More new signals on the Grand Rapids sub

J T · Unread post by **J T** » Thu May 16, 2013 6:54 am

Are gates really necessary there? Trains go what, about 5-10mph through that area?

Saturnalia · Unread post by **Saturnalia** » Thu May 16, 2013 7:34 am

J T wrote:Are gates really necessary there? Trains go what, about 5-10mph through that area?

People, People, people. Gotta keep them off the tracks at train time!

J T · Unread post by **J T** » Thu May 16, 2013 2:12 pm

MQT3001 wrote:
J T wrote:Are gates really necessary there? Trains go what, about 5-10mph through that area?
People, People, people. Gotta keep them off the tracks at train time!

Gates won't keep them off the tracks there. The whole area is wide open to cross the tracks; gates will do little to nothing to deter people.

Someone else agrees with me: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=27357&p=274256#p274256

Saturnalia · Unread post by **Saturnalia** » Thu May 16, 2013 3:05 pm

J T wrote:
MQT3001 wrote:
J T wrote:Are gates really necessary there? Trains go what, about 5-10mph through that area?
People, People, people. Gotta keep them off the tracks at train time!
Gates won't keep them off the tracks there. The whole area is wide open to cross the tracks; gates will do little to nothing to deter people.

Someone else agrees with me: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=27357&p=274256#p274256

It adds another line of reasoning to the railroad's "they shouldn've been on the tracks" agrument should someone get hit, at the very least. It is still a fairly busy crossing in general.

MSchwiebert · Unread post by **MSchwiebert** » Thu May 16, 2013 4:24 pm

Couple of observations on this, 1. do the signal equipment manufacturers even offer "lights only" as an option? 2. With the gates/light combo being the "default" installation in this day an age, imagine the outrage/lawsuits if someone got hit at a crossing with "only" lights - when better protection is available and used elsewhere....

J T · Unread post by **J T** » Fri May 17, 2013 7:27 am

MQT3001 wrote:It is still a fairly busy crossing in general.

And one that I've driven over dozens of times...and I still don't believe, IMO, that gates are necessary there. But that's just my grown up opinion.

Saturnalia · Unread post by **Saturnalia** » Fri May 17, 2013 7:43 am

J T wrote:
MQT3001 wrote:It is still a fairly busy crossing in general.
And one that I've driven over dozens of times...and I still don't believe, IMO, that gates are necessary there. But that's just my grown up opinion.

Are gates needed at Franklin in G-ville? Are they needed on those country roads north of Saugatuck? There are lots of places where they might not be needed...and of all those places left on the GR sub, St. Joseph is far from the worst contender.

SD80MAC · Unread post by **SD80MAC** » Fri May 17, 2013 1:33 pm

It's pretty hard to re-signal a crossing these days without installing gates.

J T · Unread post by **J T** » Sat May 18, 2013 8:27 am

MQT3001 wrote: Are gates needed at Franklin in G-ville? Are they needed on those country roads north of Saugatuck?

Of course, due to the speeds being much faster at those crossings. Logic dictates that.

Are gates needed at 8th Street in Holland and all the non-gated crossings through town to the south? I don't view the crossing in St. Joe any different.

SD80MAC wrote:It's pretty hard to re-signal a crossing these days without installing gates.

Well, if they don't make crossing signals any more without gates attached to them, then that explains it.

Jochs · Unread post by **Jochs** » Sat May 18, 2013 3:20 pm

They probably have to put gates on them because, let's face it, common sense isn't so common anymore.

CSX_CO · Unread post by **CSX_CO** » Sat May 18, 2013 10:37 pm

MSchwiebert wrote:Couple of observations on this, 1. do the signal equipment manufacturers even offer "lights only" as an option? 2. With the gates/light combo being the "default" installation in this day an age, imagine the outrage/lawsuits if someone got hit at a crossing with "only" lights - when better protection is available and used elsewhere....

You can get anything you want, if you're willing to spend the money. SafeTRANS still offers mechanical searchlights (last I knew it was $10K for one) if you REALLY want to install them. You can also get the head configuation anyway you want it with brackets. You want a PRR style Position Light, they'll hook you up.

Anyway, they make 'flasher only' crossing protection. You'll see those used in the median side of gates and whatnot. But, most signal projects just default to the gates and flashers. State throws money at the projects, and I'm sure they're 'standards' factor in to the installation too. By the time I left the Garrett Sub in 2005 for greener pastures, I think there were only 1 or 2 'unimproved crossings' (one was in Fostoria just west of F Tower). Of the 'improved' ones, I think only a couple didn't have flashers AND gates on them. In addition, they had closed a lot of the lesser used crossings altogether. Crossing protection on the St. Louis line gets flashers and gates, and some of the roads aren't used by much more than farmers between fields.

Practice Safe CSX

J T · Unread post by **J T** » Sun May 19, 2013 9:18 am

Jochs wrote:They probably have to put gates on them because, let's face it, common sense isn't so common anymore.

The real problem is, "survival of the fittest" is being phased out of society, removing all responsibility of having common sense.

J T · Unread post by **J T** » Wed May 22, 2013 7:47 am

Heh heh...

Trainman223 · Unread post by **Trainman223** » Wed May 22, 2013 8:09 am

J T wrote:
Jochs wrote:They probably have to put gates on them because, let's face it, common sense isn't so common anymore.
The real problem is, "survival of the fittest" is being phased out of society, removing all responsibility of having common sense.

Ain't that the truth!

Standard Railfan · Thu May 23, 2013 9:18 am

JT- That photo Rocks.

Unread post by **cnw8835** » Wed Jun 12, 2013 1:37 pm

It sounds like maintainers will be getting time shortly to place the second signal at Ivanrest on its base.

Saturnalia · Unread post by **Saturnalia** » Thu Jun 13, 2013 11:41 pm

It is my assumption that this was not meant to be taken as a signal roster shot, just she'll do just fine to indicate the new Ivanrest signal on two. Thanks to Jim Guest

P371 East, Lamar by Jim Guest, on Flickr

I'll mention here that I'm very Envyous of your's and SD80MAC's 371 shots today. Tried and failed to make it

Saturnalia · Unread post by **Saturnalia** » Sun Jun 23, 2013 11:26 pm

As noted in the New AMTK Station thread, it sounds like there will NOT be CTC on the main through Wyoming Yard.

One thing I was wondering after chasing #370 tonight has to deal with the signals already installed. Now, my understanding is the intermediates, after the train passes, show an approach aspect after the train passes in the opposite direction, so as you can see it from the rear of said train. But after #370 whized by 64th St and I, I noticed that Vriesland showed a clear aspect. And then a little later, Port Jenison (or 9) showed an Approach.

Anyone know why this is? Or has anyone else seen this someplace else?

Typhoon · Unread post by **Typhoon** » Sun Jun 23, 2013 11:32 pm

The intermediate signal indications depend on how the nearest absolute is lined.

Saturnalia · Unread post by **Saturnalia** » Sun Jun 23, 2013 11:42 pm

Typhoon wrote:The intermediate signal indications depend on how the nearest absolute is lined.

So Vriesland would be Green because Zeeland is between that and 112th? That makes since.

RailRoadFan.com

B1G - The Big Train

More new signals on the Grand Rapids sub

Re: More new signals on the Grand Rapids sub

Re: More new signals on the Grand Rapids sub

Re: More new signals on the Grand Rapids sub

Re: More new signals on the Grand Rapids sub

Re: More new signals on the Grand Rapids sub

Re: More new signals on the Grand Rapids sub

Re: More new signals on the Grand Rapids sub

Re: More new signals on the Grand Rapids sub

Re: More new signals on the Grand Rapids sub

Re: More new signals on the Grand Rapids sub

Re: More new signals on the Grand Rapids sub

Re: More new signals on the Grand Rapids sub

Re: More new signals on the Grand Rapids sub

Re: More new signals on the Grand Rapids sub

Re: More new signals on the Grand Rapids sub

Re: More new signals on the Grand Rapids sub

Re: More new signals on the Grand Rapids sub

Re: More new signals on the Grand Rapids sub

Re: More new signals on the Grand Rapids sub

Re: More new signals on the Grand Rapids sub