Page 1 of 1
GIANT bridge signal in Idaho
Posted: Fri Dec 31, 2010 3:09 pm
by gmfla
Re: GIANT bridge signal in Idaho
Posted: Fri Dec 31, 2010 3:24 pm
by cabman701
The way the tracks are angled, I think it is a smart decision. Just the one bridge was needed to cover both directions of traffic. And trains actually run underneath the bridge.
Good find!
Re: GIANT bridge signal in Idaho
Posted: Sat Jan 01, 2011 10:26 pm
by Mafarnz
Hey, that's on the EIRR Twin Falls branch line! They have recently started running unit grain trains to Buhl to a new ethanol plant there. I've always wanted to see one of those trains in action, if I ever make it down there I'll make sure to film that crossing in action and post it. Thanks for the link!
Re: GIANT bridge signal in Idaho
Posted: Sun Jan 02, 2011 6:50 am
by SantaFebuff
I do think it's weird. I don't know how effective that would be. I'm surprised to see no gates. Perhaps it costs too much just for that giant signal.
They probably could have gone with lower overheads. It looks like you might miss the overhead signals if you had your sun visor down.
Plus, the regular
LIGHTS on each side you would see, but they are very far off. You have three lanes from either side. In addition, I wonder how cost effective it was to build just a giant, fully involved, signal.
Certainly reminds me of the siren crossing from the 1940s. At least the signal maintainer just has to walk and check things. Not like the signal doesn't have a walkway on top like some cantilevers... might even be a good spot for lunch.
I'll try to dig up the siren crossing from the 1940s. It was very interesting.
Cheers,
Joshua
Re: GIANT bridge signal in Idaho
Posted: Sun Jan 02, 2011 1:37 pm
by TommyBNSF
That huge cantilever, all controlled by a little cabinet relay case. I've seen gateless mast signals controlled by huge bungalows.
Re: GIANT bridge signal in Idaho
Posted: Mon Jan 03, 2011 12:26 pm
by TrainmanKight
SantaFebuff wrote:I do think it's weird. I don't know how effective that would be. I'm surprised to see no gates. Perhaps it costs too much just for that giant signal.
They probably could have gone with lower overheads. It looks like you might miss the overhead signals if you had your sun visor down.
Plus, the regular flashers on each side you would see, but they are very far off. You have three lanes from either side. In addition, I wonder how cost effective it was to build just a giant, fully involved, signal.
Certainly reminds me of the siren crossing from the 1940s. At least the signal maintainer just has to walk and check things. Not like the signal doesn't have a walkway on top like some cantilevers... might even be a good spot for lunch.
I'll try to dig up the siren crossing from the 1940s. It was very interesting.
Cheers,
Joshua
lower the bridge any the train would whack the crap out of it,
wounder if they could run intermodal under it thou
also if you use the word FLASHERS AGAIN im going to hit you over the head with one and take away your cookie
Re: GIANT bridge signal in Idaho
Posted: Tue Jan 04, 2011 7:32 pm
by SantaFebuff
But you already took away my cookie...
No more mis-used terms to describe a relay. It's just so fun to make you upset!
I'll edit it out.
Cheers,
Joshua