Fred M Cain rdamon I believe the PTC requirements state that signals cannot have moveable parts. This was probably inserted by the signal makers lobby. In addition, the new towers have additional fall protection devices for the maintainers. Not sure if this is a fact but it most certainly makes sense. So called "Searchlight" signals DO, in fact, have moving internal parts. There have actually been incidents, albeit EXTREMELY rare, where a searchlight has displayed a "false clear". I think there was a photograph of this in TRAINS Magazine a few years ago. I don't know if there has ever been an accident that was the result of a false clear or not. The most disturbing part of the PTC mandate, at least to me, is that PTC will NOT prevent most train derailments but only certain types of collisions. What percentage of all train wrecks are the result of collisions? Does anybody know? I would guess it might be small percentage. In fact, the mandate could actually make railroads MORE dangerous if roads end up taking money out of track maintenence to pay for this. All bad news. But, there is a sprinkling of good news. Even if PTC only creates the PERCEPTION that it has made railroading safer, American railroads might be able to negotiate lower insurance rates. And if that happens, that will be to the benefit of the industry. But, we'll see. Regards, Fred M. Cain
rdamon I believe the PTC requirements state that signals cannot have moveable parts. This was probably inserted by the signal makers lobby. In addition, the new towers have additional fall protection devices for the maintainers.
Not sure if this is a fact but it most certainly makes sense. So called "Searchlight" signals DO, in fact, have moving internal parts. There have actually been incidents, albeit EXTREMELY rare, where a searchlight has displayed a "false clear". I think there was a photograph of this in TRAINS Magazine a few years ago. I don't know if there has ever been an accident that was the result of a false clear or not.
The most disturbing part of the PTC mandate, at least to me, is that PTC will NOT prevent most train derailments but only certain types of collisions. What percentage of all train wrecks are the result of collisions? Does anybody know? I would guess it might be small percentage. In fact, the mandate could actually make railroads MORE dangerous if roads end up taking money out of track maintenence to pay for this. All bad news.
But, there is a sprinkling of good news. Even if PTC only creates the PERCEPTION that it has made railroading safer, American railroads might be able to negotiate lower insurance rates. And if that happens, that will be to the benefit of the industry. But, we'll see.
Regards,
Fred M. Cain
Fred, If memory serves there was a problem on the Northeast corridor a few years ago in which a target signal was showing a clear indication when it should have dropped to red. An astute engineer thought the indication was wrong and held his position in a siding when a train in the opposite direction passed by. It appears his knowledge of his territory and normal traffic saved the day.
I'm of the belief FRA mandated the change to eliminate mechanical failure from the equation. Said failure was rare, but had not the engineer been on top of his game headlines would have been screeching.
Norm
Now that the unexpected issues at postimage.org have been resolved satisfactory, and rather quickly too, the promised post series …
The Surprise Pomona-Fontana (CA) Visit
Sunday, November 12, 2017
Part I (of I-V)
Upon arrival in Pomona, K.P. immediately went to the overhead pedestrian bridge over the SP and LA&SL tracks in downtown to find those mysterious boxes, or what appeared in photo-blow-ups as such. NO such boxes were found, only the north side Amtrak platform and scattered new concrete ties trackside. Looking eastbound through timy wire meshing holes:
Westbound:
At ground level on the LA&SL side, NO switch crates (far side) were seen either.
So, what previously last visit appeared as crate boxes for switch motors likely was just the bumpy, yellow metal panels as sidewalk “don’t go beyond’ warnings. It is possible that a mirage effect was previously seen also.
Continued in Part II
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- K.P.’s absolute “theorem” from early, early childhood that he has seen over and over and over again: Those that CAUSE a problem in the first place will act the most violently if questioned or exposed.
Part II (of I-V)
The old SP depot is where Amtrak’s Nos. 1 and 2 stop
From up on the steps and overlook spot on the south side of the pedestrian bridge, looking west, an eastbound train comes. It seemed an inordinate amount of LA&SL routed trains pass of late.
Just above, and just to the photo left of the engines, are seats. During weekdays people waiting for a Metrolink commuter train sit in those seats. On this Sunday, a non-commuter train day, there were a few people just there, sitting, with the train whizzing by feet from them! That may be the reason for, especially in the morning weekday commute, trains are routed around that waiting area.
Continued in Part III
Part III (of I-V)
From that overhead pedestrian bridge, an eastward overview:
A heavy telephoto of the first CP’s to the east (CP AL515 RESERVOIR on the left and CP C033 WO TOWER on the right) zeroing in on how LA&SL trains (right background) transition to the SP side to get around waiting passengers on the platform in downtown Pomona.
