Inside WINSLOW Tower: Then and Now

If there was a moment where I got into railroad signaling, it would be in the fall of 1998 when I quite literally got "into" railroad signaling. While being dropped off at South Jersey's Winslow Jct for the purpose of completing a 20 mile hike for a Boy Scout merit badge requirement, I noticed that one of the omnipresent plywood panels securing the lower level of WINSLOW tower had been removed. Scrambling inside I was presented with a trove of wonders that forever whet my appetite for the age of relay technology. I luckily had a 35mm film camera with me and was able to take a few photographs, but with my plan for the day already set, I only had about 10 minutes to get my fill. Although I had the motivation and opportunity to return, I as busy with school and kid stuff and by whatever time I did go back the tower had been re-secured. 

For the next two decades I would periodically check up on the tower, waiting for locals to break back in so I could follow up with more photos. It was only in 2023 that I was provided with a do over and lets just say, things were quite different. While I've covered South Jersey's WINSLOW tower and the ghostly remains of the interlocking plant on this blog before, today we will explore the interior with two groups of my own photos photos taken 25 years apart, with some additional insights provided from a 2003 urbex visit and photos from when the tower was still in service. 

If you are not familiar with WINSLOW (aka WINSLOW JCT), please check out my previous coverage to get a better idea of its history and layout. to summarize, WINSLOW was built in 1934 as part of the Pennsylvania-Reading Seashore Lines merger to PRR specifications with a brick tower, bay window and a US&S Model 14 electro-pneumatic interlocking plant. The tower was in service until 1983 when the NJDoT seashore services, run under contract by Conrail, were discontinued due to lower ridership and rapidly declining track conditions. The final service level consisted of 3 peak direction round trips to Atlantic City and 1-2 round trips to Ocean City and Cape May. When the tower closed the signals were turned and remained in place until Amtrak showed up to rebuild the line about 5 years later. 

When I first got into WINSLOW it was about a decade into its second act as a radio repeater base for NJT operations on the line. A small lattice radio mast had been build against the north side of the tower and the upper story windows were still intact and letting in light. Towers serving in useful capacities as relay huts or crew bases is one of the more common factors behind their not getting demolished. 

 
On the ground floor, the relay racks and associated relays had been removed, however the cabling that fed the US&S Model 14 interlocking machine on the operator's floor was largely still in place. From the look of it, one can see why so many old tower had their own regular maintainer that under the old system of inefficient railroad employment, could be in the position for many years.

When I visited in 1998 I don't remember much of anything in the ground floor, but in the 2003 urbex photo we can see that it was being used for general storage. I recall being informed by a Southern Railway of NJ employee mentioned that they had access to the tower, but I can't confirm if the items being stored were theirs or not.

There is a single flight of stairs along the rear wall connecting the relay room to the operator's floor. I could not tell if the relays were caged off or not as this was the typical practice to prevent operators from being tempted to tamper with the interlocking equipment to "fix" certain problems. In the 2003 photos we can see shelf style relays on the stairs, but I did not recall seeing any in 1998.

Heading up the single flight of stairs to the operator's level revealed something unexpected, a false wall built lengthwise across the room with a door in it. 

The false wall had the unfortunate effect of blocking the view of the original PRR pattern model board, expect for a small bit at the top. I also managed to get a tight angle photo in from the side that came out pretty well all things considered. 

The model board matches its final appearance from the mid-1960's through to 1983 where the main lines to Atlantic and Ocean cities were both single track manual block. 

What really blew my mind back in the day was the presence of WINSLOW's 27 lever US&S Model 14 interlocking machine. Until this point I had never physically seen one or even known what one was. While some of my railroad books had contained pictures of specifically PRSL Model 14's, the fact that they didn't look like the classic armstrong type lever frame made it hard to intuit what that strange box thing in the photo was until I literally stumbled upon one and it all clicked, despite the lever cranks had all been removed.

Here is the WINSLOW machine as it appeared in service. 

