Old NYC signal bridge type with tower

Here is an old NYC signal bridge type that dates from the end of the 19th century. I’m glad I didn’t work in those towers back in the day. Not only was climbing up that small ladder during a pelting rain or snow storm a pain, but the john was probably several hundred yards away. The first shot is of Tower 10 at Rotterdam Junction. What’s amazing is how lightweight the main structure was. It looked more like modern day scaffolding. The New Haven or Pennsylvania would have constructed similar signal bridges of heavy steel lattice work construction. In guess this particular signal bridge type was mostly gone by 1910.

The second shot is from Tower 24 overlooking the tracks at Little Falls.

Great period photos of the Mohawk Division. About the exact location on Gulf Curve where the engine dropping downgrade is located of the guy going east on #4 is where the engine of the Lake Shore turned over in 04-40. The J class locomotive (5315) going west left #1 track, crossed #3 & #4, and came to rest on the north side of #4 against the rocks. The locomotive left the track so abruptly that trailing cars of the consist actually passed the wreck site and came to rest west of that point.

As a young boy a Sunday family outing would be a drive to Gulf Curve in the middle 40's when the NYCS reconstructed it by moving it south making a larger radius. This involved moving the Barge Canal, the Mohawk River, and much excavation which was a mammoth project for the period. Result of project raised track speed (for psgr) from 45 to 60 MPH. In my time on Mohawk we did not have to acknowledge (ATS) for this speed restriction but it's my understanding the origional curve, at 45 MPH, was protected by open inductors that required acknowledgement both east & west.

Following the 1940 Gulf Curve disaster, NYC posted curve restrictions with wayside signs systemwide, which indicated the milepost limits of the restricted curves. Further...

As I had been told, ATS inductors were open (by wayside signals "pinned" to a less favorable indication than "clear"). This was a creative and reasonably effective method of enforcing compliance with restrictive curve speeds at critical points in ATS territory. On NYC'S Hudson Division, signals in advance of the curves at Hudson station were "pinned" to display Advance Approach, requiring the engineer to forestall the ATS in the manner described above. I wonder if there were other locations on NYC ATS territory that were set up the same way?

BTW, I understand the curves at Elizabeth NJ on the former PRR had been similarly protected with a restrictive cab signal indication, and wonder when that was first placed in effect?

The same thing happened at Back Bay, MA, after a not very intelligent trainee operating train 66 rear ended a commuter train. Today Amtrak and other trains get a cab signal indication that requires an enforced reduction in speed approaching that station. This was one that should not have happened in the first place but I doubt if it will again. I suspect there are other locations in the NEC where this takes place as well. I seem to think the New York Central also had an ATS inductor on the Harlem approaching Chatham, old timetables make mention of this.
Noel Weaver

The NYC used the Green-over-Yellow aspect "Advance Approach Medium" at locations such as the curves at Peekskill, Hudson, and Schnectady.

Indication was "Approach the second signal at Medium Speed", and there was no immediate requirment to reduce speed. If the Engr. failed to acknowledge the signal, the penalty application would occur.

shlustig wrote:The NYC used the Green-over-Yellow aspect "Advance Approach Medium" at locations such as the curves at Peekskill, Hudson, and Schnectady.

Indication was "Approach the second signal at Medium Speed", and there was no immediate requirment to reduce speed. If the Engr. failed to acknowledge the signal, the penalty application would occur.

This is interesting, SHL, I remember the G/Y aspect on the Harlem too between MO and Woodlawn in the NYC days although of course there was no ATS in use in that territory.
Noel Weaver

That's right, Noel.

That aspect was added on the Lower Harlem to allow better spacing of trains in view of the relatively short signal blocks and the large number of trains. Enginemen could pace their movement and avoid unnecessary braking.

I was told in a PM that the Green / Yellow was also used by NYC on the eastward and westward approaches to OD Tower @ Ashtabula (downgrade in both directions to where the mainline crossed the NYC and PRR double-track lines to the Harbor) and on the approaches to Burt Tower @ Galion because of the curve to / from the ERIE on the Indianapolis route and the slow-speed crossovers on the Columbus route, but I don't personally recall either of those.

At the time of the photographs three systems of block operations were widely recognized.
1) Telegraph Block System
2) Automatic Block System
3) Controlled Manual Block System

The tower shown in the fist picture seems to indicate a Telegraph Block System. The signalman received information from adjoining towers by telegraph and manually positioned the semaphores with levers. How long did this type of block system last on the New York Central’s mainlines?

Here is a picture of the early block instruments/electric locks for four tracks once used by the NYC in the Controlled Manual Block System.

Here is link to a New York Central educational documentary (1948) on signaling for the uninitiated ones like me that has some great imagery.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2jbS0cpq8s