Just above, note the underpass railings of a square just before the transition track, that square being between the SP and LA&SL tracks. That is where the Towne Ave. underpass is at.
The missing track EAST of CP AL514 HAMILTON will most likely be laid just to the right of the left tracks, and transition to the LA&SL RIGHT track in this area, so NO additional bridging over Towne Ave. will be needed.
With a way for LA&SL trains (right) to avoid the Metrolink passenger platform, LA&SL trains could whiz by at speed and waiting Metrolink riders would not be in danger of fast freights whizzing by.
The implication of that presently un-laid “B” Track where it will turn into the “A” Track (LA&SL) is that the mast signal for that “B” Track will be a RED OVER type one!
THAT, IN TURN, IMPLIES THE FUTURE WEST EASTBOUND CP AL514 HAMILTON SIGNAL BRIDGE’S B-TRACK WILL HAVE A TOP TWO LAMP HEAD OVER A THREE LAMP HEAD! (Got that?) Thus, the present west side eastbound “B” Track mast signal that governs a “B” Track (west) transition to the “C” Track (east) IS ONLY TEMPORRY!
A reshown June 17, 2017 view of those present west side eastbound mast signals (our “A” Track signal is on the left, our “B” Track signal is on the right):
Continued in Part IV
Part IV (of I-V)
On the Sunday visit, the bridging and the present signal just east of Towne Ave. were photographed.
Looking west:
Northward view of Towne Ave., with the LA&SL track the lower one.
An eastward view:
Just above, note the present LA&SL CP C033 WO TOWER west side eastbound signal in the right far background. In K.P.’s opinion, that signal will be eliminated and the CP extended west to somewhere to the left of the TOP photo in this Part IV.
Continued in Part V
Part V (of I-V)
By Etiwanda Ave. now on the border between Ontario and Fontana, a westward grab shot from Loop Ave.:
Above, note the south side piping on the lower right quadrant of the photo.
On ground level just EAST of Etiwanda Ave., piping is present NORTH of the tracks, one even angling up out of the ground.
This piping on the northeast side of the Etiwanda Ave. overpass may be the same as the piping on the southwest side of the overpass, or they may be two separate pipes. It is just that some kind of piping keeps going under the presently single track Main from side to side.
This will conclude the series.
Fred M. Cain (11-15 / 11:15A):
Norm48327is probably right about the PTC law and signal movable parts.
About negotiating lower insurance rates, I don’t think so. Most Class I railroads tend to be self-insured.
As you implied, Positive Train Control is NOT the panacea for eliminating all train wrecks. The law was inspired by the railroad’s own total stupidity and greed, and was helped along to quick enactment after the 2008 Chatsworth, CA head-on between a UP freight and a Metrolink commuter train.
When I say “the railroads’ own total stupidity and greed,” that is based on my long hearing REPEATEDLY about head-on and rear-ender type wrecks caused by trainmen falling asleep! A case in point: is the February 4, 2004 Carrizozo, NM incident on UP’s El Paso, TX to Kansas City, MO Golden State Route (off the Sunset Route at El Paso).
You can read about it in the NTSB report (with photos) linked below.
https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/RAB0605.pdf
Some twelve years later I passed through Carrizozo and took these photos on April 2, 2016:
Eastbound:
Westbound (and where the now obviously cleaned up wreck site was):
The just above telephoto compressed the view, as the switch is farther away than it appears (out of view, actually), on the photo bottom!
Personally, I am somewhat amazed at President Trump’s economic thinking, with great tax breaks and incentives to promote economic growth. But, yet nothing has been heard about maybe reimbursing the railroads for the whopping money put into PTC, which law doesn’t promote growth in itself. Just look at the results: Little big ticket locomotives have been ordered and little to no Sunset Route two-tracking! The Trump contradiction speaks for itself.
Anyway, around the new year I should know from a visit (hopefully) about revamping the track around Wellton, AZ. I suspect the PTC things that are taking place will be a very, very bad omen for two-tracking for years to come.
Take care, Fred,
K.P.
UP has PTC operational with searchlights still in use at a few control points in the Omaha area. Since PTC is in kind of an interim state in this area, I expect they may need to be changed out before the deadline.
Many years ago, I saw a false clear. Although the signals were searchlight types, it was more of a detection failure than an individual signal failure.
I have seen a false stop signal as well on a searchlight. The moving part has a vane with red in the center and green (or lunar) and yellow on either side. The center red is a fail-safe feature. It takes power to hold the vane to either side position, the idea being if power failed it would default to center red. The false stop was when the signal was going from yellow to green, it got hung up in the red position. The last signal we had passed was green so it was a surprise to come around the corner and see a red signal. Not to mention we had heard the hot box detector a few miles distant go off indicating a train. As it turned out, we were following that train. Those signals were changed to color light types soon after. We weren't the only ones to experience this.
