NW Indiana PTC project.

Anything pertaining to railfanning in Indiana.

Re: NW Indiana PTC project.

Unread postby tttodisp » Tue Nov 14, 2017 11:17 am

The new N-X (eNtrance-eXit) signal requests from CN are interesting; I have not seen this on the air before (at least dual requests). If there is a single request, it means that the movement will be between the two railroads.
tttodisp
Railroadfan...fan
 
Posts: 114
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2014 8:13 pm

Re: NW Indiana PTC project.

Unread postby 9xs » Tue Nov 14, 2017 12:25 pm

Lunar restricting may be a new indication for movements into yards and unsignalled territory. Need to see what happens to 485 and 487
9xs
Railroadfan...fan
 
Posts: 213
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2016 10:37 pm

Re: NW Indiana PTC project.

Unread postby tttodisp » Tue Nov 14, 2017 1:14 pm

9xs wrote:Lunar restricting may be a new indication for movements into yards and unsignalled territory. Need to see what happens to 485 and 487


There should be no impact on ATCS, since this should be handled in the field, based on the DS route request and route conditions.

Call-on requests are handled in a similar manner, although some roads have a bit for this (CN often does, but I have not seen this for NS or BNSF).
tttodisp
Railroadfan...fan
 
Posts: 114
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2014 8:13 pm

Re: NW Indiana PTC project.

Unread postby LakeATCS » Tue Nov 14, 2017 5:27 pm

tttodisp wrote:
9xs wrote:Lunar restricting may be a new indication for movements into yards and unsignalled territory. Need to see what happens to 485 and 487


There should be no impact on ATCS, since this should be handled in the field, based on the DS route request and route conditions.

Call-on requests are handled in a similar manner, although some roads have a bit for this (CN often does, but I have not seen this for NS or BNSF).


Lake Division is FULL of Call On stuff. Just about everything new has them. But they are BCP only bits. An extra control code is sent to enable the restricting to show on a certain signal pair.

For example at 110th street C15, is the call on for paired bits C14 and C13. So if the dispatcher sends a C15 AND C14 at the same time. The restricting would display if the block is occupied. It doesn't even need to be sent at the same time. A dispatcher could send C14 first. But if the block ahead was occupied, he would then send C15 and C14 to get the restricting to show. The dispatcher can send the call on bit for a signal into an not occupied block, but its just ignored by the field logic in that case.

It's screaming funny how much different some of the NS divisions are in this stuff.
For example Lake Division installs nothing but M23 switch machines, but Dearborn installs nothing but 5H machines.
Different signal aspects.

Still it's nothing like the Pittsburgh division. Those guys are some serious curmudgeons when it comes to radio code line.
LakeATCS
Railroadfan...fan
 
Posts: 497
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2015 5:37 am

Re: NW Indiana PTC project.

Unread postby tttodisp » Tue Nov 14, 2017 8:47 pm

I too am surprised at the lack of consistency on the system level. BNSF is much more consistent with their signal upgrade as part of the PTC prep work. The most glaring difference is in the switch locks; the former Santa Fe side still like track route locks instead of switch locks (except for ICS switches).
tttodisp
Railroadfan...fan
 
Posts: 114
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2014 8:13 pm

Re: NW Indiana PTC project.

Unread postby justalurker66 » Tue Nov 14, 2017 10:06 pm

9xs wrote:Lunar restricting may be a new indication for movements into yards and unsignalled territory. Need to see what happens to 485 and 487

Where are you seeing Lunar?

CSX uses Lunar for restricting (as seen at Milford Jct and Toleston. I have not seen that on NS in the Midwest.

The CN signals at 437 are not Lunar. They are one red lamp over a three lamp (R/Y/G) signal. The following CN rules should apply:
cn-sb-signals.png
User avatar
justalurker66
Railroadfan...fan
 
Posts: 1171
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2011 2:51 am

Re: NW Indiana PTC project.

Unread postby justalurker66 » Tue Nov 14, 2017 10:28 pm

LakeATCS wrote:It's screaming funny how much different some of the NS divisions are in this stuff.
For example Lake Division installs nothing but M23 switch machines, but Dearborn installs nothing but 5H machines.
Different signal aspects.

The Marion Branch follows the "former Conrail signals" similar to the Chicago Line ... but I have noticed the "odd" signals on the Huntington and Chicago Districts. A single red lamp at the bottom? It looks more like NKP signals than anything in the NS Operating Rules. (The NS rulebook has "Conrail", "Norfolk and Western" and "Norfolk Southern Railway" signals listed. With the Conrail signals being speed based and the others being route based.) I assume they are in a divisional rule book.
User avatar
justalurker66
Railroadfan...fan
 
Posts: 1171
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2011 2:51 am

Re: NW Indiana PTC project.

