Railroad Forums 

  • Maine Central Searchlight & Semaphore ABS

  • Discussion relating to the pre-1983 B&M and MEC railroads. For current operations, please see the Pan Am Railways Forum.
Discussion relating to the pre-1983 B&M and MEC railroads. For current operations, please see the Pan Am Railways Forum.

Moderator: MEC407

 #780761  by gokeefe
 
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.
Last edited by gokeefe on Tue Mar 09, 2010 7:10 pm, edited 2 times in total.
 #780871  by Mikejf
 
The searchlight signal types are used elsewhere on the old MEC. Several are in Auburn around the Rumford Junction siding, Danville Jct. and in Lewiston. Perhaps they have been updated slightly but still the same mast and base that MEC used back in the day.

Signal systems are usually set up so there are multiple blocks protecting one area, so the train does not come up to a stop signal. Perhaps this is what all the signals are about you are seeing. Augusta for instance would have been protected by atleast 3 signals in one direction.

Mike
 #780934  by gokeefe
 
Received today by PM from a very reliable source who wishes to remain unidentified, posted by permission of the author:
I don't claim to be an expert on MEC signal systems, but I do know that MEC put ABS on all of their lines that carried passengers around 1916. I believe this was in response to a passenger train being hit by another train while it was waiting to board passengers. [They] used to have them on the Calais branch, too. These signals were semaphore type signals when installed and I'm pretty sure that they were still semaphore type on the Calais, Rockland and Mountain Sub. when decommisioned in the late 50's. I don't know when the block signals on the Portland Division were upgraded to the searchlight type, but probably not until the 50's. The searchlight type was better in the regard it displayed the same aspect night and day. I also know that CTC was put in between Northern Maine Junction and Pittsfield in 1957. They were controlled at MD tower near Northern Maine Junction. This replaced the double iron and block signals between these 2 stations. Another thing I'll mention about block signals is that they were designed to protect a train against following trains. In regards to No.8, The Gull, it was listed as a first class train and would have had rights over most anything else. So, yes, a freight train would have to clear up for it. The timetable also mentioned that 23, the Gull's eastbound counterpart, was superior to it between Clinton and Bangor. This was an exception because normally westbound trains were superior to eastbound trains of the same class. Also, all MEC trains were either east, or west bound, not north or south.
 #780938  by gokeefe
 
Here's some of my reply:
gokeefe wrote:On my trip from Rockland - Augusta in 2008 I observed many old signal stand foundations on the Rockland Branch that had been decomissioned. I have to think about this very carefully, but I may have seen at least one instance of an old searchlight signal attached to the stand lying on the ground. However, this also may have been in the vicinity of the Carleton Bridge, which is still protected by signals, now upgraded to CTC. I am certain that in some instances the foundations still had concrete cisterns nearby inside some of which you could see the old battery banks. I certainly got the impression that some of these old batteries were newer than the 1950's but I could easily be wrong about that as we were rolling along at about 45 MPH.

I find you [sic] information very interesting as it demonstrates to me that Maine Central continued to invest in the infrastructure of the Lower Road even after it was plainly evident to them that it would not be used for passenger service. I would be very interested in the exact dates of any changes by Maine Central to their signal infrastructure. I think its worth knowing if they left their signals in place until the end of the passenger era of they made the changes prior to the last runs. That certainly makes me wonder about their freight volumes on the Lower Road at the time. I would think that most of it was bridge traffic. Perhaps this also speaks to the strategic importance of the line to the company, in that it allowed them an alternative North-South connection to Waterville from Portland.

I certainly find the timing of the CTC installation NMJ to Pittsfield very interesting. There is a study in contrasts here in that in one area MEC began to abandon their infrastructure and that in another they upgraded it to a very modern standard.
 #780940  by gokeefe
 
One additional detail from the previously mentioned author:
One other thing about the old Lower Road is back in MEC days, westbound freights were routed this way and eastbounds were routed up the Back Road, in effect making it a double track mainline to Waterville.
 #781026  by Cowford
 
However, this also may have been in the vicinity of the Carleton Bridge, which is still protected by signals, now upgraded to CTC.


CTC or ABS? In the late 70s, the Rockland branch was dark with the exception of ABS on the approach to Brunswick and bridge protection in Bath and Wiscasset. Interestingly, the local freight (324/325) ran as a scheduled, third class train then. Now this is notable: the local's schedule is faster (by 5 mins westward, 15 minutes eastward) than the current Maine Eastern's tourist train schedule! Given the era's maximum posted speed limit of 25mph, it was not a schedule that could have been closely followed.
I find you [sic] information very interesting as it demonstrates to me that Maine Central continued to invest in the infrastructure of the Lower Road even after it was plainly evident to them that it would not be used for passenger service.
The "MEC" of today is not the MEC of years past. When passenger service was winding down on the MEC, the road was handling 225,000 freight carloads (excluding LCL) per year and had ~3,000 employees! But it is revealing to also look at other stats: The average weight per load was a paltry 63,000 lbs. Yikes! Maine tri-x trailers carry more payload than that. If you were able to go back in time and employ modern equipment/track, upping the average weight per load to, say 190,000 lbs, annual carloads would have fallen 67 percent (!) to ~75,000. In other words (and getting back to the point about all the signalling systems in place), the MEC (and every other road) had massive infrastructure to support the movement of a lot of dinky cars.

