<div dir="ltr">Grant,<div>Thanks for all your help with this. Seeing this slide on Ebay:</div><div><br></div><div><a href="https://www.ebay.com/itm/396757279251?_skw=norfolk+western&itmmeta=01JY40ZNY5NNWZGPGSFZH4QT7V&hash=item5c6093a213:g:aMEAAOSwyihoUfGt&itmprp=enc%3AAQAKAAAA8FkggFvd1GGDu0w3yXCmi1f%2BXw1S%2BGApAI7GC%2F98ZC3Qxyv%2FnCXVVuLPhEyS5sObZQ%2FaPJkCR0%2BdAqOnBYdIoWTtsk%2FsqBoqbyLWU2oyIrJO8YyZPMMVnHMgvF%2B0gxALcl9aOOOVdYuIkNv4Q05J3nc5EuaH5L8hlTIgBRnB%2B%2Fv%2FOveJf7%2BIfmRdn2q5sV177TOeqfldGww9Oh235xnJ8KcuBc%2F6%2FQjmgdq83a1lRO5p77RmloMMlZu%2BobMbhiBp83q0bfbw4QlfBfhfsNcY2%2BM50T7E0yVfQYNCN2XZR2%2BuHrnBmKLjKjQWrtFvvPH51Q%3D%3D%7Ctkp%3ABk9SR7Lf_oDxZQ">https://www.ebay.com/itm/396757279251?_skw=norfolk+western&itmmeta=01JY40ZNY5NNWZGPGSFZH4QT7V&hash=item5c6093a213:g:aMEAAOSwyihoUfGt&itmprp=enc%3AAQAKAAAA8FkggFvd1GGDu0w3yXCmi1f%2BXw1S%2BGApAI7GC%2F98ZC3Qxyv%2FnCXVVuLPhEyS5sObZQ%2FaPJkCR0%2BdAqOnBYdIoWTtsk%2FsqBoqbyLWU2oyIrJO8YyZPMMVnHMgvF%2B0gxALcl9aOOOVdYuIkNv4Q05J3nc5EuaH5L8hlTIgBRnB%2B%2Fv%2FOveJf7%2BIfmRdn2q5sV177TOeqfldGww9Oh235xnJ8KcuBc%2F6%2FQjmgdq83a1lRO5p77RmloMMlZu%2BobMbhiBp83q0bfbw4QlfBfhfsNcY2%2BM50T7E0yVfQYNCN2XZR2%2BuHrnBmKLjKjQWrtFvvPH51Q%3D%3D%7Ctkp%3ABk9SR7Lf_oDxZQ</a></div><div><br></div><div>reminded me that the mains East bound out of Bluefield were also signaled such that the "best" (most permissive) indication you could get was diverging/medium clear. This would seemingly limited an Eastbound movement to 30 mph even if everything was clear ahead of it, which seems unduly restrictive. Somewhere in the deep, dark recesses of my tortured mind, I seem to recall someone elaborating on the differences in method of control used for the Christiansburg district versus the Pokey and perhaps that these signal indications were used to inform the engineer of such a change in control for the territory he was entering.</div><div>Does anyone know if the speed for Eastbounds leaving Bluefield was actually limited to 30 mph, or if these signals were telling another story?</div><div>Thanks again to all,</div><div>Jim Cochran </div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 3:17 PM NW Mailing List <<a href="mailto:nw-mailing-list@nwhs.org">nw-mailing-list@nwhs.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><u></u>
<div>
<div>Jim,<br>
<br>
With apologies, I'll attempt a reply to your original post with
some specifics.<br>
<br>
Diverging indications notify an engine crew of a speed restriction
due to one or more turnouts ahead. By 1951, anyway, N&W
Operating Rule 105 (b) simply stated that unless otherwise
provided, speed is restricted to 25MPH for passenger trains and
15MPH for other trains or engines when using turnouts or
crossovers. As Jimmy stated, exceptions were noted in ETTs and
could vary a lot, for example, between the Radford and Pocahontas
Divisions.<br>
<br>
So, diverging aspects are applied to signals in both directions
"through" the turnout's slower/secondary route. BTW, the N&W's
CPL version is not included in the earlier Rule 283 examples
below. The three diverging indications are shown here, starting
with the distant/advance signal indication Approach Diverging:<br>
<br>
<img src="cid:ii_197a72a8b31832e70ed1"> <br>
<img src="cid:ii_197a72a8b32b105ffe2" alt=""><br>
<br>
This is an eastbound at Vera Jct. on the Cincinnati line
approaching the turnout on the eastbound main from Columbus, shown
in the lower-right corner. I can't recall specifics as to what
other signals are here (bi-directional? both directions? etc.) in
this time frame and with which aspects.<br>
<br>
So, what's with the term "medium" and the N&W? <br>
<br>
I don't know. I've asked around, and this came up here on the List
several years ago. As of 1951, it appeared in two contexts within
N&W signal rules:<br>
<br>
In the signal indication description of Rule 285 – Approach, the
term "medium speed" appeared: "Proceed preparing to stop at next
signal. Train exceeding medium speed must at once reduce to that
speed." It appeared in the Operating Rules Definitions as half the
max authorized speed, but not to exceed 30MPH.<br>
<br>
In the name of the three "diverging" indication rules, "medium"
replaced "diverging," e.g., Diverging Clear became Medium Clear.
