Графични страници
PDF файл
ePub

March 12, 1891 – Third Avenue Railroad Company of New York. March 13, 1891 - Atlantic Avenue Railroad Company of Brooklyn.

March 16, 1891 —Glens Falls, Sandy Hill and Fort Edward Railroad Company.

March 18, 1881 - Prospect Park and Coney Island Railroad Company of Brooklyn.

March 125, 1891 — Brooklyn City Railroad Company. Issue, $6,000,000. 2

March 26, 1891 -- Troy and Albia Railroad Company.
April 8, 1891 – East and West Railway Company of New York.
April 11, 1891 – The Albany Railway.

April 13, 1891 - Adirondack and St. Lawrence Rajlroad Company. Issue, $3,000,000.

April 27, 1891 — Cooperstown and Charlotte Valley Railroad Company, $45,000.

April 28, 1891-Crosstown Street Railway Company of Buffalo. April 30, 1891 – Genesee and Wyoming Valley Railroad Company.

VARIOUS APPLICATIONS BY RAILROAD COMPANIES.

I.

IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF THE FITCHBURG RAILROAD COMPANY

FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE BOARD OF AN INTERLOCKING SWITCH AND SIGNAL APPARATUS AT THE CROSSING OF THE FITCHBURG RAILROAD AND THE LEBANON SPRINGS RAILROAD AT PETERSBURGH JUNCTION.

September 22, 1890. This application, dated September the 11th, was lodged with the Board.

Mr. E. K. Turner, chief engineer of the road, presented to the Board on September the 22d, a drawing showing the details of the proposed interlocking system.

Distance signals are provided in both directions at a distance of twelve hundred feet from the crossing, and home signals closer thereto. Provision is made for derailing the train on either road should the engineer ryn past the home signals. There is a signal tower from which the operator has a full view in all directions. The signals are interlocked with the switch levers. Every precaution appears to be taken to prevent accident.

In view of the above facts it is ordered that the stop provided in section 5 of chapter 439 of the Laws of 1884, may be discontinued when the interlocking switch and signal apparatus is adopted and put in operation at such crossing by the railroads, there crossing each other at a level, drawings of which have been submitted to the Board of Railroad Commissioners this day, which system is hereby approved in this case.

By the Board.

II.

IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF THE HERKIMER, NEWPORT AND POLAND

NARROW GAUGE RAILWAY COMPANY, FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE BOARD OF A CHANGE OF GAUGE FROM THREE FEET SIX INCHES TO FOUR FEET EIGHT AND ONE-HALF INCHES, IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER 78 OF THE LAWS OF 1891.

May 18, 1891. This application, dated April 29, 1891, was 'lodged with the Board.

The statute provides in section 1, that “the Herkimer, Newport and Poland Narrow Gauge Railway Company, by and with the consent of the State Railroad Commissioners, is hereby authorized to change its gauge of three feet six inches between the rails to a standard gauge, whenever the stockholders of said railroad company owning three-fourths in amount of its capital stock shall consent thereto or in writing request the directors to make such change."

The application sets forth that at a special meeting of the directors held in the company's office in Herkimer on Friday, April 17, 1891, & petition was presented signed by all the stockholders, representing every share of stock issued, requesting that the company change its gauge from narrow to standard gauge.

A public hearing was set down at the office of the Board of Railroad Commissioners in its office in Albany on the 11th day of May, 1891, due notice of which was published in the Herkimer Democrat.

The company was represented by Henry L. Sprague, counsel. No opposition either in person or by letter to the proposed change of guage has been received.

In view of the above facts, the Board of Railroad Commissioners deems that it is justified in approving and does hereby approve of a change of gauge of the Herkimer, Newport and Poland Narrow Gauge Railway Company from three feet six inches to four feet eight and one-half inches.

By the Board.

AN

USE ON THE

TRACKS

III.
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY THE NEW YORK CENTRAL AND HUD-

SON RIVER RAILROAD COMPANY FOR INVESTIGATION AND REPORT BY
THE BOARD UPON THE WESTINGHOUSE PNEUMATIC SYSTEM OF BLOCK
SIGNALING, IN
HARLEM DEPRESSED

FROM MOTT HAVEN JUNCTION TO WOODLAWN JUNCTION.

June 2, 1891. A letter was received by the Board from Mr. H. W. Webb, third vice-president New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company, dated May 19, 1891, requesting the Board to make an examination of the Westinghouse Pneumatic Block System in operation on that portion of the railroad between Mott Haven Junction and Woodlawn Junction. The request was brought about in consequence of the receipt by Mr. Depew of the following letter from Mr. Clark, president of the New York, New Haven and Hartford railroad: “Hon. CHAUNCEY M. DEPEW, President, New York Central and Hudson

River Railroad Company, New York: “MY DEAR SIR.- The fact that two of our trains were given clear signals at the same time into the same block on the Harlem division of your road on the eighteenth of April, was promptly made known to your superintendent. His reply shows that this was due to a thunder storm which interfered with the automatic electric signal apparatus provided by your company between Spuyten Duyvil and Woodlawn Junction.

