[PRCo] Re: Nachods, Etc.

Tue Dec 27 13:04:56 EST 2011

Dwight,
Do you remember how far down the hill that meet occurred?
On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 18:00, Dwight Long <dwightlong at verizon.net> wrote:

>
> Phil
>
> Can't comment on the New Arlington Avenue incident, but back in the 60s I
> was on an enthusiast tour which included Rt 65.  We were proceeding north
> and received a clear aspect on the Nachod.  The southbound service car got
> a
> red aspect but ran it, as the operator knew he was the only car on the line
> on Sunday!  His explanation related to the general unreliability of
> Nachods.
>
> Fortunately the near "cornfield meet" was on a stretch where there was good
> visibility.  Ironically it occurred adjacent to the local graveyard!
>
> Dwight
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Phillip Clark Campbell" <pcc_sr at yahoo.com>
> To: <pittsburgh-railways at dementix.org>
> Sent: Monday, December 26, 2011 4:35 AM
> Subject: [PRCo] Re: Nachods, Etc.
>
>
> > Thank you, Mr.Josephson; nice description. It is easy to
> > associate signalling with interurbans but nachods were
> > extensively used on the city system as well weren't they.
> > Two that spring to mind immediately are the 49 and 65 lines.
> > The latter was predominantly bi-directional single track with
> > passing sidings. The 49 had significant single track--on Climax
> > between the loop and Beltzhoover as well as the long stretch
> > on New Arlington. All this was controlled with Nachods.
> > Mr.Brannon has written about experience with Nachods here.
> >
> > http://www.davesrailpix.com/pitts/htm/bvp140.htm
> >
> > http://www.davesrailpix.com/pitts/htm/bvp141.htm
> >
> > Other South Hills lines using Nachods include several different
> > sections of the 40, the single track at the loop on the 39, and even
> > the 38A.
> > http://www.davesrailpix.com/pitts/htm/wvp111.htm
> >
> > The 1 & 5 lines used single track at their junction as double track
> > would not fit; then the outer portion of the 5 was single with a siding
> > and loop, all Nachod controlled. The 4-line used single track and a
> >
> > siding to the outer loop.
> >
> >
> > The 2 & 3 both had single track at their respective loops. The nearby
> > 94 also had single track and a siding at the outer end to the loop.
> > http://www.davesrailpix.com/pitts/htm/wvp076.htm
> >
> > The intersection of California and Brighton Place was single track
> > because of narrow streets. The 6, 7, 10, 13, and 14 all used this
> >
> > location controlled by Nachods. The 6-line also had single track to
> > the outer loop--almost a repeating theme isn't it--but the 6-lacks
> > a siding.
> >
> > The 18, 19, 20 were double track but non-clearance on some curves.
> > These "may" have included Nachods. Many non-clearance curves
> > are simply line of sight on a simple turn but where the devil strip
> > narrowed for a distance nachods were possible. While turns were
> > double track the devil strip was significantly reduced on the 64 and 67
> > in many places, some using nachods. The 67 also had a small
> > portion of single track outbound of Rankin.
> >
> > Neville Island had extensive single track and not a few sidings with
> > Nachods. The outer end of the 23 before crossing the Ohio was
> > single track prw.
> >
> > The 27 and 28 used Nachods on the famous "S" turn under the PRR
> > while the outer end of the 28 was purely single track with 2 sidings
> > and a loop once PCC service began. I assume the intersection of
> > Steuben and Noble was Nachod controlled.
> >
> > The 55 used Nachods to control the single track in the flood control
> > zone near E.Pgh didn't it. The 58 had a significant section of single
> > track with multiple curves. The much liked Trafford was single track
> > with 5 sidings--one rather long across the trestle--and a loop. This
> > was nachod controlled. Near the end many of the sidings were not
> > functional but one assumes it was still Nachod controlled. While
> > only a single franchise car operated a trip or two each day other
> > equipment like charters could be on the line so signalling is needed.
> > http://www.davesrailpix.com/pitts/htm/wvp196.htm
> >
> >
> > The 68-line had a portion of multiple curve single track in Duquesne.
> > http://www.davesrailpix.com/pitts/htm/wvp078.htm
> >
> > Plummer and 47th used a single track intersection from the Car House
> > to double track on both streets probably nachod controlled.
> >
> > Both the Donora and Washington local lines had considerable single
> > track controlled by nachods, much not shared by the interurbans.
> >
> > Somewhere on the internet is a photo of two opposing cars meeting on
> > New Arlington. Car 1684 was one; it was on a charter in Pat days. Only
> > one revenue car was needed for service who apparently thought the
> > red signal was a failure so he proceeded. The photo is labeled wrong
> > indicating 1684 as the service car. I can't find it; maybe someone has
> > that photo or knows its location.
> >
> > Please add to, clarify, or correct the above. It is interesting to note
> > all
> > this nachod controlled territory.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Phil
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Ken and Tracie <ktjosephson at embarqmail.com>
> > To: SCOTT GREIG <m1903a1 at sbcglobal.net>
> > Cc: pittsburgh-railways at dementix.org
> > Sent: Sunday, December 25, 2011 12:53 PM
> > Subject: [PRCo] Nachods, Etc.
> >
> > Scott,
> > Here's that signaling chapter from the 1920s technical book I mentioned.
> > I'm
> > "cc'ing" these quick scans to the Pittsburgh Faithful as the PRCo
> > interurbans used Nachods on some stretches and West Penn used a manual
> > signaling system in places.
> >
> > Merry Christmas,
> >
> > K.
> >
> >
> > -- Attached file removed by Ecartis and put at URL below --
> > -- Type: image/jpeg
> > -- Size: 92k (95141 bytes)
> > -- URL :
> > http://lists.dementix.org/files/pittsburgh-railways/signals001.jpg
> >
> >
> > -- Attached file removed by Ecartis and put at URL below --
> > -- Type: image/jpeg
> > -- Size: 317k (324695 bytes)
> > -- URL :
> > http://lists.dementix.org/files/pittsburgh-railways/signals002.jpg
> >
> >
> > -- Attached file removed by Ecartis and put at URL below --
> > -- Type: image/jpeg
> > -- Size: 162k (165933 bytes)
> > -- URL :
> > http://lists.dementix.org/files/pittsburgh-railways/signals003.jpg
> >
> >
> > -- Attached file removed by Ecartis and put at URL below --
> > -- Type: image/jpeg
> > -- Size: 218k (223272 bytes)
> > -- URL :
> > http://lists.dementix.org/files/pittsburgh-railways/signals004.jpg
> >
> >
> > -- Attached file removed by Ecartis and put at URL below --
> > -- Type: image/jpeg
> > -- Size: 163k (167617 bytes)
> > -- URL :
> > http://lists.dementix.org/files/pittsburgh-railways/signals005.jpg
> >
> >
> > -- Attached file removed by Ecartis and put at URL below --
> > -- Type: image/jpeg
> > -- Size: 212k (217237 bytes)
> > -- URL :
> > http://lists.dementix.org/files/pittsburgh-railways/signals006.jpg
> >
> >
> > -- Attached file removed by Ecartis and put at URL below --
> > -- Type: image/jpeg
> > -- Size: 175k (179326 bytes)
> > -- URL :
> > http://lists.dementix.org/files/pittsburgh-railways/signals007.jpg
> >
> >
> > -- Attached file removed by Ecartis and put at URL below --
> > -- Type: image/jpeg
> > -- Size: 188k (192676 bytes)
> > -- URL :
> > http://lists.dementix.org/files/pittsburgh-railways/signals008.jpg
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>

-- 
Herb Brannon
In Cuyahoga Valley National Park