Jeff
Disappointment in Arizona, Finding a …
… Fun Highway, and Mortmar-Thermal, CA
Part “A” (of A-H)
An opportunity developed quickly on Saturday, November 18, 2017… and it was taken and off K.P. went on Sunday.
He was convinced CP SP771 WELLTON (in Wellton, AZ east of Yuma) would have all the new mast signals up by now, thus making a trip a worthwhile one. Sadly, though, NO new signals were in place at that CP. But, a new CP box was at the site, though not positioned yet.
Continued in Part B
Part “B” (of A-H)
The makeshift new signal area in Wellton had changed very little since last visit.
Continued in Part C
Part “C” (of A-H)
At CP SP768 WEST WELLTON all the new signals were up this time, those by the old cantilever structures had the cantilever structures BETWEEN the tracks and the new signals.
The west side:
Below, note Main 1’s west side eastbound signal’s top head only has two LED positions, consistent with the new arrangement with Main 1 turning into the Main several miles to the east.
The east side:
Continued in Part D
Part “D” (of A-H)
At CP SP743 FORTUNA, nothing new was obvious, and no new signals or a new CP box was at the site. View looks eastbound.
Looking both east (above view) AND westward, new rails had been offloaded recently.
In theory, since this low speed turnout CP likely won’t be permanent, an OLD new CP box should be used, along with OLD new color light signals, just like CP SP620 THERMAL in California.
Continued in Part E
Part “E” (of A-H)
Going from California to Arizona, there were scattered places where the I-8 Freeway was down to one lane for reconstruction purposes. Coming back west, K.P. thought a different route would be in order, Highway 115. From Holtville to the junction with Highway 78, the north-south road is very lightly traveled, maintained well, and has the old rail line right-of-way still with much ballast visible for miles and miles.
Looking south:
North:
It makes for a more interesting route to travel, and K.P. highly recommends it. The highway speed (M.P.H. 55) is slower than on Highway 111 (65 M.P.H.), but Highway 111 has a number of stop lights on it that takes away the speed advantage. Besides, the Highway 111-Interstate 8 interchange is all tore up and one has to go west to go east. Crazy …
Years ago, a track here serviced agricultural shippers. Those shippers may (“may”) still be served, without tracks! (See below.)
K.P. stopped at the container transloading facility on Highway 111 (the one with a looping circle track). Those containers may (“may”) service those ex-rail route customers!
Continued in Part F
Part “F” (of A-H)
By Salton Sea, the new signals are active at the east switch of the Mortmar siding, and the old ones removed and gone.
At the west switch of the Mortmar siding, the same situation was found.
At the first grade crossing just WEST of the Mortmar siding, I would say UP has an incredible stupid arrangement!!!
K.P. has to wonder how many new vehicles UP will have to buy victims before therailroad’s management does something constructive about this. Look at all the scrape marks in the pavement! The last thing the railroad needs is a super irate public, a public that has the power to break a railroad into parts … ‘will of the people’, you know …
Continued in Part G
Part “G” (of A-H)
K.P. passed by the east switch of the Mecca siding, but stopped at the west switch, CP SP624 MECCA, the one that has that silver painted cantilever signal bridge.
It is wondered how long that silver cantilever signal bridge will remain standing now that it isn’t used anymore.
The west eastbound signal at CP SP624 MECCA is a left sided one.
The NEW mast signal at 52nd Ave. is a used one. To K.P.’s knowledge, there has never been a signal here before.
K.P. questions how long these OLD new signals in this stretch will stand, as HE believes the end of two-track to the WEST will be moved eastward about a mile sometime in the future, necessitating all the used color light signals to be relocated with NEW ones erected.
Continued in Part H
Part “H” (of A-H)
At the present end of two-tracks eastward, at CP SP620 THERMAL:
Main 2’s south side, west eastbound signal:
The old new north side, west eastbound signal:
The east side westbound old new signal is right by the CP box, and has NOT been positioned twenty to fifty feet away from the box, suggesting that a CP SP621 THERMAL is in the future, with a high speed switch instead in the 30 M.P.H. turnout presently at CP SP620 THERMAL.
So, that will do it, a report on the findings this trip. However, a brief “Second Section” follows.
Second Section
The new Airport Blvd. overpass in the Coachella-Thermal area was gone over at dawn on the way to Arizona, and after sunset upon returning, again in poor light. Nevertheless, a photo was taken semi-showing how weird the green fencing is.
