Looking for prototype information on New York Central signals

Look under http://www.rr-fallenflags.org and then go to NYCRR and look thru photos for river routes and signals you may get some clean shots for modeling.

How about NYCSHS????

https://nycshs.org/

Does this help?

Rusty

The NYC Motion Picture Bureau (RR's had a lot of "bureaus") produced several informative films for movie theater and indistrial showings back in the 40's - 50's, one of which was entitled "The Railroad Signal" (1940's). Naturally it exhibited NYC equipment and practice. This has been available on VHS (I have it somewhere on a tape with many other NYC programs) and I assume DVD.

But, the best part is that it in on You Tube right now - I just checked and watched a minute of it. You also get to see a "dramatic" rendering of an early white-walled Niagara at the beginning. Woo-hoo.

You Tube is a good resource for NYC - and other - info and videos.

superwarp1 posted:

How about NYCSHS????

https://nycshs.org/

I tried them with no luck so far.  Thanks for the suggestion.

Rusty Traque posted:

Does this help?

Rusty

Thanks.  Yes we have some blue-purple colored lights picked out to use for the signals. 

Try this link   https://youtu.be/OVXgSn86Y1c  It should take you to YouTube. the video is "New York Central Hudson Steam Locomotive" by Backshop Rail Productions. At the 16:45 mark there is footage of a Hudson taking water on the fly.  In the foreground, between the mains is what appears to be a Track Pan Light.  Hope this helps.

C.J.

Were the lights always illuminated?  What if the water in the pans were frozen in the New York winter, would they be dark? Would there be one signal on each side of the pans?

Chuck Sartor posted:

Were the lights always illuminated? 

Yes.

What if the water in the pans were frozen in the New York winter, would they be dark?

At each track pan facility, there was a steam plant and water treatment plant, in order to keep the track pans from freezing.

Would there be one signal on each side of the pans?

Well, yes for bi-directional running. The signal light was for the Engineer, who would then signal the Fireman. The Fireman would be standing by at the air operating valve (mounted on the front of the tender) for the water scoop, and when the Engineer gave him the "wave", the Fireman would lower the scoop.The Fireman would then raise the scoop when the Engineer "waved" again.

Thanks Jack.

Hot Water posted:

Chuck Sartor posted:

Were the lights always illuminated? 

Yes.

What if the water in the pans were frozen in the New York winter, would they be dark?

At each track pan facility, there was a steam plant and water treatment plant, in order to keep the track pans from freezing.

Would there be one signal on each side of the pans?

Well, yes for bi-directional running. The signal light was for the Engineer, who would then signal the Fireman. The Fireman would be standing by at the air operating valve (mounted on the front of the tender) for the water scoop, and when the Engineer gave him the "wave", the Fireman would lower the scoop.The Fireman would then raise the scoop when the Engineer "waved" again.

 

Thank you for this information.  We were wondering about the signals and if they were always illuminated too.

To further answer the question about the pans in the wintertime, we understand the steam plant pump kept the water moving or circulating to keep the pans from freezing in the winter.

GP 40 posted:

Try this link   https://youtu.be/OVXgSn86Y1c  It should take you to YouTube. the video is "New York Central Hudson Steam Locomotive" by Backshop Rail Productions. At the 16:45 mark there is footage of a Hudson taking water on the fly.  In the foreground, between the mains is what appears to be a Track Pan Light.  Hope this helps.

 

C.J.

 

 

Excellent!  Thank you!

One additional bit of interesting information, concerning the NYC water scooping operation; the idea was NOT to "fill the tender". The plan was to have a large enough coal supply, i.e. 47 tons on the PT type tenders, so as to operate "non stop" between Harmon, New York and Cleveland, or Chicago to Cleveland, except for scheduled station stops. With Cleveland being the only main line "fuel stop", water could, and did, be scooped and any/all the various track pans, thus keeping a good supply on the tender, but rarely completely filling the tender with water.

The NYC really had the scooping of water down to a science by 1946, and the locomotives equipped with PT tenders could, and did, scoop water at speeds up to 80 MPH!

Hot Water posted:

One additional bit of interesting information, concerning the NYC water scooping operation; the idea was NOT to "fill the tender". The plan was to have a large enough coal supply, i.e. 47 tons on the PT type tenders, so as to operate "non stop" between Harmon, New York and Cleveland, or Chicago to Cleveland, except for scheduled station stops. With Cleveland being the only main line "fuel stop", water could, and did, be scooped and any/all the various track pans, thus keeping a good supply on the tender, but rarely completely filling the tender with water.