Amtrak FAIR Interlocking Loses Its Quirks

 A little while back I discussed the evolution of NORTH PHILADELPHIA interlocking from its construction in 1914 to its disestablishment in 2005. Early urban interlockings such as NORTH PHILADELPHIA were colorful characters with all sorts of extra infrastructure to handle not only the main line traffic, but also stuff like industrial switching, yard and light engine moves. FAIR tower in Trenton, NJ is not only NORTH PHILADELPHIA's sibling in appearance, but also in its arc through history. While I don't want to get too deep into the history and evolution of FAIR, I will say that it was drastically expanded in the 1930's, then entered a series of successive diets in the late PRR, Penn Central and Amtrak eras before the tower was closed around 1994.

In its second to last iteration that lasted from around 1990 to about 2020, FAIR had lost all of the double slips and freight support it had maintains up through the end of mineral traffic on the Belvidere and Delaware line. It's primary function was that of a passenger terminal for the Philly and New York area commuter services that terminated there. The two remaining quirky features were two additional tracks at the far northern and northerner limits of the right of way. Track 7 was used to store SEPTA equipment, while "North Low Track" served as an extra place to stash New York bound peak period trains overnight. Below you can see how the plant changes from its late PRR configuration to post CTEC configuration.

The area of interest is the North Low and Hill Tracks. The Hill Track used to connect with the Bordentown Secondary to Camden which saw limited passenger service like the famed Nelly Bly NYC to Atlantic City express train. In the commuter era that was used as precious storage space, keeping alive the old configuration that used to serve Doodlebugs that would run into Trenton from rural South Jersey.

 

While eastbound movements out of North Low could be made via the "Wall Track" past the tower, this involved a Restricted speed signal. The preferred option was the 86 switch protected by the 6BE and 8BE signals. This was located at the eastern end of the platform with 4 dwarf signals protecting the single low speed switch. One of the dwarfs was mounted on a striped stick for better visibility.

At the west end of the platform was another left-hand turnout, the 86W switch and associated 6BW and 8BW dwarf signals. You are seeing things right in this only allowed for North Low access from the hill track. This became an issue when around 2005 NJT opened up its Morrisville Yard west of Trenton in Pennsylvania, turning all of the terminal traffic that needed to be shuffled about into run-through traffic. Trains arriving from Morrisville could not access the North Low and as you can see from the rust, it became disused. 

Starting in 2019, Amtrak brought the rationalization hammer down on this legacy configuration. The 86W switch was reversed, the Hill Track was removed and the 16 switch from Main Track 1 was fixed up for higher speeds. Now trains from Morrisville can access the North Low, making it potentially useful again. Unfortunately the next step came with the same interlocking refresh that removed all of FAIR's pneumatic point machines. The 86 switch and its associated signals were completely removed.

Trains using North Low will now have to take the slow route past FAIR tower and them on 0 Track to HAM interlocking, but as you can see from the grass, it is unlikely there will be a need for North Low any time soon. While this all makes sense, especially in the age where efficiency is more and more important, the 86 switch and its dwarf signals are still a loss worth noting.

NJT's Speed Enforcement System: A Thing That Existed

You might have heard me reference the Northeast's preferred transponder based PTC system ACSES, or the Advanced Civil Speed Enforcement System. In most cases when something called itself "Advanced" its usually a bit of marketing speak, but in this case the basic Speed Enforcement System was a thing that actually existed for a brief period of time on New Jersey Transit's Pascack Valley Line. However because of the rapid pivot to more "Advanced" systems and the 2008 PTC mandate, information on the SES pilot is remarkably hard to come by, however I have been able to piece together a few bits of information that can hopefully shed some light on the technology.

