Signal Wiring

[owensri]

I want your opinion on this matter...

As most of you know...Conrail has been updating their crossings around here. On some of them...they wired them differently than the way they were before. For instance:

Taking a look at this crossing, Goddard Rd. in Wyandotte, MI (the 4 inner mast signals are owned by Conrail):



The old way they had it setup was like this...

If a train were to come on one of those 2 middle tracks...only the track with the train on it would activate. Say the 1st set of signals was where the train is. Those would flash...but the 2nd track would remain off.

Now...on the new setup...

If a train comes on that 1st track...BOTH tracks flash, and all 4 bells are ringing for no reason. #1, that is pretty stupid in my opinion...and #2...it is a bigger drain on the batteries if there's a power failure. Another downside to that issue...is you don't know which track is malfunctioning of the two. You'd have figure it out in the case.

Conrail did update Antoine St...and Ford Ave...but they left those like the old setup here. I just hope they don't change them. It's irritating...

[owensri]

Anyone want to voice their opinion on it? A see alot of votes but not any comments...

[owensri]

Yeah, those crossbucks are long gone thankfully...

Thanks...I thought that was a pretty cool cantilever as well...

[mwp12290]

Yeah, I think I like the old setup better.

[SirKrunch]

I think the bells on all the inner mast signals are unnecessary anyway. In fact, I don't know that I even think the signals in the middle are necessary to begin with. But since the different tracks are under different RR's, let 'em do whatever they want.

[owensri]

Actually, there is a requirement to how many feet the tracks can be spaced apart before needing signals. These crossings are all too wide to not have signals on the inner tracks. But I do agree...they don't need all those bells. At that particular crossing...all 8 bells ring at once!

[weatherdan882002]

Assuming that with the old way both gates lower regardless on what track the train was on, I like the old way better, considering it prevents people from being on a different set of tracks while another train couls still come through.

I actually don't really see the point of double-crossings unless like in my town there's a street between them. Otherwise I think they could just use one set of gates to cover the whole thing like a single crossing.

[owensri]

Assuming that with the old way both gates lower regardless on what track the train was on, I like the old way better, considering it prevents people from being on a different set of tracks while another train couls still come through.

I actually don't really see the point of double-crossings unless like in my town there's a street between them. Otherwise I think they could just use one set of gates to cover the whole thing like a single crossing.

Yes, both gates lowered no matter what track the train is on...and it's still that way. But as I've said, there are rules as to how many feet apart the next track is to when you need signals or not, because believe me...I'm sure the railroad would love to not have signals to maintain if they didn't have to have them there...

[nickrink]

I like the old setup better. Now there all the crossings kind of do that.

[UnionPacific4Life]

Old setup