john_edwards From looking at the photos and the Colton Crossing Sanbag site( /www.sanbag.ca.gov/projects/colton-crossing/Colton_IS-MND.pd)f; I'd say that the fill material is from the excavations done for the large pipes and is just temporary storage. I assume it will be used for some of the fill in the actual crossing. [snipped - PDN]
www.sanbag.ca.gov/projects/colton-crossing/Colton_IS-MND.pdf
Stockpile and storage is reasonable explanation and consistent with K.P.'s photos - but this area is not shown as such in Figure 1.4 - Construction Staging Areas and Access Points, Sheet 3 of 5 (22 of 146 of that PDF file). Also, that stockpile contains way more fill than would be coming from the excavation for those drainage pipes, and the earthmovers appear to be hauling from some distance beyond the ones that K.P. photographed. Also, an earthmover is a poor vehicle to pick-up material that's excavated from a pipe trench - better to put it into an off-road dump truck.
- Paul North.
article in trains news wire that Maricopa is going form grant to move station for Amtrak away from highway so they can grade separate the highway and UP tracks
Some Replies ...
Paul D. North Jr. (5-5):
Paul_D_North_Jr K. P. Harrier: . . . K.P. got a surprise out of the blue dispatch to near the Sunset Route . . . When should we tell you that the rest of us here are in cahoots with your family to arrange this kind of thing from time to time ??? - Paul North.
K. P. Harrier: . . . K.P. got a surprise out of the blue dispatch to near the Sunset Route . . .
When should we tell you that the rest of us here are in cahoots with your family to arrange this kind of thing from time to time ???
Ah, conspiracy! Hehehe. I guess of the best kind ...
Paul D. North Jr. (5-7):
The odd grading between I-10 and the tracks east of Rancho Ave. in Colton (CA), believe or not, has changed!
In my own 'conspiracy' I arranged matters so I could get back there to check on the Colton scene. Nothing spectacular, but things changed slightly. I should have posts on it in a day or two.
john edwards (5-7):
The rebar columns up against the I-10 Freeway (parallel to it) seem too short for any bridging, at least in my opinion. I'm inclined to believe they are related to the big piping being put in in that area. In my 'conspiracy' mentioned to Paul D. North Jr. (above), I took some ground level photos yesterday (nothing earth shattering), but they may lead you to the same conclusion I'm leaning towards. Your input after seeing the upcoming posts would be appreciated.
blue streak 1 (5-7):
No. I did NOT see any dirt compaction taking place, none whatsoever, which surprised me. Your input estimation of the situation after seeing the yet to be posted new photos (mentioned above).from my 'reverse conspiracy' travels yesterday would be helpful.
Conspiracy?
On the back burner ... K.P. has been trying to unscramble seeming mysteries regarding new two-track signaling in the Picacho, AZ area. A whole new Pandora's Box has opened! I'll let the forum decide if it all is a big, secret conspiracy or not. (Have fun with that one.) Within a couple of weeks some type of posting should be ready.
Take care all,
K.P.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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.
STEVEL article in trains news wire that Maricopa is going form grant to move station for Amtrak away from highway so they can grade separate the highway and UP tracks
What intrigues me is that the city has received a $300,000 grant from the Gila River Indian Community for the project. Gila RIver operates several casinos and hotels on the south side of Phoenix, some fifteen miles away. However, one of the major beneficiaries of a grade separation in Maricopa would be Harrah's Ak-Chin Casino, just a couple of miles south of the U.P. crossing.
John Timm
Update as of Tuesday, May 8, 2012
The Colton Flyover
Colton, CA
Part I (of I-VI)
On Monday, the below Friday, May 4, 2012 photo was posted.
It had generated a bit of curiosity at the forum.
However, by Tuesday, May 8, 2012, the scene had changed.
The makeshift roadway from the top of the grading down steeply to the bottom had been eliminated, and the slanted graded area went up (left) almost to Rancho Ave., where the photo was taken from.
Looking down onto that graded area from the Rancho Ave. overpass.
It is unknown if the new grading is related to the freeway widening project in this area, or totally separate from it.
The grading looked different from a different angle.
Continued in Part II
Part II (of I-VI)
At the Colton Crossing itself, activity was brisk. A CSX run through unit headed up a Sunset Route westbound.
