I was looking over the photos in the Frisco Archive from Clinton like I have many times. This time I noticed something new. A signal in the background just at the rear of this GP7, SLSF 623. I was under the impression there were no working signals in Clinton, for the SLSF or the MKT. Could this be a signal on the MKT mainline? If so I'm curious where. My initial thought is the signal might be somewhere fairly close to the Frisco depot facing to the south. I've seen documentation that supports the MKT grade crossings through Clinton were protected by flashing signals which can be identified in the background. The photo's caption is labeled North Clinton. What's everyone's thoughts? Thank you in advance for any feedback.
Derrick, I believe that picture is taken at the switch that gave access to the team track on the west side of the Frisco Depot in Clinton. The Frisco track that ended on the east side of the depot is in the immediate background and the MKT main is further back in the background. That signal is on the MKT. It was placed just south of Oak St. You can see the Oak Street westbound crossbuck in the background beyond the signal head. The attached Sanborn map helps.
Yes. I totally agree. I didn't want to post anything specific and persuade any response. Would this be proof that the entire MKT line was signaled or could this be only for the crossover at North Clinton?
The notes that were written on negative sleeve says "Switching north of depot near Lincoln St.". It was taken in Clinton, not North Clinton, my mistake. Roger
I do not know. However, Clinton was on Katy's "Main Line" from Boonville to Fort Scott, and ultimately between St. Louis and Parsons, KS. This is in contrast to the "High Line" where Frisco had alternate routes between Kansas City and Springfield. It may have been worth it to Katy to place signals. Rails Around Missouri, page 168, shows a 1974 photo of an MKT train "splitting the semaphores halfway between Sedalia and Boonville", so the line must have had signals through that stretch. The same book shows photos of stations with signals, but they must be for train orders rather than for traffic control.
Great find and I should have thought of this reference. I have the book. I'm estimating the photo from the book was taken at a later date than the photo in the original post. I'm curious why the signal at Clinton is a modern signal while the semaphore signals are being used between Sedalia and Boonville.
Recall the MKT in the 1970's was recovering from very tough financial circumstances during the 1960's. My guess is there simply were not enough resources to modernize signals over the whole line. Clinton may have been worth the effort due to a bit more traffic. I know in 1968 they operated a local between Sedalia and Fort Scott in addition to the two main line trains each way.
MOPAC Timetable Nov 13, 1983 shows an at grade crossing (MOPAC & MKT) near Sedalia on the Sedalia Sub. Approximately 30 miles farther north, the MKT used a draw bridge to cross the Missouri River. The time table does not show the two roads crossing at grade at Booneville on the River Sub. If signals did exist in this area, these two factors may have justified signals? Joe .
That is an approach or distant signal (not sure of the correct terminology) on the Katy for the MKT/SLSF crossing at North Clinton. I suspect it was installed when the joint MKT/SLSF tower at North Clinton was deactivated in the 1950's. The signal aspect was controlled by the direction of the manual gate at the crossing which was normally closed against the Frisco. There was a similar setup in Harrisonville, MO at the SLSF/MP crossing. The Katy line was not signaled from Sedalia to Parsons. There were signals between some point north of Sedalia and Boonville. I read something about these signals recently, but cannot recall the source. Maybe the MKT Historical Society newsletter or maybe on the Katy Yahoo group. I will see if I can find it. If John Chambers is on here he could clarify the Katy signaling. Dale Rush
Thanks Dale for the info. If the MKT line was not signaled here what could be in the photo in my original post?
Derrick, this is your answer: It was strictly an advance indication of the position of the interlocking gate. There probably would have been one on the Katy on the other side of the interlock as well.
Ok. Thank you. Makes more sense now. At first I thought that might be a bit too far west of the interlocking gate.
Derrick, the signal in your picture was the only signal. It was for the Frisco interlock for Katy trains north bound. There was not a signal for south bound. Question for you: Are you on Facebook? Thanks, Mike
Michael, Thanks for your clarification on the Katy signaling. Feet on the ground trumps conjecture any day.
That and knowing several engineers, conductors, yard, and trainmasters. North bound trains came into a sweeping R/H curve and once out of it had at best 2 1/2 blocks to visually see the interlock. South bounds would have nearly a mile to see the interlock fowled. Just want to add to the base of info. I am not The Authority. I too have already learned several items here I didn't know. Thanks Keith!
