PHOTOS: CP-TITUS - History of Flat Junction

CP-TITUS, formerly known as Klapperthal Junction under the Reading railroad, was a British style two-track flat junction that survived until a Norfolk Southern re-signaling project in 2018. Although one of the more common junction formats overseas, the two track flat saw only limited use in North America, mostly in the Northeast, and then rapidly fell out of flavor after the expansion of bi-directional signaling in the 1970's. The Reading in particular had a thing for the two track flat junction format with many examples throughout its network. Even the Reading's 3 or 4 track flat junctions often featured diamonds (usually with movable points) or double slip switches. Although most of these were eliminated during Conrail rationalization projects in the 1990's, CP-TITUS remained due to the specific geography of the situation making an in-place rationalization impractical. Conrail successor Norfolk Southern ultimately rolled the complete replacement of the old junction into it's 2018 ABS elimination project between Norristown and Reading.

A two track flat junction is actually a very simple affair to signal with only two levers needed for switches and another two for signals (at least under the US&S or unit lever systems). Built at the eastern end of the Reading Belt Line in 1900, the junction featured a mechanical lever interlocking until 1951 when the entire Belt Line was placed under the control of the CTC machine in Lebanon Valley Jct tower, which sat at the immediate western end of the Lebanon Valley branch's bridge over the Schuylkill River. Around this time the junction was also modified to neck the diverging Belt Line route to a single track as westbound traffic would diverge onto the Belt Line from Klapperthal Junction, while eastbound traffic would continue along the eastbound only "Turkey Path" track to join the main line at BIRD interlocking in Birdsboro.

The formation of Conrail saw the name eventually change to CP-TITUS and a general decline in freight traffic to Reading yard combined with the end of passenger service in 1983 led to the decision to single track the slow twisty route between CP-TITUS and downtown Reading. As a result, by 1987 Conrail had to modify the junction and being Conrail they chose the most "cost effective" method which involved shunting the westbound main track into a new single main heading west from the junction. Also at some point in the 80's or 90's the interlocking was re-signaled with Reading era hardware being generally replaced by contemporary Conrail equipment. What was left was a two track flat junction that had been converted into a scissors crossover. It might be a little hard to see in the diagrams, but the tracks interacting with the diamond are the crossovers while the two other tracks are the straights. Note that the old style US&S Numbering with Left and Right signals was retained after the Conrail modifications.

Since the 1951 re-signaling CP-TITUS has only had two signal "levers", 2 and 6, with the Right signals governing westbound movements and the Left signals governing eastbound movements. Here we see the high mast 2R signal for westbound movements and the dwarf 6R for reverse direction movements off the eastbound rule 251 #1 track.

The two head 6R searchlight dwarf signal existed since the 1951 re-signaling, however Conrail may have replaced the Reading era hardware with a new GRS model SA, which was still in Conrail's front line inventory in the 80's and 90's. Under the Reading the signal could display G/Y Medium Clear, Y/R Slow Approach and R/Y Restricting. Conrail changed the Medium Speed indications to NORAC (G/*R*, Y/*R*) and may have also added a G/G straight Clear for routes into the new bi-directional main track to Reading.

The 2R mast was modified from the Reading configuration to only give Medium Speed indications as the straight route to Reading was eliminated and replaced with a diverging route into the bi-directional single track. In another mix of Conrail and Reading practice the signal has Conrail US&S Model NR signal heads, but retains a dedicated third head to display R/R/Y Restricting.

The Reading used GRS Model 5C point machines in it's 1951 CTC project, one of which remained unaltered on the #1B switch. These are recognized by the square brake housing on the end of the motor.

In 1998 all of the point machines were listed as GRS Model 5C, but by 2018 3 of the five had been replaced by modern Model 5H dual control machines such as we see here on the 5B switch.

The Movable Point Frog was powered by a hybrid 5C machine that had been upgraded to the 5G standard. Movable point frogs have two sets of moving points that require a combined push and pull motion. The #1 switch MPF at CP-TITUS accomplishes this by means of a reversing crank.

Here we see the straight route through the Movable Point Front showing off the classic lines of the double track flat junction. Still, diamonds and movable point frogs are big ticket maintenance items compared to a stepped junction that rely entirely on crossovers. That style can be seen at CP-SM on the Boston Line and although it looks completely different, it supports the exact same mix of train movements.

Caught on Camera: Original BART CTC Dispatch Center

Control centers with non-video displays are a true work of art and are vanishing just as quickly as the interlocking tower.  Wiring up a custom, semi-immutable display with all sorts of tiny lamps and pieces that could become obsolete within a year just cam't compete with a giant display wall that costs a couple thousand dollars and can be driven from an off the shelf TV.  However there was a time between the advent of centralized control center and the cheap video display wall that all sorts of these one off boards were constructed.

One such modern, but not too modern control center was that of the Bay Area Rapid Transit, which opened for business in 1972.  I've actually seen photos of it's control center in a number of 80's vintage rail transit books that would always feature BART and WMATA as examples of the future of rapid transit.  Here is the best example of those photos.

Click me, I'm high res.