As the CSX-led westbound climbs the grade west (leftward), it passes the row of rebar and concrete forms. They appear short, and of an insufficiently height for any bridging over the Sunset Route.
That large piping now heads westward (left) uphill.
Continued in Part III
Part III (of I-VI)
Back up on the Rancho Ave. overpass again ... A wealth of things is seen in the below photo: Notice on the lower left that a makeshift smaller piping is present.
While it is not clear in the above photo, the big, partially buried piping seems to turn towards the freeway BEFORE that row of short concrete and rebar pillars (top, middle left).
To refresh the forum's memory, the below photo from January 6, 2012 is reshown. Note that back then there was a short concrete water channel on the left.
So, K.P. is inclined to believe the short concrete and rebar construction in the second photo of Part II is some kind of stabilizing construction for the piping that seems to go underneath I-10 (leftward) at that location.
Continued in Part IV
Part IV (of I-VI)
Here come those graders again!
Note that the graders no long go up that slanted pathway (left in second photo above) as they did in Monday, November 7, 2012's post series, but stay on ground level.
Continued in Part V
Part V (of I-VI)
And, over and over the graders would turn around, and come back. The below one was traveling counterclockwise.
But, at the turnaround spot, sometimes they would travel clockwise in turning around.
Back and forth they would go.
Continued in Part VI
Part VI (of I-VI)
Of special interest, the large crane by the diamonds area had been moved. It was no longer in the northeast quadrant, but rather, in the northwest quadrant!
Note how, in the above photo, the BNSF Transcon goes behind the crane, not in front of it as in recent times.
It seems a fourth rebar column suddenly was in the process of being erected.
In the second photo above, note one of those graders going away from the camera on the left almost out of view.
Looking WEST now from Rancho Ave., a bunch of workers and their vehicles could be seen.
In the above photo, in the background upper left, is the Pepper Ave. overpass. One can see freight cars in West Colton's Yard's Departure Yard.
Finally, while K.P. did not have the time for further documentation, he observed EAST of 9th Street, just above the tan building on the upper left of the first photo above, what looked like a low level area of dirt had been dumped and smoothed out. Besides that, K.P. has two other areas in the immediate vicinity of the Colton Flyover project on his fit list now to check out. At this point, it is unknown when a return to the Colton Flyover project can be made.
-----------
Scheduled for posting by 9 A.M. on Monday, May 14, 2012 is "Unscrambling a Signal Mystery," including previously shown photos of the Picacho, AZ area's new signals.
KP-
Great coverage of the Sunset route double tracking. Keep up the great reporting for people like me who live in Dallas and a few miles east of the action. I do have a couple questions though.
Is it my imagination or is UP very tight lipped about what they are doing. It appears that they will not talk to anyone about what they are doing. When I voted my UP proxy I asked for info on the percentage of double tracking completed. They did not respond to my request.
I note that UP is building an overpass over the BNSF transom. Since the Sunset route predated the SF lines into California by several years why is the BNSF not building the overpass? It typically is the responsibility of the second railroad in a location to install and maintain crossovers, signals, etc. Perhaps BNSF is contributing cash to the overpass and letting UP build it.
Again thanks for the time you are spending documenting the double tracking. You are doing a great service to us who are remote to this area.
to ccltrains:
Technically, the Colton flyover project isn't being built by Union Pacific. The local city, county and state governments contributed funds along with federal grant money to build this $200 million project. Both BNSF and UP did contribute some funds, about 10% total...this contribution was made by each because this project will ulitmately save them MUCH MUCH more over the long run.
As for why the Union Pacific is "moving out of the way", they other three options were unbuildable.
BNSF over the UP can't occur because the Interstate 10 bridge (parallel to the UP) over the BNSF is in the way.
BNSF below the UP can't occur because it would place the south end below river-level that may result in future flooding during major storms.
UP below the BNSF for the same reason as above, plus it would make an unbearable 4% grade for westbounds (there is already a steep climb from the Santa Ana River Bridge to Pepper for westbounds).
As far as tight lipped, the UP doesn't publicly talk about there work, but in the government world, all there projects undergo permitting and approvals that are published on different websites...one just has to do some digging.
ccltrains (5-11):
The east-west Southern Pacific (now UP) came through Colton, CA in 1875, and the north-south California Southern (now BNSF) crossed the line in 1883. Thereafter, CS and its successors were responsible for maintaining the crossing. Today, if the crossing was in a rural settling as it was in 1883, the railroads probably would have agreed to a 'cheap' grade separation years ago.
