Incadescent Vs. LED

Want to know what other people think about signals? Ask here.

Moderators: freebrickproductions, mlgillson, PaulSP, TommyBNSF

Incadescent? or LED?

Incadescent
14
50%
LED
8
29%
There cool just as long as there making sure nobody gets killed
6
21%
 
Total votes : 28

Incadescent Vs. LED

Postby Trainmanalex2 » Mon Feb 14, 2011 10:51 pm

Incadescent ftw there more interesting to see in action.
User avatar
Trainmanalex2
 
Posts: 108
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2009 11:02 pm
Location: Carrollton TX

Re: Incadescent Vs. LED

Postby bnsflover » Tue Feb 15, 2011 8:45 am

Great poll!

LEDs, because they just give off more warning.

The only thing bad about them is that a problem like this can happen:

The lights never even shut off!
Attachments
089.JPG
089.JPG (242.02 KiB) Viewed 4184 times
090.JPG
090.JPG (235.04 KiB) Viewed 4186 times
Rob
Certrified BNSF Lover.
BNSF rulez!
User avatar
bnsflover
 
Posts: 332
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2011 9:55 pm
Location: College Station, TX

Re: Incandescent Vs. LED

Postby Smjh1979 » Tue Feb 15, 2011 2:09 pm

Those LEDs fade by design. The same "problem" also happens to incandescents when the flash rate is too fast.

I go 100% for putting LEDs in everything, including 8" light frames. I know that many railfans love the incandescents for their fade. I personally don't care for the fade, and I actually prefer the instant on/off of the LEDs.

Incandescents only last 1000 hours, and when they do burn out, they can take up to 1 month to get replaced when the signal maintainers go and do their monthly inspections. I feel personally that 1 month is too long, but with possibly hundreds of crossings to check, I can see how checking those sooner can be a big problem. I think I'm just too used to Arizona's lack of crossings, which was over 1,000 and is now less than 800 as of 2007.

The only problem that LEDs have is: Their price... I wish LED prices would tank about 70-90%. Also a big problem is heat. Here in Arizona, the extreme heat of 110+ summers takes its toll on LEDs, and makes them fail quicker.

There is another technology that's gaining some new ground, and if it becomes a major player, I wouldn't object to it replacing incandescents.

It's called "ESL" (Electron Stimulated Luminescence), and is looking to be the incandescent re-placer, and mini-CFL killer. Their website can be found here: http://www.vu1corporation.com/

This is brand new technology that's being made, and it's getting a bit of attention so far. They've already made 40-watt replaceable bulbs that are about as efficient as the mini-CFLs are, but with no mercury. I'm not sure if they will fade, but it looks like they may fade (for those who love fading lights). There are currently no bulbs that I'm aware of that are small enough for crossing signals and traffic lights, but if this new light makes it that far, I wouldn't object to those going in crossing signals. Sure 6,000 to 10,000 hours isn't anywhere close to that of LEDs, but in the heat of the Sonoran Desert, it may not be a bad idea for the Southwest US.

Anyways, back on topic... Until ESL gains some new ground, my vote is for LEDs. LEDS FTW!
User avatar
Smjh1979
Site Admin
 
Posts: 1770
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Prescott Valley, AZ

Re: Incadescent Vs. LED

Postby AndyWS » Tue Feb 15, 2011 3:36 pm

I voted incandescent because I prefer them, but not by much. LEDs are pretty much the way of the future, until something better comes along like Mike mentioned.

Here's what :Censored: me off:

Swapping LEDs...for bigger LEDs!

http://www.rxrsignals.net/Wisconsin/R-Z ... n/Provimi/

User avatar
AndyWS
 
Posts: 790
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2009 12:51 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: Incadescent Vs. LED

Postby TommyBNSF » Tue Feb 15, 2011 5:03 pm

Both are nice, I can't really pick a favorite.
User avatar
TommyBNSF
 
Posts: 366
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2009 9:38 pm
Location: Morris, IL

Re: Incadescent Vs. LED

Postby weatherdan882002 » Tue Feb 15, 2011 6:22 pm

LEDs all the way! My reasons for liking them is because they're brighter and last longer than incandescents. I also like them because most don't fade in and out (i.e., instant on/off).

As Mike mentioned, they aren't perfect. They cost A LOT right now, but as the technology evolves, the prices will go down. One negative thing about them is that they don't generate heat, which may be good for the warmer climates, but in colder climates where it often snows, the snow will cover the lenses and won't melt due the lack of heat. This is the case w/ traffic lights, but because crossing lights aren't lit 24/7, IDK if it'd make a difference.

One thing I'd like to see (and IDK if there's currently such a policy in place) is to have warranties placed on the lights in case they fail prematurely so that it doesn't cost so much to replace them if they're faulty. To be honest though, I don't see that many failing today as there have been in the past.

So, it seems that LEDs have their ups and downs right now, but as we progress in time, most of those "downs" will become "ups".
Last edited by weatherdan882002 on Sun Aug 21, 2016 1:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
weatherdan882002
 
Posts: 540
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 8:45 pm
Location: Mechanicville, NY

Re: Incandescent Vs. LED

Postby bnsflover » Tue Feb 15, 2011 8:09 pm

Smjh1979 wrote:Those LEDs fade by design. The same "problem" also happens to incandescents when the flash rate is too fast.


These were not supposed to fade. Those lights were the same type as the sidelights, and the sidelights worked perfectly. As a matter of fact, the lights did not turn off completely until about five seconds after they were supposed to.
Rob
Certrified BNSF Lover.
BNSF rulez!
User avatar
bnsflover
 
Posts: 332
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2011 9:55 pm
Location: College Station, TX

Re: Incadescent Vs. LED

Postby Smjh1979 » Tue Feb 15, 2011 8:16 pm

I'd have to see the LED type, because they sure look like Safetran FLX-2000B fading LEDs to me.
User avatar
Smjh1979
Site Admin
 
Posts: 1770
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Prescott Valley, AZ

Re: Incadescent Vs. LED

Postby bnsflover » Tue Feb 15, 2011 8:24 pm

Smjh1979 wrote:I'd have to see the LED type, because they sure look like Safetran FLX-2000B fading LEDs to me.

Nope, they are not:
Image

This was taken the day before at the same crossing. If you look closely, then you can see that the lights are WCH.
Rob
Certrified BNSF Lover.
BNSF rulez!
User avatar
bnsflover
 
Posts: 332
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2011 9:55 pm
Location: College Station, TX

Re: Incadescent Vs. LED

Postby Smjh1979 » Tue Feb 15, 2011 9:31 pm

Not exactly. Mixtures occur very often with crossings. The light frames are WCH, but the LEDs are from UP. Very unusual... I could've sworn they looked like Safetran fading... Very unusual. Looks like that's one of UP's LEDs gone wrong...
User avatar
Smjh1979
Site Admin
 
Posts: 1770
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Prescott Valley, AZ

Next

Return to Polls

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests