[PRCo] Re: Nachods, Etc.

Dwight Long dwightlong at verizon.net
Tue Dec 27 20:49:14 EST 2011 

Herb

Agreed, and even though those might have been less stringent times in terms 
of safety rules, I think even then this would have been frowned upon.

Dwight

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Herb Brannon" <hrbran at cavtel.net>
To: <pittsburgh-railways at dementix.org>
Sent: Tuesday, December 27, 2011 7:55 PM
Subject: [PRCo] Re: Nachods, Etc.


> So it was not reported to the Traffic Dispatcher then. Had it been
> reported, I can guarantee there would have been a Route Foreman, plus a
> signal crew and anyone else they could round up. "Through a Red Signal" is
> not looked upon as being a "minor" infraction. A very major disruption to
> the safety of and service to the riders.
> On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 18:55, Dwight Long <dwightlong at verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> Herb
>>
>> This was on Rt 65, not Rt 49.
>>
>> I don't recall that there was a route foreman there.  We did not usually
>> have them on our trips.
>>
>> Dwight
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Herb Brannon" <hrbran at cavtel.net>
>> To: <pittsburgh-railways at dementix.org>
>> Sent: Tuesday, December 27, 2011 6:25 PM
>> Subject: [PRCo] Re: Nachods, Etc.
>>
>>
>> > He probably got into some trouble over that. He should have called
>> > dispatch
>> > concerning the red signal before moving ahead. There was always a
>> PRCo/PAT
>> > phone box on the poles at either end of the single track on Arlington 
>> > Av.
>> > How did the Route Foreman correct the situation?
>> >
>> > On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 17:19, Dwight Long <dwightlong at verizon.net>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Herb
>> >>
>> >> In this instance it is not necessary to know that information, because
>> >> the
>> >> operator of the service car readily admitted that the Nachod displayed 
>> >> a
>> >> red
>> >> aspect.  Because he was the only car on the line (he thought), he
>> assumed
>> >> the signal was faulty and ran the red.
>> >>
>> >> There was no fault with the signal system that day.
>> >>
>> >> Dwight
>> >>
>> >> ----- Original Message -----
>> >> From: "Herb Brannon" <hrbran at cavtel.net>
>> >> To: <pittsburgh-railways at dementix.org>
>> >> Sent: Tuesday, December 27, 2011 4:46 PM
>> >> Subject: [PRCo] Re: Nachods, Etc.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > By knowing which car had traveled the furthest on the single track 
>> >> > it
>> >> > can
>> >> > be determined if one did, indeed, run a red signal, or if the signal
>> >> > system
>> >> > failed.
>> >> > On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 16:09, 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.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> 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
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > --
>> >> > Herb Brannon
>> >> > In Cuyahoga Valley National Park
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Herb Brannon
>> > In Cuyahoga Valley National Park
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> -- 
> Herb Brannon
> In Cuyahoga Valley National Park
>
>
>

More information about the Pittsburgh-railways mailing list