But, the location is now in a densely populated settling, with a freeway and underpasses nearby complicating matters. To argue the matter today when there was no contractual contingencies set forth or anticipated nearly 130 ago is fruitless.
From personal experience and long familiarity with Colton Crossing, I can say train conflicts are NOT as great as the press has painted. If left alone, the railroads would probably just tolerate the delays. (They do for siding meets elsewhere, don't they?) But, when there IS a conflict between trains, much town chaos can result. So, adding government financial assistance to the equation is the incentive for the railroads to fork in money and share expenses.
Reading a brief history of the 1883 battle of Colton Crossing is exciting. The sheriff (pro SP) had personally blocked the CS, but capitulated when finally facing possible imminent shootout dead by much more authority than him.
A Wikipedia link is below:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colton_Crossing
Fortunately, the railroads and taxpayers are much more civilized today!
When the flyover is finally finished and operational, watch and see if I am not right: The rejoicing citizenry will soon be up in arms when UP trains CONTINUE to use the northwest quadrant's transition track often and block Valley Blvd. with very long, 10 M.P.H. moving trains! Did I say taxpayers were much more civilized?
BNSF6400 (5-11):
Concerning the Colton Flyover, the diagraming I've seen showed that IF ("if") the choice had been UP going under the BNSF, the upward grade from the BNSF (Colton Crossing) would have been nearly the same, but extended all the way west to the Balloon track area. I thought the UP going under the BNSF approach would be dirt-cheep, but I guess the powers that be thought otherwise. As far that going under and the Santa Ana River height, it would still be higher than the river, so I don't think that would have been an issue.
I still envision problems between UP and BNSF when westbound UP trains transition to the BNSF on the southeast quadrant, and have to transition from the east track to the west track, and vice versa with eastbound trains. It seems the 'battles' will never stop!
KP
Thanks for the great reply. It answers many of the questions that I had. With all of the over passes that UP is building it almost seems like their line would be a roller coaster. I realize that they use long grades to reach the top of the over pass so the gradient is not too severe. Looking at some of the photos that were taken with a severe telephoto lens they do look like a roller coaster ride. Telephoto lenses have a problem with accentuating things like this. Keep up the great reporting.
K.P:
First of all, many thanks for the now countless photographs and well over 500 posts regarding the Sunset Route two-tracking and related projects.
As far as the WHAT IF routes for the Colton Flyover...the BNSF under proposal would have been much too costly as there are at least three underpasses of local roads already that would have to be replaced with surface level structures.
As for the UP under BNSF...I too would have thought this was a "cheap" no -brianer option, but Union Pacific didn't want either a major eastbound grade (my 4% was based on climbing out of a cut to surface level between the diamonds and Rancho Avenue nor a deep cut all the way to Pepper Avenue.
As far as westbound UP to southbound BNSF on the southeast quadrant...yes this will still be a problem and yes the locals will be complaining about that and also about the additional train noise now that UP trains will be 40 feet in the air!!!
Finally, remember this rule...whenever you relieve a bottleneck to operations, it really doesn't disappear, it just moves to the next most restrictive location on the line...such is the life for railroading engineering professionals.
BNSF6400 ... snip ... Finally, remember this rule...whenever you relieve a bottleneck to operations, it really doesn't disappear, it just moves to the next most restrictive location on the line...such is the life for railroading engineering professionals.
If UP traffic increases faster than the BNSF, westbounds waiting to use the SE connector and the BNSF to Riverside (LA sub) may require extending the connector across the river and creating a longer 'hold' siding. If BNSF traffic increases faster, they would be encouraged to literally bridge the 3MT gap between CP 29 and Highgrove.
I'm still puzzled that locals didn't object more to continued use of the NW connector - several downtown streets are blocked, only some of which are planned for separation or closure. Wouldn't qualifying a few BNSF crews on the Mojave sub south (RR east) of Keenbrook be a cost effective way to reduce NW connector traffic?
BTW the article on moving the Maricopa Amtrak station mentioned the planned location as the 'Estrella gin' property. Do any (former) locals know the exact location of this site? TIA!
Links to my Google Maps ---> Sunset Route overview, SoCal metro, Yuma sub, Gila sub, SR east of Tucson, BNSF Northern Transcon and Southern Transcon *** Why you should support Ukraine! ***
BNSF6400 (5-12):
BNSF6400 K.P: First of all, many thanks for the now countless photographs and well over 500 posts regarding the Sunset Route two-tracking and related projects. As far as the WHAT IF routes for the Colton Flyover...the BNSF under proposal would have been much too costly as there are at least three underpasses of local roads already that would have to be replaced with surface level structures. As for the UP under BNSF...I too would have thought this was a "cheap" no -brianer option, but Union Pacific didn't want either a major eastbound grade (my 4% was based on climbing out of a cut to surface level between the diamonds and Rancho Avenue nor a deep cut all the way to Pepper Avenue. As far as westbound UP to southbound BNSF on the southeast quadrant...yes this will still be a problem and yes the locals will be complaining about that and also about the additional train noise now that UP trains will be 40 feet in the air!!! Finally, remember this rule...whenever you relieve a bottleneck to operations, it really doesn't disappear, it just moves to the next most restrictive location on the line...such is the life for railroading engineering professionals.
I don't think using the southeast connector in Colton, CA is a problem, and its distance is sufficiently long. In reviewing the issue of getting east side trains over to the west side between Colton and Riverside (and vice versa), I've concluded that the most practical place for a flyover is at BNSF's north-south B-5 Bridge over the Santa Ana River in Colton. But, that will probably come down to an impossible conflict with BNSF demanding a free flowing mainline verses a stingy UP that does want to spend the money.
As far as the super slow northwest connector, that problem may only be a temporary one. From the SANBAG website, it appears the grade separation between the BNSF and Valley Blvd. (in Colton) is relatively close to beginning construction. So, in a couple of years, slow moving trains on the northwest connector won't be an issue anymore.
At this point, the SANBAG website still is un-determinate as of how the Valley Blvd. grade separating will be, whether an overpass or underpass. IF an underpass is chosen, a BNSF shoefly will be necessary. If it is to be an overpass, everything is cool. However, if a shoefly is necessary, the I-10 Freeway would be a problem. I wonder if THAT is why the UP Flyover has TWO bridge spans over the BNSF instead of only one. Those presently just rebar center supports were recently erected by Colton Crossing.
A shoefly may be EAST of those rebar supports, instead of the present mainlines to the WEST of them.
The tricky two-lane Laurel Ave. underpass construction and the BNSF shoefly thereat should get started around New Year's 2013.
As far as the actual Sunset Route is concerned, the grade separation at Hunts Lane west of CP SP542 LOMA LINDA is imminent. Forum followers may remember that the old section of never changed out target signals between Bryn Mawn and Colton may be because of new track concepts UP has in mind relative to that Hunts Lane overpass.
So, there is a whole lot of activity to watch in the months ahead, and a whole lot of money to be flowing through the community.
MikeF90 (5-12):
I use to see BNSF transfer runs all the time on the Palmdale Cutoff between West Colton Yard in Colton and Silverwood in Cajon Pass, but haven't seen any such trains for a while. It is unknown why there haven't been any of late.
As far as the Amtrak station relocation in Maricopa, AZ ... The photo in the link news clip brought back memories of past travels in Arizona. I remember passing that photo site and sign last year, but can't for the life of me remember exactly where it was at.
Best wishes everyone,
K.P., MikeF90,
The Estrella Gin property is located on the west side of Maricopa, south of SR238 (Smith-Enke Rd.) and adjacent to Garvey Rd. which runs parallel to the U.P. There is a large parcel there that the city wants to develop as an industrial park.
desertdog (5-13):
Hi John,
In reviewing of aerials of the Maricopa, AZ area, two properties seem to fit your description ... the upper left one a triangle type shape, and the right one has a similarity to the state of Nevada.
Is one of these the Estrella Gin property?
Thanks,
K. P. Harrier desertdog (5-13): Hi John, In reviewing of aerials of the Maricopa, AZ area, two properties seem to fit your description ... the upper left one a triangle type shape, and the right one has a similarity to the state of Nevada. Is one of these the Estrella Gin property? Thanks, K.P.