In 1996 NJT suffered its worst accident as of the time of this writing when two trains collated at WEST END interlocking where the diesel Bergen County and Main Lines diverge from the electrified Morris and Essex lines. The cause was a veteran engineer who had been hiding a medical condition that had severely impacted his visual acuity mistaking a Stop signal for a R/R/Y Restricting. In the aftermath NJT began an effort to implement what they called "Positive Train Stop" functionality across its system, which came on the heels of a near system-wide adoption of cab signals and automatic train control (ATC). At the same time Amtrak was completing implementation of its ACSES speed control and PTC system on parts of the NEC in conjunction with the new 150mph Acela rollout. This is where things get a bit murky, but going into the 2000's, both Amtrak and NJT had two different yet compatible transponder systems for "civil" (aka track) speed control, however Amtrak "Advanced" system was integrated with cab signals where as NJT left SES as an intermittent system.

The location for NJT's SES pilot was the Pascack Valley Line, a stepchild service that ran some 30 miles north from the old Erie Main Line to dip its toe into New York State. The single track line offered only weekday single direction peak service and, like the similar old Boonton Line, the PVL was essentially unre-signaled since the Erie days. This signaling came in the form of an Automatic Permissive Block-like bi-directional ABS with occasional non-number plated (ie absolute) automatic signals that would have once appeared at the ends of hand operated passing sidings. Without any actual interlockings and only a single block of cab signaling on approach to Pascack Jct, the limited service PVL was an ideal test bed. 

 

Reading through the SES special instructions in a 2004 NJT Employee Timetable (posted below) we can gain some insight into how the system worked. The evidence points towards SES was an intermittent transponder based system that would convey track speed information in a manner compatible with Amtrak's ACSES, but also fixed signal indications. A positive stop was enforced for Stop, Stop and Proceed and Restricting indications, with the positive stop zone extending 500 feet in advance of the signal. Stop and Proceed, and Restricting could then be passed after an acknowledgement, while Stop needed the dispatcher to provide a numerical override code in addition to the verbal Rule 241 instructions. This would have come into play at the non-plated automatics and the home signal at Pascack Jct. Special instructions about cab signal upgrades and other rules not applying in SES territory further strengthen the intermittent use case. 

 

This of course begs the question about how the system would account for signal upgrades after passing an Approach signal if the associated transponder flags a positive stop point like it does in ACSES. As easy solution would be to place additional active transponder at the start of the stop zone 500 feet from each signal, but I have nothing to confirm this theory. An additional feature of the PVL that made it attractive for the SES pilot and that was the presence of signal overlaps. From what I can tell from 2007 era photos, each set of ABS signals had several car lengths between them which would provide sufficient distance for a train running at reduced speed to get stopped before it might encounter an obstruction. This would explain why the SES stop zone is 500 feet vs 1500 for the ACES zone.

PVL automatic signal location with overlap in 2007 with what might be SES transponders (or grade crossing impedance bonds).

SES was always intended to be a temporary pilot and by 2002 NJT had let a contract for its own Advanced SES that integrated cab signals similar to Amtrak, but without the finicky data radio capability for temporary speed restrictions and stop release. Interestingly the $2 million contract with Union Switch and Signal would have outfitted the entire NJT system with PTS and track speed control by 2008! The wireless data free ASES vs off the shelf ACSES debate would extend into the post-2008 PTC era with the ASES plans eventually morphing into ACSES, but perhaps the original SES hints at what NJT's solution would have looked like. Version 1 ACSES also lacked data radios and needed temporary physical transponders for TSR's and use of the stop release procedure to pass certain signals with a proceed indication. Active SES-style transponder could have solved some of those issues without wireless data.

Unfortunately I have been unable to determine the exact timeline of the ABS SES system on the PVL. I know it was in service in 2004 with the CNJ vintage GP40PH locomotives operating in a dedicated pool. I know that SES was still in service as of Jan 1, 2006, however by the fall of 2007, the line had been re-signaled with Rule 562 cab signaling and upgraded with passing sidings to allow for all-day bi-directional service. Unfortunately, starting in August 2006, all PVL physical characteristics and rule changes were put into a separate supplementary bulletin order that I do not have any examples of. Interestingly, the 300 section of NJT special instructions covering SES were left in place with slight modifications likely to cover the upcoming ASES or ACSES installations due to the 2008 PTC mandate probably resulting in some savings in crew re-training. 

If anyone has any additional information on NJT's SES please let me know so I can update this post or make a new one. I've heard a bunch of other stories regarding issues with hair trigger penalty brake applications, but not much more than anecdotes and speculation.

NJT (CNJ) ESSAY Tower Demolished

 I have the sad duty to report the demolition of ESSAY (aka SA) tower in South Amboy, NJ. Nominally a CNJ tower on the jointly PRR/CNJ operated New York and Long Branch commuter line, it entered in service on Jan, 7, 1942. Since its closure around 1990 the tower had a second life as a maintenance base and had been kept in good shape. Unfortunately it ran afoul of the Raritan Bay Drawbridge replacement project and was demolished on August 29, 2023.

A few years ago I had caught a report that ESSAY was on track to be demolished, but looking at the EIS plans, it did not appear that the new bridge alignment would impact the tower. Unfortunately it appears that the initial reports were correct and we have lost yet another good condition, late model, brick interlocking tower.

This was unfortunately a more recent example of me not acting on intel of an impending demolition with literally years of advance notice. Unfortunately the location was both off my usual path and was not immediately accessible for photos, especially with all of the bridge construction activity. 

ESSAY controlled a modern interlocking plant with a Model 14 interlocking machine and pneumatic signals. It was located at the south end of the drawbridge and the junction with the electrified PRR Jamesburg Branch. It was also notable for overseeing the largely hand operated power change between electric and non-electric at the South Amboy station where the last operational GG-1s wound up their careers in 1983.

The good news is that NJT is generally supportive of its towers as I, in hindsight regrettably, took the time to visit those at SUMMIT and DENVILLE on the DL&W side back in June.

PTC Capacity Impact Visualized

 I've frequently pointed out the impacts of Positive Train Control on train performance in general. While not technically inherent to the requirement, they are an inevitable consequence of policy and implementation choices. These include things such as stacked safety margins, overly conservative performance assumptions and locations tracking uncertainty. While the ACSES system used by cab signal equipped railroads in the northeast is generally superior to the wireless data based ETMS used by the class 1 freight railroads, certain ACSES implementations have continued to demonstrate the performance problems I identified almost a decade ago. Recently I was able to capture a concrete example of one on video.

Here we see an NJT Morris and Essex train led by ALD-45 #4510 entering Newark Broad St station on Track #2. The 4E signal for BROAD interlocking is immediately east of the platform end and the eastbound train gets hit by a positive stop about 700 feet (6-8) carlengths short of the signal location. Instead of being able to complete its station work as the signal system was designed to allow, the train sits off the platform for over 2 minutes, adding to the delay.

ACSES implements its positive stop feature using a two step process.  First a fixed track mounted beacon that transmits other permanent speed and positioning data will inform the onboard system that the train is approaching a positive stop. Next, if no cab signal code is detected , the onboard system will enforce a positive stop by calculating a 0mph stop point based on its super conservative assumptions of ice covered rails and a train with cheese in place of brake pads. The train stops up to 1500 feet from the signal and, well, the current policy is to wait there. The initial concept was for crews to use a stop release procedure to creep up on the signal, a feature implemented by specific freight railroads using ETMS, however most most if not all northeast commuter railroads have taken the CYA approach and just let the trains sit several hundred feet in advance of the signal, even if that means being unable to platform.

Supplementary ACSES transponders at Valley Stream

Apart from stop release, one alternative mitigation is to add additional ACSES transponders that can reduce the location uncertainty. The LIRR has installed two additional sets at Valley Stream that sees the same problem with platform-end signals, although I have heard this can still stop trains 1 or 2 carengths short of the stop point. A quick look at the overhead shows that NJT has not implemented this mitigation at Newark Broad Street. Another mitigation is to set the stop point to the legal requirement of the fouling point of the first trailing point switch or diamond. At NJT's BROAD interlocking this point is about 1 carlength beyond the 4E signal. Finally, they can be more realistic about the performance of the equipment. 