“Our board of directors deems this a very important fact in view of the great number of trains running daily over that division in all sorts of weather, and have directed me to advise you of it, not because they consider the signal apparatus a matter of which we are ultimately responsible (although perhaps our passengers might recover against us in the first instance), but as an act of good neighborhood and in the belief that your interest will lead you to provide the safest appliances for passing the enormous traffic between those points.

“Yours truly,
(Signed) “CHARLES P. CLARK,

President,"

An explanation of the system was made to the Board at Mr. Webb's office on Friday, May 29th, by E. H. Goodman, president of the Union Switch and Signal Company, who furnished the signals, and J. G. Schuoder, J. T. Cade and C. A. Scott, employees of the Signal Company, accompanied by plans and drawings.

The general theory of the system of signalling is as follows: This piece of road, about seven miles in extent, is blocked off in distances of about 2,600 feet. The home signal and distant signal are semaphores of the usual character. They are carried to danger by a counterweight and moved to safety by an air pump. In case of any accident or injury to the pipes or to the electric apparatus, the signal automatically goes to "danger.” As soon as an engine enters a block the electric circuit is carried through the wheels in such a manner as to open the valves of certain of the pipes, throwing the signals in that. block in rear of the train to “danger" and they are so continued at “ danger" until the train moves out of the block, when the electric current is changed to another circuit and the semaphore signals turned back to safety. A description of the precise method will not be undertaken. It is quite complicated, but assurances are given that where it has been tried it has successfully worked.

The failure that led to this investigation was the result of the fact that a stroke of lightning struck the rails, passed through certain points where the circuit is made and broke and fused the points together. This, it is claimed by the Signal Company, could not have occurred had a lightning arrester been inserted near the points where the fusion took place. The lightning arrester consists of substituting & small section of thin soft wire for the ordinary wire, of such a character that a current of but little greater intensity than the normal currents on the wires would fuse this soft wire and break the circuit.

It was explained by Mr. Goodman that instructions had been given to put in these arresters, but that in some way they had been omitted at this particular point, which omission led to the failure.

A letter was submitted from Mr. Robert Pitcairn, a superintendent of the Pennsylvania railroad, that the system was working most admirably on the Pennsylvania road and that in his opinion it was the only method yet discovered that will enable that company to do safely and successfully the large business it does. He furthermore stated that in an experience of seven years there had not been a single case of lightning affecting the automatic block signals or the pneumatic interlocking signals in the manner that brought about this trouble.

A letter was also submitted from J. H. Olhausen, general superintendent of the Central railroad, New Jersey, to the effect that when this system of signalling was put in operation upon his railroad there had been rouble from lightning, but that since the arresters had been inserted no further trouble had taken place.

The Board deems that in view of the favorable reports that have been received upon this automatic, pneumatic system, and in view of the fact that it is in actual operation and that its failure upon this occasion has been satisfactorily explained and measures taken to prevent its recurrence, that the system with safety and propriety can be con

tinued in operation. It deems, however, that if any failure occurs it should be immediately reported to the railroad authorities and also to this Board, whether an accident is brought about thereby or not. The system is somewhat complicated, but appears no more so than the Westinghouse air-brake, which has certainly proven itself an undoubted success.

By the Board.

[ocr errors]

IV.

AT THE CROSSING OF THE

IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF THE NEW YORK, NEW HAVEN AND

HARTFORD RAILROAD COMPANY FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE BOARD OF AN
INTERLOCKING SWITCH AND SIGNAL APPARATUS
HARLEM RIVER BRANCH OF THE NEW YORK, New HaVEN AND HARTFORD
RAILROAD WITH THE PORT MORRIS BRANCH OF THE NEW YORK AND HARLEM
RAILROAD, OPERATED BY THE NEW YORK CENTRAL AND HUDSON RIVER
RAILROAD COMPANY.

June 15, 1891.
An application by John M. Toucey, general manager of the New
York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company, dated April 24,
1891, was made to the Board.

At the suggestion of the Board, G. W. Beach, superintendent of signals of the New York, New Haven and Hartford railroad, appeared before the Board, May 18, 1891, to explain the interlocking switch and signal apparatus which had been erected.

Certain features connected with the derailment and the distant signals not being satisfactory, a personal inspection of the premises was made by the chairman of the Board, Wednesday, June 10, in company with Mr. Lucius Tuttle, general manager, and 0. M. Shepherd, superintendent New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad Company. In the meantime an application to the same effect was received from Mr. Tuttle.

The chairman recommended that the derailing switch on the Port Morris branch should be moved back fifty feet, which, the Board is informed by telegraph, has been done.

It was also represented that it was the intention of the companies to have the signals normally placed at safety for the New Haven trains to pass, it being understood that the trains of the New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company would stop and call for the signal to be set at safety for them before ever attempting to pass. Mr. Tuttle stated to the chairman that he had an understanding with the authorities of the New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company and that this arrangement was satisfactory to them.

The Board, therefore, approves of the interlocking switch and signal apparatus erected at this point, with the understanding, however, that the trains of the New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company shall always come to a stop before crossing the tracks of the New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad Company.

By the Board.

« ПредишнаНапред »