I'm not sure if Westinghouse means it is a US&S product as US&S was a part of WABCO at the time, but WABCO was not the same as the "Big W" Westinghouse so they might have gotten the contract as more of an industrial control thing as opposed to a railroad signaling thing.  Anyway, note the spartan NASA style consoles with integrated phones and displays (and probably ash trays).  All of that and the wall sized model board is pretty distinctive so there was little chance I'd miss it when it appeared in the 1971 George Lucas Science Fiction film, TXH 1138.

Yeah, there's no mistaking that is the BART system!  Filmed in 1970 or 1971 the BART control center would have still been in the shrink wrap, with much of the system still under construction or still on the drawing boards.  Still, BART knew enough about what they were going to do to have the whole model board cut and dry 4 years ahead of time.

If you are wondering why there are two copies of the BART layout on either side of the room, it's not because the dispatcher have poor eyesight.  The display on the right is for rail operations, trains, signals, etc.  The other one on the left is the power dispatcher's diagram that shows the sections of third rail, substations and feeder lines. If you loo closely you can just about see the power distribution lines apart from the track sections on the power board.

Well chosen camera angle to disguise anything actually written on the special purpose interface. 

 

They've even got those snazzy phones!

 Probably hitting a key on the telephone concentrator.

Great view of the train movement board, but I'm interested in how in 1970 the entire operation could be staffed by just three people (although maybe each desk would support multiple persons at peak times).  Also, if you go back to the first picture note the size of the room vs the small number of dispatch desks.  I suspect one desk was for the power director, another for the train director and the one in the middle was some sort of chief or a service coordinator who could make announcements and such. 

THX 1138 used a lot of the to-be-opened BART system as locations for it's dystopian underground society.  In fact, the climax was filmed in a BART tunnel where the tracks had yet to be laid.  The rebar formed sort of a ladder effect so to simulate climbing up a shaft the camera was rotate 90o and the actors made to "climb" horizontally.  Amazing what good old George Lucas could think up when he didn't have CGI as a crutch 😏

Early US&S Promotional CTC Video

The first Centralized Traffic Control installation was developed by the General Railway Signaling company in 1927 for the New York Central in Ohio.  1927 also saw the first motion picture "talkie", the Jazz Singer with Al Jolson. It looks like Union Switch and Signal only has enough time to respond to one of these new technologies because I found an early 1930's SILENT film released by US&S promoting the advantages of a brand new CTC project on the Burlington Route between Denver and Akron, Colorado. The film is 30 minutes long and goes into great detail about how the new technology works and the time is saved over manual traffic control (aka Train Order) systems.



Remember that CTC dispatching was pretty advanced for the 1950's.  This was 20 years before that and a dispatcher's console with an illuminated real time model board must have been able to absolutely blow people's minds. 

NS and CSX Re-signaling News

I am on a trip to Texas and I'll have a more detailed trip report shortly, but I wanted to first report on some additional bits of signaling news.  First the giant CP-16 wye junction in Duquesne, PA that sat at the junction of the Port Perry Branch and the Mon Line and featured PRR position light signals and pneumatic point machines has been re-signaled with the typical combo.  I was hoping to get out there this summer, but just like the Conemaugh Line to the north it seems that NS attacked the branch lines before going after the Main Line :-(

Next up the popular railfanning location of Palmer, MA, where the New Englande Central crosses the former CSX Boston Line has lost it's Conrail era (~1992) signals.  The Boston Line re-signaling is still somewhat haphazard given that the signaling is so new and uses a Rule 562 setup with NORAC signal rules.  I am not sure what the ultimate plan is so get out there and get your photos ASAP. 

For example a year ago the searchlights at CP-187 showed no signals of replacement and CP-45 in Worcester has undergone some isolated signal replacements, but nothing wholesale.

The ABC's of GRS Model 5 Switch Machines

Today in North America railroads pretty much have two choices with it comes to power operated switch machines.  They can get a Union Switch and Signal M3 derivative or a General Railway Signal Model 5 derivative.  These aren't new models either as both designs have been around since the 1930's with only minor modifications.  For the M3 family there are a few basic sub-types, dual control, low profile, that rare one that can run a movable point diamond, but unless you find yourself face-to-face with an M2, the US&S offerings are pretty uniform.

The GRS Model 5 on the other hand, comes in 8 distinct offerings labeled A through G.  The first four, A, B, C and D, were available upon introduction of the family and they were eventually superseded by sub-models E, F, G and H, which are still available today.  Today I am going to take you through the identifying characteristics of each model, but first some quick notes on the common design elements.  All Model 5 switch machines consist of three sections.  A motor sticking out of one end in a conformal casing, a drive and locking section that moves the points and locks them in place, and finally a point detection section that houses contacts and other control elements.  Power only models have a flat top with a port for an emergency winding crank.  Dual control models have a hump on the top with the manual throw lever on one side.

Replacement GRS Model 5A point machine at JOHN ST interlocking in Toronto.

The Models 5A and 5B were required to be operated from a GRS pistol grip style of interlocking machine as those have motor control functions built in.  Power for the switch motor would be wired through the lever itself and upon the completion of throw the 5A or 5B machines would send a reverse current back to the tower that would allow the lever to be fully thrown in a process termed "dynamic indication".  During the throw the operator would actually need to monitor an amp meter in case the points became stuck and the motor started to overload.