K.P.,
It's the piece that resembles the State of Nevada, but it also includes a wedge south of Garvey Ave. and the railroad. There's not a lot of room between Garvey and the tracks, and there is talk of building a dedicated siding to serve it, so to me it's conceivable that the depot would be placed in that southern portion of the property, south of the U.P.
Unscrambling a Signal Mystery
Part A (of A-B)
A Situation Opinion Essay by K. P. Harrier
Recently, new color light signals replaced old target signals on the Los Angeles & Salt Lake (LA&SL) in the Montclair-Ontario area of California. As seen in the below reshown photo, a single head is used in advance of a 40 M.P.H. interlocking and switch in reverse with a red over green thereat.
That has been standard in Utah, Wyoming, and Nebraska for years, as in the Kearney, NE photo below with single-head intermediates right of center by the overpass.
However, about the same time as the Montclair-Ontario, CA upgrades, signals were activated in the Wymola area of Arizona that had lower heads in advance of the 40 M.P.H. crossovers ahead.
Presumably, the right active westbound head group above (facing the camera) shows a yellow over yellow in advance of a red over green at CP SP943 WYMOLA.
So, UP is erecting signals in two different areas concurrently that have different signal operating rules! One uses just a flashing yellow, whereas the other uses a yellow over yellow in advance of a 40 M.P.H. crossover.
Continued in Part B
Part B (of A-B)
K.P. must confess he had been tricked for YEARS. Among the first UP (not SP) Sunset Route two-tracking efforts in Arizona was the 11.2 mile stretch between CP SP819 STANWIX (M.P. 818.8) and CP SP831 SENTINEL (M.P. 831.2), for the most part in plain sight right along the I-8 Freeway. The advance signals for that stretch have two-heads, so K.P. had always presumed the turnouts were 50 M.P.H. However, sources in the know insist that the turnouts involved (future universal crossovers) are actually of the 40 M.P.H. type!
So, UP has, and is, putting in a second track on the Sunset Route with BOTH 40 M.P.H. and 50 M.P.H. crossovers. That would explain the 40 M.P.H. crossovers that have been put in just recently in the Picacho-Wymola area, such as at CP SP938 EAST PICACHO (the crossover, NOT the northernmost track or the left viewed siding switch below). The camera looks east.
A westbound train approaching that CP in crossover mode should get a yellow over yellow in advance (the right facing heads on either mast) ...
... and a red over green (or red over flashing green) at the CP itself (assuming there is no train ahead) and signals ahead are lined also.
On the other hand, if a siding route was lined by the DS at CP SP938 EAST PICACHO, a train would probably get a yellow over yellow in advance also, with a red over yellow at CP SP938 EAST PICACHO, the typical signal for an entrance to a 30 M.P.H controlled siding.
So, now that the situation is known (but not field verified), we are left wondering WHY Union Pacific uses TWO different signal systems, the one on the Central Corridor (UT, WY, and NE) including its triple-track funnel in Nebraska, and the other on the Sunset Route. Will everything everywhere on the UP system eventually be as the new signals on the Sunset Route? Is there an internal, secret conspiracy within UP, that when the Sunset Route two-tracking is finally finish, conspirators will get Uncle Sam to order the Sunset Route and Cotton Belt to be divided off from Omaha's governance on the pretense that UP is too big? K.P. is inclined to think that is NOT the case and such will NOT happen.
Sometime within the first 10 years of our 21st Century, a NEW signal installation policy shift seems to have taken place for UP, and those installations on the CENTRAL CORRIDOR and elsewhere use a yellow over yellow in advance of a 40 M.P.H. crossover CP, and a yellow of green in advance of a 50 M.P.H. crossover, such as at Porter Rd. in Maricopa, AZ on the Sunset Route.
The OLDER new installations in Nebraska, such as when the line therein was being triple-tracked just less than a decade ago, used merely a flashing yellow in advance of a 40 M.P.H. crossover CP that is in crossover mode.
The new signals in the Montclair-Ontario, CA area on the LA&SL that only use a flashing yellow in advance of a 40 M.P.H. turnout is probably that old way because it is only an upgrade rather than a totally new installation. The somewhere east of Gibbon, NE to Omaha, NE trackage went directly from "double-track" Automatic Block Signals (ABS) to "two-track" Centralized Traffic Control (CTC) in recent times, and thus uses the "yellow over" displays.
