home bbs files messages ]

Just a sample of the Echomail archive

Cooperative anarchy at its finest, still active today. Darkrealms is the Zone 1 Hub.

   RAILFAN      Trains, model railroading hobby      3,261 messages   

[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]

   Message 2,011 of 3,261   
   Adam H. Kerman to Stephen Sprunk   
   Re: RE green over red.   
   02 Jan 16 22:36:48   
   
   From: ahk@chinet.com   
      
   Stephen Sprunk  wrote:   
   >On 02-Jan-16 14:48, Adam H. Kerman wrote:   
   >>Stephen Sprunk  wrote:   
   >>>On 02-Jan-16 01:46, spsfman wrote:   
      
   >>>>It isn't for a grade crossing, but it quite possibly could be for   
   >>>>a diverging track. The tracks are elevated and grade separated   
   >>>>where I saw the signal. But just ahead, the tracks go to grade   
   >>>>and pass the now being completed maintenance yard. While the yard   
   >>>>is on the left, I think there is also a siding on the right in   
   >>>>the vicinity and just past the yards. So it rather makes sense.   
      
   >>>Sounds like this is coming west from Expo/Bundy Station; the yard   
   >>>is on the left after the line returns to grade, but according to   
   >>>the FEIR, the two mains are on the far right and the only siding (a   
   >>>yard lead, plus the yard itself) is on the left.  I don't see   
   >>>anything in the plans that would indicate a crossover or other   
   >>>interlocking involvement on the right track, but since the left   
   >>>track does and thus needs a two-headed signal, they may have given   
   >>>the right the same for consistency.   
      
   >>A two-headed signal in which the second head is meaningless? That's a   
   >>TERRIBLE idea and just flat out bad engineering. I certainly hope   
   >>there are no real world examples of that.   
      
   >>You don't see the adverse implications?   
      
   >I've seen several examples of two-headed signals where one track's lower   
   >head has a fixed red; I assumed it was there for consistency (to match a   
   >two-headed signal on the other track) since a lower red can't affect the   
   >overall aspect, but perhaps there's another reason.   
      
   Nobody erects a signal head to be decorative.   
      
   Note: There is a location on the CTA "L" in the Dearborn subway with   
   such a signal head. It's where the turnout into the downtown terminal   
   for the O'Hare Express service would have been built. No special work   
   for the turnout was ever performed, but for no valid reason, they   
   erected the signal mast and head before any other work was done. The   
   project has been cancelled for years but the signal wasn't removed.   
      
   If CTA does it, it's stupid.   
      
   >I see _no_ adverse implications aside from a little wasted money.   
      
   What if the signal head the engineer or motorman is required to obey   
   burns out? Seeing the other signal head will be confusing. What if the   
   signal head he doesn't pay attention to burns out? Then he's supposed   
   to follow the fail-safe rule.   
      
   You're just going to be stubborn and not acknowledge the obvious, I know.   
      
   >>On railroads, whenever I've seen signal work, whenever old signals   
   >>are replaced with new signals, they indicate that the old signals or   
   >>new signals are out of service by turning the signal heads. I have   
   >>never seen an instance of an active signal representing nothing on a   
   >>railroad.   
      
   >Turned heads and unused/fixed second heads are completely different; the   
   >former are out of service and the latter are in service.   
      
   Why not leave the old signals active? It's decorative, according to you.   
      
   --- SoupGate/W32 v1.03   
    * Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)   

[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]


(c) 1994,  bbs@darkrealms.ca