Mike's Railroad Crossing Forum

Backwards instillation or still installing? I can't tell.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dasphotography/7691562800/

If you scroll down and read the comments under the photo, the photographer said this:

It used to be a one way street that has now been closed and replaced with a sidewalk. To the right is another signal stand facing the other way. I have no idea why there are two sets of signal/crosbucks, with one facing the complete wrong way. It' CN!

What he is saying makes sense. Back when it was a one-way street, there were 2 signals facing the same way on each side of the road. After they closed the street and made it a pedestrian crossing, they just turned the lights on that one signal to face the opposite direction. Cheap... and it looks retarded... but it gets the job done.

This is what it looked like as a one-way crossing in 2008:

http://www.fuzzyworld3.com/fuzzyphpfoto/rt12/i.htm

Oh ok. He posted that comment after I posted it on here. Good to know. Thanks guys!

AndyWS wrote:This is what it looked like as a one-way crossing in 2008:

http://www.fuzzyworld3.com/fuzzyphpfoto/rt12/i.htm

So did they keep the gate I wonder?

cabman701 wrote:So did they keep the gate I wonder?

I was just thinking the same thing myself.

Perhaps they should have just turned the whole signal around instead. Of course, that would probably cost a lot more labor than just turning light heads...

weatherdan882002 wrote:Perhaps they should have just turned the whole signal around instead. Of course, that would probably cost a lot more labor than just turning light heads...

Or just make it passive again

LARDLOGO wrote:Or just make it passive again

So you have to wonder... was what they did the cheapest option? Would have it been more expensive to rip out the signals (labor wise)?

Then of course you have to factor in the cost of maintenance in keeping the signals... so it could go both ways.

cabman701 wrote:

LARDLOGO wrote:Or just make it passive again

So you have to wonder... was what they did the cheapest option? Would have it been more expensive to rip out the signals (labor wise)?

Then of course you have to factor in the cost of maintenance in keeping the signals... so it could go both ways.

Probably, the signals do look weird but no matter what, it's still doing it's job