The NYC really had the scooping of water down to a science by 1946, and the locomotives equipped with PT tenders could, and did, scoop water at speeds up to 80 MPH!

For more in-depth information on the specifics of the NYC PT Tenders try this link

 https://nycshs.files.wordpress...14/07/pt-tenders.pdf

A little more information on the history and operation of track pans can be found here... www.jimquest.com/writ/trains/pans/Track_Pans.pdf   

If you want the details on actual dimensions and placement in orientation to the track, that will be found in NYC System Standards.  There must be a few of the standards books that were saved, but who has them and whether they have been copied or reprinted are the things to find out.  The Santa Fe system Standards are all copied and in print and available from the Santa Fe Railway Historical and Modeling Society, and are definitely useful in modeling.  Perhaps the NYC's society has done the same.  If not, perhaps the society has a NYC archive like ours, with system standards books where you could get the dimensions for the height, distance from nearest rail, etc.?  Or these drawings may have been printed in an issue of the NYC society's magazine.  The drawings are out there, somewhere.  There are a lot of NYC modelers.

From the Engineering Record, April 5, 1913, regarding keeping the pans from freezing: 

Tom 

Hot Water posted:

Chuck Sartor posted:

Were the lights always illuminated? 

Yes.

What if the water in the pans were frozen in the New York winter, would they be dark?

At each track pan facility, there was a steam plant and water treatment plant, in order to keep the track pans from freezing.

Would there be one signal on each side of the pans?

Well, yes for bi-directional running. The signal light was for the Engineer, who would then signal the Fireman. The Fireman would be standing by at the air operating valve (mounted on the front of the tender) for the water scoop, and when the Engineer gave him the "wave", the Fireman would lower the scoop.The Fireman would then raise the scoop when the Engineer "waved" again.

 

http://www.canadasouthern.com

Hot Water posted:

One additional bit of interesting information, concerning the NYC water scooping operation; the idea was NOT to "fill the tender". The plan was to have a large enough coal supply, i.e. 47 tons on the PT type tenders, so as to operate "non stop" between Harmon, New York and Cleveland, or Chicago to Cleveland, except for scheduled station stops. With Cleveland being the only main line "fuel stop", water could, and did, be scooped and any/all the various track pans, thus keeping a good supply on the tender, but rarely completely filling the tender with water.

The NYC really had the scooping of water down to a science by 1946, and the locomotives equipped with PT tenders could, and did, scoop water at speeds up to 80 MPH!

In regard to 80 mph.  I was thinking aobut that a took a look at some old NYC employee timetables.  A Hudson/Mohawk Division 1946 timetable show a speed limit of 60 mph at track pans.  Apparently the 80 mph use of pans came later.  Here is the track pan item in the speed limits in a 1946 Syracuse Division timetables.

To see more than 100 employee timetables, most between 1930 and 1967, use this url and click on the Timetables tab.

http://www.canadasouthern.com

Malcolm LAughlin

Hot Water posted:

Chuck Sartor posted:

Were the lights always illuminated? 

Yes.

What if the water in the pans were frozen in the New York winter, would they be dark?

At each track pan facility, there was a steam plant and water treatment plant, in order to keep the track pans from freezing.

Would there be one signal on each side of the pans?

Well, yes for bi-directional running. The signal light was for the Engineer, who would then signal the Fireman. The Fireman would be standing by at the air operating valve (mounted on the front of the tender) for the water scoop, and when the Engineer gave him the "wave", the Fireman would lower the scoop.The Fireman would then raise the scoop when the Engineer "waved" again.

 

In regard to bi-directional running, I feel pretty sure that all track pans were in double track ABS territory with all tracks being designated eastbound or westbound.  Any line that was single track could not have had enough traffic to economically justify the expense of track pans.  I can't think of a single track NYC line on which a Hudson or Niagara woudl have been appropriate power.  There could have been an exception.  I'll post an inquiry on the NYC group and see if anyone knows of exceptions to what I've said.

If the signals never changed color and were always illuminated, wouldn't that be an illuminated trackside marker, instead of a signal?

Chuck Sartor posted:

If the signals never changed color and were always illuminated, wouldn't that be an illuminated trackside marker, instead of a

Chuck Sartor posted:

If the signals never changed color and were always illuminated, wouldn't that be an illuminated trackside marker, instead of a signal?

Given that it is an implementation of Rule 299 in the part of the book of rules that specifies signal indications, it can't not be a signal.