There is a certain kind of color-light signal that has one large hood covering all two or three of the lights, rather than a smaller, individual hood on each light unit. I call the entire signals monohoods for their prominent hood, but I heard somewhere what sounds like a more proper term for the hood: snow hood. On my main signals page, there drawing of one of these signals.
The signal is shown with a line through it, which seems fairly negative. Once I started applying for jobs in the railroad signal industry as an electrical engineer, I realized that if any of my prospective employers found this graphic on the web, it could adversely affect my possibilities for hire, since this is one of the more popular types of signals being installed today. My first thought was to remove the graphic. However, I remembered one definition of integrity which is to have the internal consistent with the external, to be the same person around all other people. I therefore decided that it was best to leave the graphic with an added explanation of how I feel about this type of signal and why.
My dad's alma matter from his high school years is a rural boarding school within sight of the Union Pacific's main transcontinental route. During the 1950s, trains rumbled through every eight minutes, he said. Some of these trains featured mallet steam and gas turbine locomotives. Although since I've been born the the number of trains there is fewer and the rolling stock is not usually so epic, something that's still the case with that particular line, probably since my dad's days as a student, is the distinctive style color-light signals with the single hood.
When I was in my formative years, I usually accompanied my dad to the events of his Alumni Weekend at the school. Some of the more exciting features of the trip for me were the UP trains and the monohoods visible from the two-lane highway parallel to the tracks for the last half-hour or so of the trip. I remember watching the signals at every block with rapt attention as we passed to see what color they were as they governed the still-busy line. Most of the signals in my home town were searchlights at the time, and even the few color-lights were not monohoods. I was intrigued by the monohoods because of their unique appearance. For me, these signals were a rare sight. They were a symbol of high-speed freight. They were virtually a trademark of the Union Pacific.
But other railroads had their trademarks too. The CB&Q, which was once predominant in my home town, was famous for its bridge-mounted searchlights. As I learned later, the Rock Island, also once in my home town, was fond of mast-mounted H-2 searchlights and, I believe, TR-2 color-lights at interlockings. The Kansas City Southern used SA searchlights. The Santa Fe had its T-2 semaphores with black wooden blades. The Chicago and North Western had an unusual spectacle on its 2-A semaphore signals. Southern Pacific had Style Bs. I've heard the Pennsylvania Railroad was famous for its position lights, the B&O for its color-position lights. I'm sure there are many other examples of railroads that, in the past, could be identified by their signals. Perhaps borrowing from the excitement of seeing high-speed trains on the UP main line, my feelings as a child were of the essence that I wanted to see the monohoods more often. When I wished that, I had no idea that some day the monohoods would be just about the only kind of signal that I would be able to see on a regular basis. Regarding the railroad signaling practices of other railroads, I've watched the distinctions disappear with time. Color-lights, usually monohoods, are taking over.
It's commonly thought among railroad fans that monohoods are fundamentally ugly. Upon deeper thought, though, I'm not so sure. I liked them when I was a kid. I've seen places where all the signals have been removed for whatever reason and decided that I would much rather see monohoods there than nothing at all. I wouldn't mind having one for personal display. One might even argue that the triangular arrangement of lights is even uglier. So what is it that people don't like about the monohood? What is it that makes them seem ugly? My guess is that it's not really so much about the signal itself as how it's used. There's a sharp contrast that is felt when the tradition and elegance of a semaphore, for example, with its tapered pinnacle and beautiful paint, is systematically and unceremoniously replaced by the economy of a monohood, with its plastic and aluminum or alloy metal construction. Each railroad, which in the past could be compared to a family with its own unique struggles and identity, looses a piece of its heritage when it phases out its old signals. It's like when a small people group joins the mainstream and looses its language and culture along the way. That it is a mistake to use the monohood in the abusive way that it almost symbolizes is the idea that I wish to express with the monohood graphic.
Am I saying that these signals shouldn't be made? Am I saying that railroads shouldn't use them? Am I saying that no signal modernization projects should be undertaken? And, for the prospective employer, am I saying that I wouldn't work for a company that manufacturers monohoods or that in such a company I wouldn't fit? No, I'm not saying that. After all, probably no railroad was entirely uniform in its signaling practices in the first place, and some change is necessary with time. I'm just saying that for the same reason the railroad signals of the past had ornate pinnacles, each of us has an obligation to consider not just the practical implications of what we're doing, but also how it affects our lives and the lives of those around us. The Union Pacific could, perhaps, even claim that using the monohood is the best avenue toward preserving its heritage.
Back to Signal Department Main Page