[PRCo] Re: Braking Systems

[Fred Schneider]

Are you trying to say that the contractor hired by PAT (the operator)  
removed it and that PAT isn't in any way at fault for the fiasco?

On Oct 20, 2005, at 5:13 PM, James B. Holland wrote:

> John Swindler wrote:
>
>
>> Jim/Fred:
>>
>> It wasn't the operator that removed the necessary action derail  
>> switch.
>>
>> John
>>
>
>
> Would this be considered a Necessity Action turnout?       Toronto  
> used
> such a system which is outside the norm used by others and PRCo.
> Under the Toronto system a turnout stays set and It Is Necessary To  
> Take
> Action to set it in another position  --  on PRCo, SF, Philly, and  
> most
> other systems the turnout will set for the straight through direction
> unless the toggle is activated // power applied when passing  
> through the
> contactor which sets  AND  maintains a turnout for the diverge  
> direction.
>
> This turnout still operated in traditional PRCo fashion but with delay
> and a reset so once a car passed through it returned to derail  
> position.
>
> Just a clarification of terminology  --  believe this is not a  
> Necessity
> Action type turnout although it was Necessary to set it for the  
> desired
> direction  --  but that is true of any turnout.
>
>
>
> Jim__Holland
>
>
> I__Like__Ike.......And__PCCs!!
>
> down with pantographs ---- UP___WITH___TROLLEYPOLES!!!!!!!
>
>
>