Search This Blog

Sunday, August 7, 2016

A Stingy Man's CTC

I'm talked before about various "poor man's" signaling.  Well I don't think anyone could accuse the great Pennsylvania Railroad of being poor, however compared to many peer railroads they were almost pathologically opposed to CTC.  Sure, there were a few schemes like the largely single-track Port Road and Buffalo Line, but where the PRR was using two or more tracks, manned block stations were the name of the game all the way into the Conrail era.

While recently searching around for information on Reading towers, I came upon an interesting resource relating to an interesting manual block scheme employed by the PRR on their Schukyll Valley line between Philadelphia and Reading. This line was one of several built in the late 19th century as part of the PRR's feud with the Reading.  Intended to stab into the heart of Reading territory the line didn't have quite its intended level of success, but ultimately winding its way to the Scranton area, the route was seeing about 18 passenger and 8 freight trains per day in the 1930's.

Click to Enlarge

Unlike the Reading's 2-4 track ABS main line, the PRR's attempt of competition was mostly single track with passing sidings operated under manual block rules.  On the twelve miles of the line centered on Birdsboro, PA there were three passing sidings, each requiring a manned block station that in the depths of the depression, even the likes of the PRR couldn't afford.  While the technology to CTC this type of line had been debuted by the NY Central in 1927 and was also being deployed by the PRR at THORN and COLA, the powers that be decided on a more cost effective solution.

BROOKE tower, note both the PRR and Reading signs.

The jointly operated PRR/RDG  BROOKE tower in Birdsboro controlled a crossing between the PRR line and the Reading's line to Wilmington as well as a number of other local yard and industrial tracks.  Since its ancillary duties prevented BROOK from being closed, the PRR decided to get some value out of the operator there installed a 20-lever table interlocking setup to remote control both the local BROOKE siding and one additional siding in either direction. However if you think that sounds like a CTC island...you would be wrong.

The 20-lever table setup had been reduced to 8 by the 1970's.

First, as far as I can tell the system was direct wire, not some sort of remote code system as typically employed in CTC.  More importantly, there was no traffic control, which is two of the three words that make up the term Centralized Traffic Control.  The operator at BROOK would use the levers to work the remote switches as well as the manual block signal granting access to the next block.  Track occupancy lamps on the table units would confirm the passage of the train.  In fact almost the entire line was covered by track circuits and distant/home signals would provide full block status between themselves and the next manual block entrance (Stop and Proceed being substituted by Caution).

Despite being a bit of a kludge, the system was successful, operating until BROOKE was closed in 1977.  It allowed the PRR to close two manned Block Stations and paid for itself within 3 years.  Why they didn't just go for CTC is still a mystery.  After all the tracks were circuited and the sidings signaled and under remote operation.  My theory is that the PRR was just very conservative when it came to its focus on reliable operation and didn't want to gamble on a technology was not yet fully established.

2 comments:

  1. I think you answered yourself by pointing out that the Brooke installation was successful. However, the PRR was not pathologically opposed to CTC, unless you have developed some sort of narrow view of what "CTC" really is. Despite NYC "debuting" CTC(on the the T&OC in 1927), the PRR was a much more enthusiastic user of the system with a number of installations made beginning in 1929, and continuing through the early 1930s, while the NYC made no additional installations during the period. In the St. Louis Division installations beginning in 1940, PRR expanded CTC to encompass almost the entire mainline west of Indianapolis. Had they not been forced by union complaints to the ICC to restrict CTC board operation to brotherhood members, CTC might have become more widespread on the PRR.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Perhaps there was a lines-east/lines-west distinction, but at least according to my observations of 1950's and 60's diagrams and operations, the PRR seemed to still be using traditional methods more than its many rivals. There were clearly trials (Port Road, Buffalo Line, etc) and economizing (CTC consoles in major towers), but at a certain point management clearly decided against a full embrace.

      Delete