The very odd shade of green is quite masked by the sundown light, but one of these days it is hoped to take a daylight photo for the forum. K.P. has never, ever seen such a weird green on an overpass bridge. In bright sun, it almost has a neon army look! He wonders if the shade of green is the talk of trainmen that go under it in day or at nighttime by a bright headlight.
K. P. Harrier Disappointment in Arizona, Finding a … … Fun Highway, and Mortmar-Thermal, CA Part “F” (of A-H) By Salton Sea, the new signals are active at the east switch of the Mortmar siding, and the old ones removed and gone. At the west switch of the Mortmar siding, the same situation was found. At the first grade crossing just WEST of the Mortmar siding, I would say UP has an incredible stupid arrangement!!! K.P. has to wonder how many new vehicles UP will have to buy victims before therailroad’s management does something constructive about this. Look at all the scrape marks in the pavement! The last thing the railroad needs is a super irate public, a public that has the power to break a railroad into parts … ‘will of the people’, you know … Continued in Part G
K.P.,
I realize UP is responsible for the actual rail crossing portion, but is the railroad responsible for the ramp leading up to the rail section? In other words, who furnishes the specifications for the ramp part leading to the rails--the railroad or the county / state? And in this case, I wonder who did the work.
John Timm
John,
The best suggestion I can offer is to ask Mudchicken.
K. P. Harrier THEY ARE ON THE WRONG DARN SIDE OF THE TRACKS ! ! ! ! By Salton Sea, the new signals are active at the east switch of the Mortmar siding, and the old ones removed and gone. At the west switch of the Mortmar siding, the same situation was found.
THEY ARE ON THE WRONG DARN SIDE OF THE TRACKS ! ! ! !
desertdog At the first grade crossing just WEST of the Mortmar siding, I would say UP has an incredible stupid arrangement!!! K.P. has to wonder how many new vehicles UP will have to buy victims before therailroad’s management does something constructive about this. Look at all the scrape marks in the pavement! The last thing the railroad needs is a super irate public, a public that has the power to break a railroad into parts … ‘will of the people’, you know … Continued in Part G K.P., I realize UP is responsible for the actual rail crossing portion, but is the railroad responsible for the ramp leading up to the rail section? In other words, who furnishes the specifications for the ramp part leading to the rails--the railroad or the county / state? And in this case, I wonder who did the work. John Timm
At the first grade crossing just WEST of the Mortmar siding, I would say UP has an incredible stupid arrangement!!! K.P. has to wonder how many new vehicles UP will have to buy victims before therailroad’s management does something constructive about this. Look at all the scrape marks in the pavement! The last thing the railroad needs is a super irate public, a public that has the power to break a railroad into parts … ‘will of the people’, you know … Continued in Part G
My "guess" is that the laws dealing with this might vary somewhat from state to state. K.P. might just be correct that in California that "ramp" approach might be the railroad's responsibility but in other states not.
Back in the 1930s, there was a case back East on the Long Island Rail Road where the State demanded that the LIRR eliminate a number of hazardous grade crossing on a branch line. The LIRR's was mandated to foot the bill. Well, you can imagine what happened. Bye-bye branch line! The commuters were just plain S.O.L.s. Hard to figure how this was in the public's best interest. It surely was not in the interest of those who needed the line to get to work. Fortunately, some things like that have since been changed.
In most states nowadays when the state wants an over- or underpass, the highway department helps out with it. Or, that is my understanding anyways.
Group,
Here is an interesting photo I stumbled across some months ago while searching for online photos of old, open-wire telephone lines. In the foreground is SP's mainline. If you look very closely at the far right you can barely make out a set of semaphores.
Behind the SP is Old U.S. 80. (No I-8 in those days!) Then behind U.S. 80 is somekind of a pipeline or acqueduct over the canal. Then in the far background is SP's SD&IV line to Algodones, Calexico & El Centro used by the Imperial Limited. That line was abandoned in 1959, I think. It diverged from the Sunset Route at a place known as Araz just west of Yuma.
Here's the address for the website:
http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/four-bridges-cross-the-all-american-canal-which-will-carry-news-photo/566221889#four-bridges-cross-the-allamerican-canal-which-will-carry-colorado-picture-id566221889
Fred M Cain
1) Wrong side signals usually happen when multi tracking is planned, which should be assumed as a long term objective.
2) Responsibility for installing/maintaining/upgrading a grade crossing typically lies with whoever was there second. In the LIRR example, the railroad may have been there after the roads. Out west, it’s usually the other way around. There may be some differences by state, but land rights tend to be fairly consistent where railroads are concerned.
