[PRCo] Re: Nachods, Etc.

Dwight Long dwightlong at verizon.net
Tue Dec 27 17:21:55 EST 2011 

Derrick

Ha!

You are right.  I can send all I wish;  Ecartis simply will not include any 
fots I send in the message it disseminates to the subscribers.

Same end result, but you stated the case correctly.

Dwight

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Derrick Brashear" <shadow at gmail.com>
To: <pittsburgh-railways at dementix.org>
Sent: Tuesday, December 27, 2011 4:51 PM
Subject: [PRCo] Re: Nachods, Etc.


>
>
> Derrick
>
> On Dec 27, 2011, at 4:10 PM, Dwight Long <dwightlong at verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> Herb
>>
>> I have photos of it.  However, they are on slides and I would have to dig
>> them out and scan them.  And then Ecartis would not let me send them with
>> the email.
>>
>
> Ecartis won't pass it through, but at no point does it preclude you from 
> sending anything.
>
> Yes, I'm a nitpicker
>
>> If this is of importance to you, I'll try to find the relevant slides and
>> send a scan to you directly rather than through Dementix.  Let me know.
>>
>> Best of my memory is that it was hard by the cemetery.
>>
>> Dwight
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>> From: "Herb Brannon" <hrbran at cavtel.net>
>> To: <pittsburgh-railways at dementix.org>
>> Sent: Tuesday, December 27, 2011 1:04 PM
>> Subject: [PRCo] Re: Nachods, Etc.
>>
>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

More information about the Pittsburgh-railways mailing list