[PRCo] Re: WP signals

[Dwight Long]

Phil

It was a retrofit, done in the years when I lived in the area.  At one time I had a list of cars to which that was applied.  I may or may not still have it, but don't wish to go digging for it--too much else on the "Honeydo" list today.  

Those cars racked up much more mileage than the non-equipped cars, as they usually performed the base service and weekend/holiday runs.

Dwight

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Phillip Clark Campbell 
  To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org 
  Sent: Wednesday, 24 November, 2010 12:29
  Subject: [PRCo] Re: WP signals


  Mr.Long;
  'Old' is not in the dictionary any more;  if you look very carefully
  you can miss it.

  Yes, the diagram is in the original PERC,  the updated PRMA
  tome on WP, and also CERA #110 book.  The diagram is not
  in CERA's  'Trolley Sparks' Bulletin 89 on WP of March-1950 
  but the signal system is described nicely.

  I can generally read basic electric circuits;  what confused me is
  the drawing shows both 'paddles' are shown together as 'if' they were one
  switch.  "If' this were true  (it isn't as you pointed out)  there would
  be a bar connecting the two paddles.  I asked just to make sure.

  Yes, US&S signals on Prc are great until sand is dropped on the
  rails.  But in this very imperfect world such 'challenges' are to be
  expected aren't they.  Several of the PCC 17-series Interurbans had
  brushes in the track brake to sweep the rails clear of sand.  Do you
  know if this was on the cars when delivered or was it a retrofit?



   Phil
  Without  a   'coast'   but  not  a   'cause.'





  ________________________________
  From: Dwight Long <dwightlong at verizon.net>
  To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
  Sent: Tue, November 23, 2010 11:58:05 PM
  Subject: [PRCo] Re: WP signals

  Phil

  I did not realize you were old enough to have ridden the Charleroi line!

  Of course its USS signal system, which used not only color light signals 
  (outside of cities, where Nachods were used) but also head block indicators or 
  "come-ons" was far more sophisticated than West Penn's.

  If you might have a copy of the original PERC West Penn booklet from 1952, there 
  is a diagram drawn by the late Bob Brown which shows how the signals worked. 
  This was probably carried forward into the reissue put out by PRMA later, but I 
  would have to check to be sure.  At any rate, Brownie's diagram and text pretty 
  well explain the whole thing.  BTW, WP Coke Region nominal voltage was 
  700--PRC's 600.

  Dwight
    ----- Original Message ----- 
    From: Phillip Clark Campbell 
    To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org 
    Sent: Tuesday, 23 November, 2010 20:58
    Subject: [PRCo] Re: WP signals


    Mr.Long,
    Thank you for your efforts.  I was re-reading the WP books;
    the signal system always interested me.  I am basically
    familiar with how it worked;  just had a couple questions for
    clarification.

    Thank you for mentioning the lights were in series;  I didn't
    ask this figuring the Rwy wouldn't run this risk of failure
    while the block was occupied.  The thought did cross my mind,
    however, because I believe it was mentioned that lights used
    in / on the equipment were used for the signals.  These are
    often strung in series to operate off the 600 aren't they.  Headlights
    are an obvious exception.

    I observed the same on Prc;  operators were very professional.
    Exceptions exist of course so the word 'accident' may be employed.
    Operators into Charleroi were more like family to many of us who
    rode regularly;  locals often brought them food and treats for their
    long journeys.


     Phil
    Without  a   'coast'   but  not  a   'cause.'





    ________________________________
    From: Dwight Long <dwightlong at verizon.net>
    To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
    Sent: Tue, November 23, 2010 8:37:39 PM
    Subject: [PRCo] Re: WP signals

    Phil

    I don't know what the frame of reference was for this post, but I can add 
  this:

    Yes, there were two "paddle" switches in the West Penn system--one turned off 
    the lights in the section just vacated and the other turned them on in the 
    section ahead. West Penn often operated their spring switch-equipped crossing 
    sidings left-handed so that the motormen could lean out the door and throw 
  these 

    switches when located in the space  between the tracks.  This, however, was 
  not 

    universally true.

    The system over the years presented very few problems from "signal failure."  
    But it was not a fail safe system.  Such a system would have had the lights on 

    constantly except when the block was occupied.  In that manner, signal lights 
    out would have meant that a car could not enter the block.

    The biggest problem was that the lights were connected in series, just like 
  old 

    fashioned Christmas tree lamps, and if one went out, all did.  However, the 
  most 

    likely time for one to fail was when first switched on from cold, and motormen 

    were not permitted to pass into a non-lit section without dispatcher 
  authority. 

    The problem was mitigated somewhat by running the voltage at less than for 
  what 

    the lamps were rated.

    Second sections were rare on WP, but one could follow into the block on its 
    leader, maintaining visual contact but with sufficient distance to stop if the 

    leader did.  The alternative, for a not-too-close following section, or an 
    excursion car, was to wait for the leader to vacate the block ahead (lights 
    out!) and then proceed as normal, lighting up the block before entry.

    There were intermediate lights at places such as curves with limited 
  visibility, 

    etc, but this of course did not help the spacing problem with following moves, 

    just alerted the motorman if an opposing car had ignored the crossing point 
  and 

    entered the block.

    Human error as well as electrical error was always a potential in a system as 
    primitive as this.  However, on the up side, WP motormen were very 
  professional, 

    conscientious, and alert to their surroundings, the schedules and normal 
    crossing points, and the like.  Such a system would probably be asking for a 
    collision with today's far less well trained and disciplined work force.

    What prompted this enquiry?

    Dwight
      ----- Original Message ----- 
      From: Phillip Clark Campbell 
      To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org 
      Sent: Tuesday, 23 November, 2010 19:59
      Subject: [PRCo] WP signals


      I assume that releasing the signals behind at a siding and
      activating the signals ahead were separate functions.  The
      drawing suggests they 'may' work simultaneously.  This is
      in regards to the manual signals.
      With 30-60 min headways there isn't much problem with
      following cars, just opposing.  Did this system of signals
      present many problems?  Did WP have cornfield meets
      from signal failure?

      How were signals handled when a second section was added
      to a schedule?  Did both cars occupy the single track at the
      same time?  Spacing could be a problem with all the curves.
      I could see the first car forgetting about the second section
      then shutting down the signals at the next siding.  This could
      allow an opposing car to meet the second section on single
      track.


       Phil
      Without  a   'coast'   but  not  a   'cause.'