central installed block signals potentially as early as ca. 1920. Is this a correct understanding of the progression of signal technology on this part of the Maine Central?
Third, given that The Gull used to travel over the Lower Road headed southbound as Train No. 8 did freight opreations rely on the timetable in order to stay clear of the line when the streamliner came through or were there simply no freight jobs scheduled around 0500?
Finally, was the signal system on the Rockland Branch dismantled under State of Maine ownership or even earlier under GTI/GRS? Of course MEC doing this is possible too I just didn't think it was likely that it happenned that early, i.e. ca. 1980 or earlier.
As always thanks for the discussion.
Last edited by gokeefe on Tue Mar 09, 2010 7:10 pm, edited 2 times in total.
gokeefe