However, the term "prescribed speed" was used in the rule
descriptions per Rule 105 (b) above – not medium speed.<br>
<br>
Neither usage appeared to have much, if any, direct relevance, and
the ambiguity seemed to be acknowledged later, because by the 1981
Rule Book, both instances were deleted. "Medium" was changed back
to "Diverging" for indication names, and the reference to "medium
speed" was removed from the Approach Rule description and the term
was removed from the Rules Definitions. <br>
<br>
Hope this helps, just my take; edits, thoughts and questions
welcome.<br>
<br>
Grant Carpenter<br>
<br>
On 6/19/2025 7:55 AM, NW Mailing List wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">All signal fans,
<div>I just found this definition/explanation for what a
"diverging" route can be interpreted to be and it covers the
case at Vera:<img src="cid:ii_197a72a8b322c620a6b3" alt=""></div>
<div>One of these days I hope to understand to signal a
railroad.</div>
<div>Jim Cochran</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at
8:47 PM NW Mailing List <<a href="mailto:nw-mailing-list@nwhs.org" target="_blank">nw-mailing-list@nwhs.org</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="auto">
<div>The operating book rules calls out the AAR rules in my
'51 and '45 rule book. That is speed signaling, although
if you look at the rules as written they do a bad job
explaining that. The only thing that usually drove medium
speed was a diverging route in a turnout.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Is there another facing point turnout ahead?</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">David Baker</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote" dir="auto">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, Jun 18, 2025,
6:44 PM NW Mailing List <<a href="mailto:nw-mailing-list@nwhs.org" target="_blank">nw-mailing-list@nwhs.org</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">Grant,
<div>Thanks for the reply and great seeing you at
the con as well. Your answer caused me to dig
more deeply into the history of N&W
aspects/indications and in particular the
horizontal arm over vertical arm aspect that has
most recently been referred to as "diverging
clear". Please refer to the attached pages from
N&W rule books as reference for what follows.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>In 1910 it was called "slower speed route
clear" when used in conjunction with one high
speed route and diverging routes. Seems clear
this was speed signaling.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>In 1915 it was "proceed under control, being
prepared to stop".</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>In 1930 it was just "proceed". Does anyone
have a copy of the rules between 1915 and 1930?
I'd like to know what that one has to say.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>In 1945 it was " proceed through diverging
route at prescribed speed". This looks like route
signaling. Again if someone has intervening
information, I'd appreciate knowing about it.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>In 1951 it was " proceed through turnout route
at prescribed speed" which would seem to indicate
route signaling, but the aspect name is "medium
clear" which point toward speed signaling.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>In 1961 it was the same but showed the option
of a colorized aspect.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>As far as I know this was maintained until the
end of the N&W. The term through diverging or
turnout route seems to reinforce my questioning
its use where one line "joins" another. When I
visited Tom Dressler many years ago, he informed
me that going "through" a turnout was to take the
diverging path while going "over" a turnout meant
staying on the non-diverging route. Both of these
would indicate a facing points movement and
wouldn't seem to be readily applicable to trailing
points movements.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The NORAC definition of this aspect is
something like proceed at medium speed until you
train clears turnouts or interlockings and then
proceed at prescribed speed. This would seem
appropriate for such a situation as we find at
Vera, but I have not seen this kink of definition
in any reference for N&W signaling.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Hope there may be more to the story and would
welcome input from anyone who has
experience/knowledge of how N&W signaling
worked and the philosophy used by the system
designers.</div>
<div>Thanks,</div>
<div>Jim Cochran <br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, Jun 17,
2025 at 7:47 PM NW Mailing List <<a href="mailto:nw-mailing-list@nwhs.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">nw-mailing-list@nwhs.org</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<div>Jim,<br>
<br>
Generally. . .<br>
<br>
Route signaling is speed signaling by
implication. <br>
<br>
So, diverging aspects can indicate a lower
speed through the diverging route of a
turnout, compared to the adjacent track speed,
and regardless of direction.<br>
<br>
So, diverging aspects will be used when facing
points, and may be used when trailing points.<br>
<br>
. . . mostly.<br>
<br>
Good to see you and All at the Convention.<br>
<br>
Grant Carpenter<br>
<br>
On 6/8/2025 10:31 AM, NW Mailing List wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">Attached is a photo of Vera
Jct. showing the signal facing Peavine
traffic. Why would the "main stem" from
Columbus have been considered a "diverging"
route in this case? Perhaps it is in some
way analogous to middle sidings being
signaled for diverging aspects where they
rejoin the main. I tend to think of
diverging aspects being displayed to facing
points movements where they are signaled to
take a route that "diverges" from the one
they are currently on. Of course there are
no "joining" aspects, so did the term
"diverging" cover the act of taking a route
that your current route is joining? Any
thoughts will be appreciated.
<div>Jim Cochran</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
________________________________________<br>
<a href="mailto:NW-Mailing-List@nwhs.org" target="_blank">NW-Mailing-List@nwhs.org</a><br>
To change your subscription go to<br>
<a href="https://pairlist6.pair.net/mailman/options/nw-mailing-list" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://pairlist6.pair.net/mailman/options/nw-mailing-list</a><br>
Browse the NW-Mailing-List archives at<br>
<a href="https://pairlist6.pair.net/pipermail/nw-mailing-list/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://pairlist6.pair.net/pipermail/nw-mailing-list/</a><br>
</blockquote></div>