GO'K, if you don't have any, I'd recommend you get your hands on some old MEC annual reports. The information within gives great historical perspective and insights to the past.
 #781036  by gokeefe
 
Cowford,

Thanks for the response! In case I missed a point I believe we are both talking about the same thing re: CTC or ABS as the Carleton Bridge is in Bath. I did not know nor had I ever seen any indication of signal protection for the bascule bridge in Wiscasset. So conclusively we can say that any signal stand remnants on the Rockland Branch are in fact from semaphores that per the author were taken down in the 1950's. Do you also have the same understanding that the signals were taken down around that time?

One other question. You mention the freight was a scheduled third class train. What are the normal distinctions for the classes? Is there a standard definition of such, or is it usually defined differently on each road?

Your statistics are very telling. In a way they confirm a nagging but subtle suspicion I've had about the Lower Road and perhaps Maine Central in general in this area, i.e. although they had invested heavily in their infrastructure with these well signaled, carefully graded and maintained RoWs the Lower Road and its country cousin, the Back Road certainly weren't the Transcon. Truly, it's interesting to walk along the Rail Trail between Augusta and Gardiner and think of all the freight that would have been moving along the line, and if one thought back far enough there would even be the occasional streamliner. But it certainly is nothing like the double and triple track mainlines leaving Chicago that were operated by AT&SF. Even for me as much as I think certain type of rail service are useful or beneficial to Maine it is very hard to imagine one mile long train after another with car springs loaded down to the trucks pounding along. Perhaps on the Mountain Division during its best year ever but certainly not the Lower Road.

In essence they were overinvesting in their infrastructure. To a certain extent your explanation makes a lot of sense the railroad had to move a lot of cars but as you mentioned not a lot of weight. More cars mean more trains, and more trains mean more congestion on the line, which requires more traffic management capabilities. So we can say that although the Lower Road was busy (albeit inefficiently so) it certainly wasn't overloaded, meanwhile, the Rockland Branch was in the process of dying.
 #781054  by Cowford
 
I make the distinction between ABS and CTC as they are not the same. The Carleton bridge signals/interlocking were (are?) controlled by the drawtender. I'm not a student of the branch's history... your contact's comments sound authoritative. My info's from a 1979 employee timetable.

Here's a link to info on train class, etc. Train classes are universally defined, though superiority by direction can vary (I think the old CP line in Maine was different than MEC).

http://www.gatewaynmra.org/tto.htm

The Mountain's best days, tonnage wise, were likely toward the end of its life in the 1970s. In the early 60s, the line was only handling about 60 loads per day, according to my rough estimates.

To your final point, I don't think you can conclude that they were overinvesting. Rather, they were maintaining their plant to meet the present and expected needs of the time. LCL was discontinued in 1964; in 1965, CTC was installed between Portland and Sodom in order to eliminate double track on the segment, as well as towers as Royal Jct and Yarmouth Jct, etc. The trains of the 1960s were not nearly as efficient as the trains of 2010. And customers paid for that inefficiency. PAR would kill to get the same revenue per ton (adusted for inflation) that the MEC got back then!
 #781108  by TomNelligan
 
Cowford wrote: Interestingly, the local freight (324/325) ran as a scheduled, third class train then. Now this is notable: the local's schedule is faster (by 5 mins westward, 15 minutes eastward) than the current Maine Eastern's tourist train schedule! Given the era's maximum posted speed limit of 25mph, it was not a schedule that could have been closely followed.
If I remember correctly, this was simply an operating convenience for the one-train-a-day branch. By listing the local as a scheduled train in the employee timetable, there was no need to issue train orders for it every day, or to employ an operator at Rockland to issue the orders, which would otherwise be necessary in order for it to operate as an extra (as most local freights on most railroads did). The B&M did the same thing on the Lincoln branch in New Hampshire.
 #781135  by gokeefe
 
Cowford wrote:I make the distinction between ABS and CTC as they are not the same. The Carleton bridge signals/interlocking were (are?) controlled by the drawtender. I'm not a student of the branch's history... your contact's comments sound authoritative. My info's from a 1979 employee timetable.
Yes, I understand they're different. The Carleton Bridge signals at present have signs on boths ends showing "Begin CTC Territory" (or something very similar to that effect), however I am under the impression this is simply controlled by the drawtender not some central dispatch operation located at a remote site.
 #781183  by gokeefe
 
Discussion of these signals and their construction ca. 1916 brought to mind the following question. Did the ABS track circuits installed also have provision for signalling on the WW&F diamond at Wiscasset? There has already been indication that there were some type of signals for the bascule bridge in Wiscasset, which is in the immediate vicinity. This creates something of an overlap as the signal blocks for the bridge and potentially the signal blocks for the WW&F might have overlapped on the MEC main line. Given that WW&F didn't shut down completely until the 1930s this seems to be at least possible.
 #781272  by Mikejf
 
The diamond with the WW&F was protected by ball signals. Never any electronic gadgets there. Of course, the use of ball signals is what led to the destruction of one Dairy car. The Engineer of the MEC thought the signal was set for him when the WW&F had the ball signal for them and the diamond blocked.
Mike
 #781359  by gokeefe
 
Received by PM:
About the Carlton Bridge signals, Cowford is right about them being controlled by the bridgetender.
...
The control system had a type of interlocking system that wouldn't let you raise the bridge until all the signals displayed "stop" indications and the smash boards were in the foul. I think the signal system was built by Union Switch and Signal.
What are smash boards?
 #781407  by gokeefe
 
Ask and you shall receive... :-D

Received by PM:
Smashboards were like a giant size semaphore blade. When they displayed a "stop" signal, they would drop and were long enough that they would be in the foul area where a train would hit them if they passed a "stop" signal, alerting the crew that they had really screwed up and had better take immediate action.
Many thanks to the author.