The 5A's and 5B's are easily identified by their motor housing which features an angled access door.  The only difference between and A and B is that the B's are equipped for both manual and power control.

Surviving GRS 5C at CP-LAUREL

 The models 5C and 5D are intended to be operated from an all-relay or other non-pistol grip style interlocking system, although they could still be attached to the latter.  Unlike the 5A and 5B, these incorporate a motor controller into unit resulting in longer overall dimensions. 

Surviving GRS 5C at CP-TITUS

The distinctive feature of the 5C is a large box on the end of the motor which houses a brake to slow the motor as it reaches the end of travel.  The 5D is shown in the catalogue to have the same housing as the 5A/B, but I cannot confirm that layout from observations in the wild.

Uncommon GRS Model 5F at CPO-5 on the former D&H Colonie Sub.

 The Models 5E and 5F are the conceptual replacements for the 5A and 5B in that these also lack an internal motor controller, but there is no requirement to have a manually operated interlocking machine.  As some sort of motor control is still necessary, a 5E or 5F simply requires the control elements to be external switch machine itself.

GRS Model 5E conveniently installed as switch 5E on a SEPTA Market Frankford Line interlocking. 

The 5E/F are distinguishable by their noticeably reduced length compared to the internal controller models and with the other models the 5E is power operation only and the 5F is dual control.



5F model machines seem to be popular in New England, especially on the former Guilford Rail System, and also at some former B&O interlockings that had manned towers up through the 80's or 90's.

GRS 5G at CP-TITUS

 The 5G is pretty much an updated 5C without the large box for the motor brake on the end.  

The built in motor controller can be seen where the cover bulges between the point detector and the drive mechanism.

GRS 5H at CP-BURN

Of course the king of the GRS model line is the 5H, which is a dual control 5G.  Basically unless you want to buy a US&S style machine or you have a passenger or mass transit line that doesn't need dual control, you are going to be buying a GRS (now Alstom) Model 5H point machine.   Still, while these things are about as common and appealing as Darth Vader signals, if you keep your eyes peeled, you might just spot something a bit more unique ;-)

LENOX and WILLOWS Towers Close

In a devastating blow to St Louis area rail history and living examples of General Railway Signal Co technology, I just learned that both LENOX and WILLOWS towers closed in the later part of 2018.  LENOX was a former Big Four tower operated by Union Pacific between Granite City and Alton and WILLOWS was operated by Kansas City Southern.

LENOX tower was built in 1924 with an 80 lever GRS Model 2 interlocking machine. It eventually passed from the former New York Central to the Chicago and Alton (owned by a succession of other railroads) to finally the Union Pacific in 1996.  As late as 2016 the future of the lower looked bright as no funding was available to rebuild the plant as part of the Illinois High Speed Rail Lincoln Corridor.  However it appeared that Union Pacific had grown tired of looking for a state financed rebuild and settled for a simple CTC automation.

 The real bummer is that I am scheduled to travel the Texas Eagle route for the first time in early 15 years at the end of this month and was really looking forward to get some reasonable photos of LENOX's other features such as the single slip switch and old B&O style CPL signals.  Latest report is that the tower is still standing and the lights are still on, but nobody is home :-(

WILLOWS tower, built in 1903 and equipped with a 112-lever, pre-GRS Taylor Signal Co Model 2 interlocking machine, was one of those I thought would be around for some time to cone due to the intersection of 4 lines with 6 diamonds and 5 competing railroads (NS, TRRA, CP, KCS and CSX).  Well I guess I was wrong :-(  Word is that Kansas City Southern is looking to donate the vintage interlocking machine to the science museum co-located with the Kansas City Union Station.

These latest closures leave only one or two examples of either the GRS or Taylor Model 2 interlocking machines left in the North American rail network.  My cursory count gives me three in Chicago (JB, LAKE ST, 16TH ST) and two more in New Orleans (East and West BRIDGE JCT). 

NYCTA Speed Increases - Q1 2019 Update

Back in December I reported on how the NYC Subway was finally being forced to move away from their "safety at all costs" mentality because they had pretty much melted the whole system down.  Well I am happy to report that the effort has continued on at pretty much the same pace into 2019 with about another 27 speed improvements taking effect since January 21th, 2019. 

And these aren't all just trivial increases of 5 mph.  If you look at the above chart you'll see an instance of a 25mph restriction being removed entirely (basically raising the speed to whatever the motorman can get) and if you like something a little bit more definite you can see another instance of a 25mph restriction being raised to 45mph.  You can see the MTA's official list of speed improvements right here and also catch some legitimate reporting on the project at Railway Age.

PATCO just recently had their 40mph tunnel stretches knocked back to 30mph because it made the consultants nervous despite there being not a single issue over 50 years over operation. 

Hopefully this will inspire other transit systems that have seen similar slowdowns, like PATCO and SEPTA, to disregard Cover Their Ass consultants and get back their lost capacity. You never know when you might need it.