The big trouble with yellow over yellow displays is that they are so generic and non-exclusive in their meaning. Yellow over yellow is used for 30, 40, and 50 M.P.H. crossovers, and probably anything else too. The benefit of the old flashing yellow in advance of a red over green is that trainmen would know for a fact that the turnout speed WAS 40 M.P.H.
With that said, K.P. will let the forum readers decide in their own minds whether UP is progressing forward or regressing backwards with their signal arrangements. But, at least the signaling mystery appears to have been unscrambled.
K. P. Harrier The big trouble with yellow over yellow displays is that they are so generic and non-exclusive in their meaning. Yellow over yellow is used for 30, 40, and 50 M.P.H. crossovers, and probably anything else too. The benefit of the old flashing yellow in advance of a red over green is that trainmen would know for a fact that the turnout speed WAS 40 M.P.H.
A flashing yellow is an Advance Approach aspect--the only thing required by that signal is that a freight train immediately reduce its speed to 40. The rule says nothing about what's ahead.Yellow-over-yellow just says you have to be ready to proceed on the diverging route at the next signal at the prescribed speed--so you don't have to be down to 40 (or whatever) until you've reached the signal. Yellow-over-green is an easing-up of the normal Approach Diverging aspect, saying that you won't have to slow down beyond 50.Crews are supposed to know their territory, and the timetable tells you which crossovers are 40 and which are 50 (or whatever other speed restrictions they may require). So the thing to know is that you're diverging, and you know what speed with the two-head indication. The flashing yellow just means get your train down to 40 now. You could be crossing over at the next signal, or there could be a train two blocks ahead. That's the ambiguity that's being removed with the second head--the timetable clears up any ambiguity with yellow-over-yellow.
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)
It looks like CShaveRR made many of the same points I was going to say.
UP's signaling system isn't a speed signaling system. It's the timetable that dictates safe speeds on turnouts, not the signal aspects. The job of the signals is to give the train crews enough information to operate their train as efficiently yet safely as possible. Signals are very expensive to implement and maintain, so most railroads opt for a minimalist implementation whenever possible.
I tend to agree with CShaveRR that UP is trying to make Flashing Yellow less ambiguous with regard to stopping at the second signal. The BNSF rules state that Flashing Yellow and Yellow/Yellow are the exact same indication, but even they have been converting distant signals showing Flashing Yellow to the Yellow/Yellow aspect for years now. (Also eliminating the minimalism and the ambiguity.) Train crews often have an "operating under Approach" mindset that makes perfect sense to try to extend to Flashing Yellow.
Each track situation is different, so there can be subtle reasons why aspect progression would be different in one place to another. Line speed limits, signal spacing, and train tonnage are the largest factors I can think of that can affect that. One aspect (no pun intended) that requires time-consuming observation is the subtle changes in signal aspects as the indications degrade. At one interlocking signal you could see Red over Green, while its distant signal shows Yellow/Yellow. If that interlocking signal instead shows Red over Yellow, the distant signal might drop to Flashing Yellow, or, it might stay at Yellow/Yellow. Each situation is different, but it's my observation that BNSF and UP continue to have slightly divergent takes on this.
Even with a yellow over yellow approach diverging there can be ambiguity. Coming into Fremont you get a yellow over yellow if you are going to go to either main 1 or 3. (main 2 is straight up the middle) Main 1 is only good for 20, mains 2 and 3 are good for 30.
We have one spot where you get a yellow over yellow in advance of a 40 mph crossover. It's because the crossover was originally a 30 mph, but was upgraded. The signal system wasn't. Otherwise, all our 40mph crossovers have two flashing yellows in advance of them. If you aren't crossing over in ATC territory, you get train control going past the first one. (One exception near Mo Valley. Depending on who you talk too, it's either wired right or wrong.) On the single track approaching Mo Valley, each route gives one single flashing yellow before the signal governing the switch. Both are 40 mph turnouts.
You may be right about them going back to the approach divergings, but I think someone really needs to see one of these signals lit up for a train.
Biggest problem with not knowing for sure if you're crossing over is when there is a speed restriction for or just past the crossover move, or a Form B at or just past the crossover. A while back I mentioned where we were crossing over on a single yellow (approach). You didn't know for sure which way you were going until you actually saw the switch points. Someone got into trouble with a Form B. The FRA made them make changes there (and a few other places where the exact same setup had been used) so now we get a lunar, Restricting. You still don't know which way you're going, but expected to be able to stop short etc.