The third bridge back in that old photo of the ARAZ area is a concerte "flume" to carry a local wash over the canal. The canal is for drinking/irrigation water and thus you don't want a flash flood to spill mud and silt into the canal.
The first three bridges remain to this day and while the bridge spans are gone from the fourth (very back) bridge, its concrete abutements and piers are still there and very much intact. The future I-8 bridges would be further back behind the fourth bridge, around the bend in the canal.
Fred M. Cain (11-22):
UP employee timetables list ALL left sided signals. On the Sunset Route, at least on the western portion, two-tracking crews at odd locations have used the traditional right position to avoid confusion. It is interesting, though, how different areas of UP have different mentalities. In, I believe, Iowa or Nebraska, crews erected left sided signals for the first main and the northern siding! While train crews are supposed to know their territory, such left sided signals (except for the left track only) seem to be an accident ready to happen.
My first experience with left sided signals was in 1972 on the Santa Fe’s Cajon Pass line where the left running Automatic Block Signal “double track” was converted to CTC “two tracks.” Previously, cantilever and full signal bridges were used. But, in the conversion, Santa Fe used left side mast signals. That was CHEAPER than what was erected previously. The insinuation is that lessoning costs is the overpowering motive for such left signals
desertdog (11-22):
My guess is the railroad made that, in my opinion, unwise arrangement just west of the Mortmar siding near Salton Sea in Southern California.
Several years ago I photographed UP forces revamping a grade crossing in Ontario, CA for the then new second main. They put in sidewalks and mild roadway slopes up to the tracks.
By Mortmar, I can just see it now … A gas tanker makes a wrong move and hangs his truck up on that unwise arrangement. A train doing 65 M.P.H. on the curve there sees the problem too late, and puts the train into emergency, but still hits the tanker and a fireball erupts!
Myself, I have little experience with safety cabs and tankers that are hit by them. In the past, with the traditional old cabs the crew met certain death, unless they wanted to brave jumping at speed.
The sooner UP takes action to correct that bad situation, stockholders will be better off.
Best,
In some rulebooks a signal not on the right side of the track requires a "dolly mast" to the left of the signal with a blue light or blue scotchlite band to indicate that the signal refers to a track location other than the obvious one. A reversal of this is found at siding exits where high mainline signal and a dwarf siding entrance signal require a cantilever mast for the main because there's not enough room for a simple mast between the tracks. Once common in the northeast, especially in ex-B&M territory, the use of "dolly masts" is frowned upon for new installations, though some older ones remain.
Hmm, the doll (as the Southern called them) mast that I saw in Charlotte had a light that was purple (of course a light up that high probably would not be mistaken for the blue light that protected men working between or under cars).
I was unaware of a rule that required such a mast with a signal on the left side of the track.
I have noticed several signals on the left side between Denver and Salt Lake City--and did not notice doll masts with them.
Johnny
Doll masts were an east coast thing. Don't recall ever seeing them on any of the granger roads or out west.
Good explanation with visuals here:
http://www.railroadsignals.us/signals/dolls/index.htm
eolesen (11-24): Doll masts … on the Sunset Route?
Way back in the late 1960’s Colton, CA had a short section of two-tracks on the Sunset Route, on each side of and at Colton Tower that protected the diamonds with the Santa Fe, very close by where the Colton Flyover is at now. The SP Main 1 EAST side westbound mast signal had between target heads a small offshoot single bulb light that somewhat fits the descriptions of a “Doll” signal.
I never understood, nor found out, what that signal light was for. The mast signal was in open space and not confined by anything, or any other tracks around except for Main 2 to the left (south) that paralleled Main 1 and that Main 2 had its own signals, pot ones as I recall.
Where the “doll” term came from for a signal is not clear, but mention of dolls brings back memories of occasional quality time with my daughter, when she was maybe five years old, and my wife was often watching TV in view of us. (I wasn’t a TV person, but my wife was, and still is!) I could care less about dolls, but would ‘play’ dolls with my daughter at the kitchen table occasionally upon her request, both of us taking turns just ‘choosing’ outfits and each acquiring a collection. Sometimes we would play again. And, that made her day. The attention pacified her and I would often learn some things about my daughter and what made her tick. Great times!
There must be some rationale for the term “doll” signal. I wish I knew what made those that concocted the “doll” term tick …
Enjoy, eolesen, the now getting cold in Illinois,
Work is underway on the SR 347 overpass project in Maricopa, AZ. Of interest is the requirement that it be wide enough to accomodate four tracks. Also, the general contractor, Ames, is the same company that performed much of the construction of the second main through the area.
http://www.inmaricopa.com/overpass-groundbreaking-set-for-nov-20/
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.