Just like the New York City Subway a decade ago, its always safer to cover ones ass than to fight for performance in a post-pandemic transit landscape were trains are running half empty anyway. If NJT feels like it is looking at service cuts, investing in capacity makes no sense.

Approach Lighting - Special When Lit

Today we are going to examine approach lit signals, what they are, their history, how they are classified and finally, who is using them. What they are is in the name.  The signals only illuminate when the signaling system believes a train is approaching (or otherwise nearby). This is one of those things that people are likely more aware of than they think.  The assumption is that a signal should always be lit as that's the way it works in traffic control.  However anyone who lives around approach lit signals are quick to tell me that "those light up when a train is coming" since its hard not to eventually notice the pattern.

Approach lighting actually goes way back to the days of battery operated block signals where workers would have to physically haul out more electrons when any given signal's supply ran low. With LED technology decades away, the first solution was semaphore signals that didn't need electric illumination.  Since this didn't work well at night, a second solution was to link an electric lamp to the track circuit relay in such a way that a shunt of the track circuit would close the lamp's circuit and illuminate the signals.  Since railroad relay logic both then and now allow one input to control 8 or sometimes more other circuits in a single relay, this was a pretty straightforward arrangement.

Typical railroad battery case

Although pure battery based power supplies were eliminated over time, approach lighting remains fairly popular to this day.  The first reason is that 440v pole line railroad power was both limited in transmission capacity and still not reliable and any fault could drop an entire line segment onto battery backup for hours or even days.  The second reason is what most people would assume to be the first, saving on bulb replacement.  while certainly a concern, low watt railroad lamps are pretty long lived as is and we can also observe the behavior of 20th century railroads to determine their motivations.  Where railroad power was plentiful and reliable, think the PRR's electrified region with 6.9kv 100hz supplies or something like the N&W H-Line that was fed by a kv range 3 phase line supply, signals were lit full time where elsewhere on the same railroads approach lighting was employed.

There are several general classes of approach lighting that I have arranged into bins of my own design.

• Type 1: Type 1 approach lighting is where a signal illuminates only when it's approach block is shunted.  It's the simplest in concept and can be readily observed as when the tail end of a train passes the signal, the signal will deluminate.
  
  
•  Type 1a: This is an even more extreme version of Type 1 where on a multi track line a shuntedn will only illuminate the signal that governs it.
  
  
•  Type 2:  Here a signal location in CTC or other bi-directional territory will illuminate in both directions if either approach block is shunted. Therefore the signal will remain lit for a further period of time once the end of the train passes.
  
  
•  Type 2a: Same multi-track effect as Type 1a, except also in both directions.
  
  
• Type 3: Here a signal will illuminate if a shunt exists within the entire line segment either in advance or in rear of the signal.  This is most applicable in single track CTC or Bi-directional ABS territory and may or may not actually exist in real life.  
  
  
• Type 4:  Another possibly theoretical example would be an approach lighting scheme at interlockings where signals will illuminate if a route is displayed, regardless of (or in addition to) track circuit status.

At this point I have only ever fully confined the use of Types 1 and 2 approach lighting, however a number of anomalies have hinted at Type 3 or 4. There is of course another major exception to these rules in the form of non-circuited track like sidings, secondary tracks or yards.  Signals governing these tracks must remain lit at all times as there is way to detect an approaching train. 

Amtrak Hudson Line CP-156 showing the 24/7 lit siding dwarf and approach lit main track signal.

 Use of approach lighting has varied widely in the time since power limitations became less of a driving force.  Even where power is still provided by a pole line or solar panel, LED lighting would allow for 24/7 display of signals on a fairly small power budget.  There is a small safety boost in that wayside signals can serve as an additional method to alert workers of an approaching train, however it is too unreliable to ever be codified into a rulebook.  Even aggressive users of approach lighting will often make exceptions, especially in built up terminal areas once again pointing to power availability or signal access as a major factor.