Unread postby 9xs » Wed Nov 15, 2017 1:00 am

justalurker66 wrote:
9xs wrote:Lunar restricting may be a new indication for movements into yards and unsignalled territory. Need to see what happens to 485 and 487

Where are you seeing Lunar?

CSX uses Lunar for restricting (as seen at Milford Jct and Toleston. I have not seen that on NS in the Midwest.

The CN signals at 437 are not Lunar. They are one red lamp over a three lamp (R/Y/G) signal. The following CN rules should apply:
cn-sb-signals.png


Uh-oh you had to make me upload the link. The tri light signals shown earlier in this thread were replaced. The new EB signals at 448 are shown below.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1F6TIyj ... p=drivesdk
9xs
Railroadfan...fan
 
Posts: 213
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2016 10:37 pm

Re: NW Indiana PTC project.

Unread postby LakeATCS » Wed Nov 15, 2017 8:27 am

justalurker66 wrote:
LakeATCS wrote:It's screaming funny how much different some of the NS divisions are in this stuff.
For example Lake Division installs nothing but M23 switch machines, but Dearborn installs nothing but 5H machines.
Different signal aspects.

The Marion Branch follows the "former Conrail signals" similar to the Chicago Line ... but I have noticed the "odd" signals on the Huntington and Chicago Districts. A single red lamp at the bottom? It looks more like NKP signals than anything in the NS Operating Rules. (The NS rulebook has "Conrail", "Norfolk and Western" and "Norfolk Southern Railway" signals listed. With the Conrail signals being speed based and the others being route based.) I assume they are in a divisional rule book.


NKP had signal heads without the red aspect. So a lot of times that is a single yellow light.

Muncie had some signals from the NKP that had a blank "virtual" middle head. So you had a top head. A LONG empty space, and what counted as the third head down at the bottom.

NKP had some weird stuff. Wabash wasn't far behind.

NKP signal aspects
http://www.railroadsignals.us/rulebooks/nkp/index.htm

All of it was made crazier in that N&W let WAB and NKP signal guys continue on with right up until the SOU merger. So the Wabash and NKP standards lasted until NS. Which is why a lot of this crazy stuff is still around

They really did a weird hatchet job with the aspects. Medium became diverging. But they left the slow aspects. And those Wabash dwarves were put in the timetable as non conforming signals.
http://signals.jovet.net/rules/N%26W%20 ... 0Rules.pdf
LakeATCS
Railroadfan...fan
 
Posts: 497
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2015 5:37 am

Re: NW Indiana PTC project.

Unread postby LakeATCS » Wed Nov 15, 2017 8:46 am

75508800110202

Test address seen for 448.
LakeATCS
Railroadfan...fan
 
Posts: 497
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2015 5:37 am

Re: NW Indiana PTC project.

Unread postby tttodisp » Wed Nov 15, 2017 10:05 am

Sunday of Thanksgiving weekend for cutover??
tttodisp
Railroadfan...fan
 
Posts: 114
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2014 8:13 pm

Re: NW Indiana PTC project.

Unread postby justalurker66 » Wed Nov 15, 2017 10:47 am

9xs wrote:Uh-oh you had to make me upload the link. The tri light signals shown earlier in this thread were replaced. The new EB signals at 448 are shown below.

The new signals were on the ground when I last went by (Sunday afternoon).
cp448-171112z.jpg
Sunday November 12th

It looks like the lowest head is bagged in your picture. The bag may be making it look taller than the signal head. Measure from the bracket to the top of the signal head.
9xs-cp448eb-20171114-crop.png
9xs photo
User avatar
justalurker66
Railroadfan...fan
 
Posts: 1171
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2011 2:51 am

Re: NW Indiana PTC project.

Unread postby justalurker66 » Wed Nov 15, 2017 11:01 am

LakeATCS wrote:All of it was made crazier in that N&W let WAB and NKP signal guys continue on with right up until the SOU merger. So the Wabash and NKP standards lasted until NS. Which is why a lot of this crazy stuff is still around

It seems strange to continue to support the old signals. But NS is not alone in having conflicting signals in their rulebook. CN also has route based and speed based signals and places where "red over yellow" is Diverging Approach on one stretch and Restricting a couple miles down the same subdivision. That type of confusion can be deadly.
User avatar
justalurker66
Railroadfan...fan
 
Posts: 1171
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2011 2:51 am

Re: NW Indiana PTC project.