Jeff
One other observation from working in UP 4 aspect coded cab signal territory. Going past a Flashing yellow in advance of a crossover move drops the cab signal to Advance Approach. Going past a yellow over yellow (in both cases where I run they are 30 mph crossovers) drops the cab signal to Approach.
On K.P.'s recent post (three above this one), in one of the photos there is a signal (#9001) that shows a yellow over blue aspect; just what condition does the blue signal represent?
zardoz: That's green, not blue. It just looks odd because it's LED.
More on Advance Signaling: Flashing Yellow vs. Yellow over Yellow, or ...
In the two-part "Unscrambling a Signal Mystery" series posted very early Monday, May 14, 2012, advance flashing yellow vs. yellow over yellow for a turnout-crossover routes ahead was compared. After daybreak, it was thought probably more on the matter could be added and clarified, and some composing took place. Upon checking the forum, it was found that CShaveRR and Jovet had added to it quite well. Then, railroader jeffhergert added his important two cents. Their informative posts rounded out the situation, where little can be added. On K.P.'s hit list is revisiting Arizona, and reporting to the forum what the signals in the Picacho-Wymola area that started this whole discussion in the first place actually display. In the meantime, a few tidbits are presented that the forum may find of interest.
A Union Pacific train approaching a FLASHING YELLOW generally has two possibilities for the next signal: (1) a yellow or (2) a red over green, which references crossing over or a turnout route ahead. A THIRD possibility is prominent on Beaumont Hill (and elsewhere) in California, with the next signal after a flashing yellow being yellow over yellow. That third possibility is somewhat illogical, though, as theoretically a train would have to slow to 40 M.P.H. two signals ahead of a 50 M.P.H. crossover!
Circa thirty-five years ago, on the Los Angeles & Salt Lake (LA&SL) there were some new trackwork and color light signals came to the line. Garnet, NV comes to mind. Those types of installations used a yellow over lunar in advance of a red over yellow (or possibly red over green or red over lunar back then) at the CP to go into a 30 M.P.H. siding. It is unknown if that LA&SL trackage still uses that arrangement, but yellow over lunar is now used on new installations in advance of a red over flashing red (or similar).
While it is true that railroaders should know their territory and where 30, 40, and 50 M.P.H. crossovers and turnouts are located at, K.P. finds yellow over yellow too generic and subject to misunderstanding by trainmen, like zombie, sleep deprived engineers and conductors that are tempting entrance to a mysterious land beyond. A new indication, something unheard of today, an advance yellow over flashing yellow might solve the confusion. Thus, it would be (NOT that it is) yellow over yellow in advance of 30 M.P.H. turnouts, yellow of flashing yellow in advance of 40 M.P.H. crossovers, and yellow over green in advance of 50 M.P.H. switches. Yellow over flashing green is often used in advance of 60 M.P.H. switch arrangements.
To add a little spice and odd quirkiness:
In the above October 12, 2009 LA&SL (left) and SP Sunset Route (right of the train) in downtown Pomona, CA photo the yellow over yellow is in advance of a 60 M.P.H. switch (by the red over green signal in the background)!!! That proves to K.P. that yellow over yellow IS too generic!
It would be interesting to hear what trainmen and others in the know think of all the above. (Why are a bunch of rocks flying towards me?)
The list of K.P.'s things to check out in Arizona is getting longer and longer and longer ... It is hope it does get too long before he goes back there ...
Best,
I hate to stir the pot, but let me add one more observation. For west-bound trains approaching the San Pedro River bridge on the eastern outskirts of Benson, Arizona, there is an older style round headed 3 aspect signal.
When no train is approaching, the signal goes dark. When the train is approximately 1/2 mile distant, the signal activates as a flashing yellow. From the red aspect as the train passes, it goes back to dark. There's nothing beyond this signal but the City of Benson with five grade crossings -- no crossovers, no sidings, nada. I've never seen this signal displaying a green indication or solid yellow, and it's right at the old single-track truss bridge, the only one remaining on the Sunset Route.
Trains are coming downhill from Dragoon (elevation 4600 ft) to the San Pedro River (elevation 3800 ft), a distance of approximately 15 track miles, so the flashing yellow is believed to be a speed restriction for the bridge.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.