At this point Union Pacific is the most aggressive user of approach lighting, employing Type 2a in all of its most recent signal projects.  NS on the other hand is likely the Class 1 most in favor of 24/7 signals, often replacing Conrail era approach lit signals with full time.  CSX uses a mix, but tends towards full time in contrast to the B&O, which was very much in favor of Type 1.  Unfortunately I don't have enough experience with BNSF, CN or CP to comment on their specific tends however at a regional level the old Guilford favors approach lighting while the Reading and Northern splits the difference with full time at interlockings and approach lit at intermediates. 

UP acting like its charged by the photon.

On the passenger side of things approach lighting is much less common as commuter railroads operate in dense metros that have has reliable electric power for well over a century. New Jersey Transit was probably the biggest user of approach lighting and with 1 mile blocks on many of its trunk lines it is possible to observe the next signal light up like a Christmas tree after passing the one before it.  However new Rule 562 territory as well as the RiverLINE light rail have both tended towards full time.  Amtrak used to use Approach lighting on its diesel lines like Michigan, Springfield and Atlantic, but has trended to towards full time, although the new CP-138 on the Hudson Line is approach lit. The other major commuter carriers such as Metro North, LIRR, SEPTA, MBTA, Metra and Caltrain all use primarily full time signals. 

NJT signals at SAUK interlocking are Approach Lit, while those protecting the drawbridge at the joint Conrail interlocking CP-JERSEY are not.

From an fan perspective, approach lighting definitely has its pros and cons. Dark signals are certainly less interesting than lit and deprives one from being able to observe any routes lines up in advance.  However the ability of approach lighting to act as a train proximity warning is highly useful, although could likely be replicated by a radio scanner. It also causes use of a so called "two minute drill" to get photos of displayed signal indications in the time between when a train enters a block and then passes the signal (or passes the signal and then exits the following block).  Salience of the two minute drill actually confirmed the operation of mid-block Signal Indication Points on Conrail's cab signal territory as the approach lighting would only trigger once the approaching train passed the mid-block SIP instead of the previous wayside signal location, thus turning a 2 minute drill onto a 1 minute drill.

That's probably more than you needed to know about approach lighting.  Unlike a lot of signaling trends this one is pretty neutral with neither definite trends in its use nor any major effect on the ecosystem either positive or negative.

Signs! Signs! Everywhere a Sign! - Eastern Passenger Roads

In Part 1 of my look at railroad station signs I covered the East Of Mississippi Class 1 freight railroads, NS, CSX, CP, etc.  Here in Part 2 I am going to be covering the passenger roads in the northeast, Amtrak, SEPTA, NJT, LIRR, Metro North, etc.  Surprisingly, as time has gone on the passenger roads have become significantly less labeled than their freight counterparts.  This could be due to cost cutting, a compact territory that makes getting lost less likely or simply a desire to hide operating practices from the general public. 

Amtrak operates its own trackage as part of the Northeast Corridor, Springfield Line, Harrisburg Line and, for a time, the Atlantic City Line.  Inheriting the infrastructure from bankrupt roads that would be later folded into Conrail, Amtrak would often just leave the old, typically Penn Central, sign in place.

The first thing Amtrak decided to properly brand were its manned interlocking towers where they

adopted a white on blue motif that would last through the present day. 

For remote interlockings constructed during the early NEC Improvement Project era, the Government dollars didn't really cover signs so Amtrak had to settle for stenciling on the relay hut.

The next standard that appeared around 1990 was a totally-not-Conrail white letters on blue background sign which also appeared on the Atlantic City and Springfield lines that were re-signaled at that time.

In the late 1990's Amtrak decided to add a touch of flare with a colorful sign that really showed off the old pointless arrow logo.  These appeared in just a few locations.

Meanwhile, further north Amtrak experimented with a white on black sign.  These are mostly seen on the Boston to New Haven segment and in northern New Jersey.

Which leads us to the present standard which I would call "low observable".  Not sure why Amtrak doesn't want to advertise it's interlocking names, but at least they kept the white on blue.