Unread postby Saturnalia » Wed Nov 15, 2017 12:26 pm

justalurker66 wrote:
LakeATCS wrote:All of it was made crazier in that N&W let WAB and NKP signal guys continue on with right up until the SOU merger. So the Wabash and NKP standards lasted until NS. Which is why a lot of this crazy stuff is still around

It seems strange to continue to support the old signals. But NS is not alone in having conflicting signals in their rulebook. CN also has route based and speed based signals and places where "red over yellow" is Diverging Approach on one stretch and Restricting a couple miles down the same subdivision. That type of confusion can be deadly.

That’s why I like flashing red or Lunar aspects for restricting...so that one cannot confuse approach aspects with restricting!
Thornapple River Rail Series - YouTube
Snowfall Total: 27.5" - Winter Storm Warnings: 2
User avatar
Saturnalia
Authority on Cat
 
Posts: 13249
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2011 6:54 pm
Location: Michigan's Copper Country

Re: NW Indiana PTC project.

Unread postby 9xs » Wed Nov 15, 2017 1:16 pm

The next question is why 3 heads instead of 2. No work is being done at the east end of the plant there and 446 is a single head intermediate for both tracks.
9xs
Railroadfan...fan
 
Posts: 213
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2016 10:37 pm

Re: NW Indiana PTC project.

Unread postby Saturnalia » Wed Nov 15, 2017 1:21 pm

9xs wrote:The next question is why 3 heads instead of 2. No work is being done at the east end of the plant there and 446 is a single head intermediate for both tracks.

Could be using a R-R-Y-| for restricting, to differentiate from some approach aspects?
Thornapple River Rail Series - YouTube
Snowfall Total: 27.5" - Winter Storm Warnings: 2
User avatar
Saturnalia
Authority on Cat
 
Posts: 13249
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2011 6:54 pm
Location: Michigan's Copper Country

Re: NW Indiana PTC project.

Unread postby LakeATCS » Wed Nov 15, 2017 7:42 pm

Something is up with these signals. Even IF you make them out to be 3 over 3 over 3. Why would you need Medium Approach Medium, Approach Slow, or Slow Clear here? (only three aspects you need the 3rd head green for)

Now that said. We have seen stuff go up with three heads and have the extra heads removed. (412 westbound). I think the 421 signal for the Kalamazoo went up with a weird configuration and had it's heads changed around too.

NS probably ordered a bunch of standard configuration signals and are having the maintainers change it to fit what they need.
LakeATCS
Railroadfan...fan
 
Posts: 497
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2015 5:37 am

Re: NW Indiana PTC project.

Unread postby justalurker66 » Wed Nov 15, 2017 11:30 pm

LakeATCS wrote:Something is up with these signals. Even IF you make them out to be 3 over 3 over 3. Why would you need Medium Approach Medium, Approach Slow, or Slow Clear here? (only three aspects you need the 3rd head green for)

CP 421 Eastbound has Medium Approach Medium and uses it when a train takes a medium route through CP 421 and the next signal is Approach. The next signal is the intermediate at 419 (3 over 2 with the bottom green/red). (Track 1 EB at CP 421 is missing the bottom green light so it cannot do M-A-M ... and doesn't need that aspect since the only Medium route Track 1 EB is to the Kalamazoo Branch where the track speed is 30 MPH.)

It is true that signals can be modified between installation and activation (I have no clue why the 3 over 3? was installed on the Kalamazoo Branch entrance to CP 421 but it was fixed). CP 417 Westbound also has 3 over 3 over 3 (approaching 419) while the Eastbound and both directions at CP 412 have 3 over 3. No "slow" routes so the desired signal at CP 417 WB must be M-A-M.

CP 421 still uses Medium Approach for westbound trains to the yard ... with North Freight and South Freight being signaled to the yard entrance at Oakland. Apparently the configuration is working.
User avatar
justalurker66
Railroadfan...fan
 
Posts: 1171
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2011 2:51 am

Re: NW Indiana PTC project.

Unread postby LakeATCS » Thu Nov 16, 2017 11:40 am

I believe there is only one intermediate half way between 448 and 453. So maybe medium approach medium into an approach there if 453 is red.
LakeATCS
Railroadfan...fan
 
Posts: 497
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2015 5:37 am

Re: NW Indiana PTC project.

Unread postby 9xs » Thu Nov 16, 2017 12:40 pm

LakeATCS wrote:I believe there is only one intermediate half way between 448 and 453. So maybe medium approach medium into an approach there if 453 is red.


490 is like that, but there is a short block into the 488 signal. 453 westbound has 2 heads. but this is an eastbound signal into a long block.
9xs
Railroadfan...fan
 
Posts: 213
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2016 10:37 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Indiana Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

x