Trains.com

Brighton Park Junction

918 views
4 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Brighton Park Junction
Posted by Anonymous on Friday, March 19, 2004 1:51 PM
I have a question. Why is this busy crossing STILL such an anachronism and NOT a modern interlocked plant?

Because railroading is first and foremost a business, I suspect the answer is money. My guess is the Pennsy [which controlled the junction] had no motivation to upgrade the signaling and control system at Brighton Park because it's Panhandle line was a secondary line and the major beneficiaries would be Pennsy competitors B&O and NYC. PennCentral certainly had no money for an upgrade. Are my guesses and suspicions correct?

But why didn't Conrail and now NS upgrade Brighton Park into an interlocked plant?
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Friday, March 19, 2004 5:35 PM
I heard their will be an overpass built with the High Speed Rail

DOGGY

GO KENTUCKY
  • Member since
    September 2002
  • From: Rockton, IL
  • 4,821 posts
Posted by jeaton on Friday, March 19, 2004 9:08 PM
I believe Brighton Park is in the "Chicago Plan" for upgrade or fly-over. I don't remember for sure, but I think it can be found in the Trains article on that subject.

"We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics

  • Member since
    June 2001
  • From: Lombard (west of Chicago), Illinois
  • 13,681 posts
Posted by CShaveRR on Saturday, March 20, 2004 12:10 AM
Purely speculation here, but:

To upgrade Brighton Park, you have three alternatives:

1. A manned interlocking

2. An automatic interlocking

3. No interlocking (i.e., a grade separation.

I doubt that any one of the three railroads involved would want to invest in the construction and staffing of an interlocking tower there (even though the shanty is already staffed), plus at least one signal maintainer.

An automatic interlocking would not be desirable, because it would increase the possibility of Amtrak's trains getting stuck by a freight on either of the north-south lines. Conversely, a southbound train stopped by something on the old GM&O might wind up being strung out over the interlocking(s) by the river. You need one operator who can take such things into consideration.

The cost of a grade separation has been prohibitive. The Chicago Plan still needs to be funded. But that's really the best solution. I hope they built the CTA Orange Line high enough...this is going to be the nearest thing Chicago has to a triple crossing!

Carl

Railroader Emeritus (practiced railroading for 46 years--and in 2010 I finally got it right!)

CAACSCOCOM--I don't want to behave improperly, so I just won't behave at all. (SM)

  • Member since
    March 2004
  • From: west central Illinois
  • 417 posts
Posted by Rodney Beck on Wednesday, March 24, 2004 11:06 AM
That interlocking is a real piece of work. When ever we deliver a train to the CSX we can count on holding the plant is that old. Rodney conductor BNSF

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy