Cutting down on the amount of pages we create

Find any mistakes such as dead links, misspelled text, or any other inaccuracies? Post them here to get them fixed.

Moderators: freebrickproductions, mlgillson, TommyBNSF, Raco_GS

User avatar
freebrickproductions
Posts: 8449
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 11:12 am
Location: Huntsville, AL
Contact:

Re: Cutting down on the amount of pages we create

Post by freebrickproductions » Wed Oct 11, 2017 8:02 pm

ToledoRailfan wrote:
freebrickproductions wrote:
ToledoRailfan wrote:
freebrickproductions wrote: The last railroad here in the US to still use 8 inch lights is the Strasburg Railroad.
Not true. The Adrian & Blissfield in southeast Michigan used them when they upgraded this crossing. I wouldn't be surprised if there are other railroads too.
http://www.rxrsignals.com/Michigan/Blissfield/Lane/
I had forgotten about that.
That's why you don't make assumptions! :Tongue2:
TBH, I'm not exactly as aware of that railroad as you are.

Also, not trying to start sh!t here, but I do find it kinda funny how you don't want to go to a mostly-pure 1970s/1980s Conrail install, but would rather go to a modern NS install because the latter has ped gates on it, even though you had already been to the latter already. :Roll:
They/Them for me, please.

Click here if you want to submit crossing photos to the site!

Avatar by runesprite on Twitter.
User avatar
ToledoRailfan
No Longer Associated With The Forum
Posts: 3315
Joined: Sun Jul 21, 2013 2:38 pm

Re: Cutting down on the amount of pages we create

Post by ToledoRailfan » Wed Oct 11, 2017 8:03 pm

freebrickproductions wrote:
ToledoRailfan wrote:
freebrickproductions wrote:
ToledoRailfan wrote:
freebrickproductions wrote: The last railroad here in the US to still use 8 inch lights is the Strasburg Railroad.
Not true. The Adrian & Blissfield in southeast Michigan used them when they upgraded this crossing. I wouldn't be surprised if there are other railroads too.
http://www.rxrsignals.com/Michigan/Blissfield/Lane/
I had forgotten about that.
That's why you don't make assumptions! :Tongue2:
TBH, I'm not exactly as aware of that railroad as you are.

Also, not trying to start sh!t here, but I do find it kinda funny how you don't want to go to a mostly-pure 1970s/1980s Conrail install, but would rather go to a modern NS install because the latter has ped gates on it, even though you had already been to the latter already. :Roll:
How often do you see signalized pedestrian crossings?! :Tongue2: :cool:

In a Metropark if I must add.
User avatar
freebrickproductions
Posts: 8449
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 11:12 am
Location: Huntsville, AL
Contact:

Re: Cutting down on the amount of pages we create

Post by freebrickproductions » Wed Oct 11, 2017 8:07 pm

ToledoRailfan wrote:
freebrickproductions wrote:
ToledoRailfan wrote:
freebrickproductions wrote:
ToledoRailfan wrote:
freebrickproductions wrote: The last railroad here in the US to still use 8 inch lights is the Strasburg Railroad.
Not true. The Adrian & Blissfield in southeast Michigan used them when they upgraded this crossing. I wouldn't be surprised if there are other railroads too.
http://www.rxrsignals.com/Michigan/Blissfield/Lane/
I had forgotten about that.
That's why you don't make assumptions! :Tongue2:
TBH, I'm not exactly as aware of that railroad as you are.

Also, not trying to start sh!t here, but I do find it kinda funny how you don't want to go to a mostly-pure 1970s/1980s Conrail install, but would rather go to a modern NS install because the latter has ped gates on it, even though you had already been to the latter already. :Roll:
How often do you see signalized pedestrian crossings?! :Tongue2: :cool:

In a Metropark if I must add.
I was referring to when I said you should go to that 1970s/80s Conrail crossing on Skype but you said you'd rather go to this crossing because it had ped gates, even though you had asked Yan and I where we should recommend you go.
They/Them for me, please.

Click here if you want to submit crossing photos to the site!

Avatar by runesprite on Twitter.
User avatar
ToledoRailfan
No Longer Associated With The Forum
Posts: 3315
Joined: Sun Jul 21, 2013 2:38 pm

Re: Cutting down on the amount of pages we create

Post by ToledoRailfan » Wed Oct 11, 2017 8:14 pm

freebrickproductions wrote:
ToledoRailfan wrote:
freebrickproductions wrote:
ToledoRailfan wrote:
freebrickproductions wrote:
ToledoRailfan wrote:
freebrickproductions wrote: The last railroad here in the US to still use 8 inch lights is the Strasburg Railroad.
Not true. The Adrian & Blissfield in southeast Michigan used them when they upgraded this crossing. I wouldn't be surprised if there are other railroads too.
http://www.rxrsignals.com/Michigan/Blissfield/Lane/
I had forgotten about that.
That's why you don't make assumptions! :Tongue2:
TBH, I'm not exactly as aware of that railroad as you are.

Also, not trying to start sh!t here, but I do find it kinda funny how you don't want to go to a mostly-pure 1970s/1980s Conrail install, but would rather go to a modern NS install because the latter has ped gates on it, even though you had already been to the latter already. :Roll:
How often do you see signalized pedestrian crossings?! :Tongue2: :cool:

In a Metropark if I must add.
I was referring to when I said you should go to that 1970s/80s Conrail crossing on Skype but you said you'd rather go to this crossing because it had ped gates, even though you had asked Yan and I where we should recommend you go.
Crap. I thought you were talking about the Wildwood crossing. :oops: Its rare to find pedestrian gates in Ohio so its pretty unique (and I wasn't going to the crossing to document it, its a good place to railfan). I'd rather document something unique (even though the equipment is new) than a generic rural Midwestern cantilever-less Conrail crossing, we already have crossings like that on the site or crossings similar to that so I didn't really see the need to document it (plus there was nowhere to park), kind of goes back to the quality over quantity thing.

Don't recall asking for a recommended crossing. :Wink:
User avatar
freebrickproductions
Posts: 8449
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 11:12 am
Location: Huntsville, AL
Contact:

Re: Cutting down on the amount of pages we create

Post by freebrickproductions » Wed Oct 11, 2017 8:27 pm

ToledoRailfan wrote: Its rare to find pedestrian gates in Ohio so its pretty unique (and I wasn't going to the crossing to document it, its a good place to railfan). I'd rather document something unique (even though the equipment is new) than a generic rural Midwestern cantilever-less Conrail crossing, we already have crossings like that on the site or crossings similar to that so I didn't really see the need to document it (plus there was nowhere to park), kind of goes back to the quality over quantity thing.
I've counted only five, one of which was replaced:
http://www.rxrsignals.com/Ohio/Geneva/Eagle1/
http://www.rxrsignals.com/Ohio/Oak_Harbor/163/
http://www.rxrsignals.com/Ohio/Sandusky/Olds1/
http://www.rxrsignals.com/Ohio/Bowling_Green/Ridge/
http://www.rxrsignals.com/Ohio/Bowling_Green/Poe/

There's also this one, but it doesn't appear to be a Conrail install, though it is rather similar:
http://www.rxrsignals.com/Ohio/Lakewood/Warren/

And looking at the road and Ohio's parking laws, there's plenty of space along the shoulders on both sides of the crossing, as long as you're more than 50 feet from the crossing.
They/Them for me, please.

Click here if you want to submit crossing photos to the site!

Avatar by runesprite on Twitter.
User avatar
TrickyMario7654
Posts: 1355
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 6:45 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: Cutting down on the amount of pages we create

Post by TrickyMario7654 » Wed Oct 11, 2017 8:32 pm

Down here in Victoria, it's pretty hard to find rare equipment in rural areas nowdays due to the extreme amount of upgrades that have occurred in recent years. Although, there are some interesting newer installs nonetheless...

For instance, this crossing near Warragul has one track crossing the road, while the other passes under the road.
https://www.google.com.au/maps/@-38.144 ... 6656?hl=en
https://www.google.com.au/maps/@-38.144 ... 6656?hl=en

This one near Rosedale has the track approach on a sharp angle, running parallel to the road before curving to cross it. (Don't let the old image deceive you, as I think the crossing now has gates.)
https://www.google.com.au/maps/@-38.154 ... 1664?hl=en
https://www.google.com.au/maps/@-38.154 ... !1e3?hl=en

I would also give priority to this crossing. Although it looks like a generic late 2000's/early 2010's installation, it's currently in the process of being replaced with an overpass.
https://www.google.com.au/maps/@-38.311 ... 6656?hl=en

Priority should also be given to disused crossings which still has signals standing at them, as VicRoads (aka NaziRoads) loves to remove them for "safety reasons".
https://www.google.com.au/maps/@-38.101 ... 6656?hl=en

Additionally, any crossings that still have m-bells (especially Teardrops), or those that are up for removal in Melbourne so be documented as soon as possible. Unfortunately, the latter is the main reason why we missed out on documenting crossings like this one in Bentleigh...
https://www.google.com.au/maps/@-37.918 ... 6656?hl=en
User avatar
ToledoRailfan
No Longer Associated With The Forum
Posts: 3315
Joined: Sun Jul 21, 2013 2:38 pm

Re: Cutting down on the amount of pages we create

Post by ToledoRailfan » Wed Oct 11, 2017 8:55 pm

freebrickproductions wrote:
ToledoRailfan wrote: Its rare to find pedestrian gates in Ohio so its pretty unique (and I wasn't going to the crossing to document it, its a good place to railfan). I'd rather document something unique (even though the equipment is new) than a generic rural Midwestern cantilever-less Conrail crossing, we already have crossings like that on the site or crossings similar to that so I didn't really see the need to document it (plus there was nowhere to park), kind of goes back to the quality over quantity thing.
I've counted only five, one of which was replaced:
http://www.rxrsignals.com/Ohio/Geneva/Eagle1/
http://www.rxrsignals.com/Ohio/Oak_Harbor/163/
http://www.rxrsignals.com/Ohio/Sandusky/Olds1/
http://www.rxrsignals.com/Ohio/Bowling_Green/Ridge/
http://www.rxrsignals.com/Ohio/Bowling_Green/Poe/

There's also this one, but it doesn't appear to be a Conrail install, though it is rather similar:
http://www.rxrsignals.com/Ohio/Lakewood/Warren/
Thats kind of enough (at least in my opinion). There are only a few crossings in my area (not including the ones in the bad neighborhoods) that I want to go out of my way to document. A year ago and even less than that I would've had a different opinion about this (not about the bad neighborhood crossings), but with more and more pages being added to the site of the same stuff over and over again, it has really put me off documenting many crossings for the site and almost putting me off documenting crossings for the site as a whole. And plus there are many Ohio crossings that aren't Conrail installs but are pretty much identical. I don't think that just because something is kind of becoming rare doesn't mean that we need to go on a documenting spree of those crossings. We have plenty examples of them on the site and plus streetview has many clear images of most Chicago Line crossings and other crossings in the area.
User avatar
Raco_GS
Posts: 49
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:22 am
Location: SP Coastline
Contact:

Re: Cutting down on the amount of pages we create

Post by Raco_GS » Wed Oct 11, 2017 10:46 pm

freebrickproductions wrote: Also, not trying to start sh!t here, but I do find it kinda funny how you don't want to go to a mostly-pure 1970s/1980s Conrail install, but would rather go to a modern NS install because the latter has ped gates on it, even though you had already been to the latter already. :Roll:
I found that a bit funny as well. :Roll:
User avatar
ToledoRailfan
No Longer Associated With The Forum
Posts: 3315
Joined: Sun Jul 21, 2013 2:38 pm

Re: Cutting down on the amount of pages we create

Post by ToledoRailfan » Wed Oct 11, 2017 10:51 pm

I wasn't there to document it for the site. :Wink: Don't see why that is relevant.
Post Reply