RailRoadFan.com

CSX_CO wrote:

MQT3001 wrote: I never said there wasn't a process, I was just saying in my opinion they should come to THAT conclusion.

That may be your opinion, but I bet there are countless signal manufacturers, signal engineers, signal maintainers, suppliers, construction firms, etc that would argue to the benefits of keeping those lineside signals in place.

There are two sides to every coin

Well anyways...The other day I finally checked out the new crossing at Latson Rd. in Genoa Twp. Very nice with new overheads and gates. EB traffic will see a new 3 head LED signal while WB also gets one and a smaller one just below that one.

MQT3001 wrote:

Y@ wrote:Considering how much Russ knows about the system compared to you, I think you should be inclined to listen and agree with him.

When it comes to political viewpoints, such as PTC, he has a lot of knowledge and background, but it doesn't mean I should feel compelled to agree with full, unconditional status. I'm sure we could find another railroader with a similar background that would agree to "my" side. It is just the way that, and many other issues work.

Look, I'm not posting this stuff to re-hash the debate...all I wanted to say is I believe railroads, on lower-density lines where PTC is installed, should have the choice to remove the lineside signals. I will refrain from elaboration unless someone really feels the need for that thought to be expanded.

PTC doesn't provide broken rail protection, nor sense occupancy - ABS does.

dmitzel wrote:PTC doesn't provide broken rail protection, nor sense occupancy - ABS does.

You can have track occupancy and broken rail circuitry without signals. Those two are merely inputs into the signal system normally.

MQT3001 wrote:

dmitzel wrote:PTC doesn't provide broken rail protection, nor sense occupancy - ABS does.

You can have track occupancy and broken rail circuitry without signals. Those two are merely inputs into the signal system normally.

With what system, pray tell?

You really need to pay more attention to those that do know what they're talking about.

dmitzel wrote:

MQT3001 wrote:

dmitzel wrote:PTC doesn't provide broken rail protection, nor sense occupancy - ABS does.

You can have track occupancy and broken rail circuitry without signals. Those two are merely inputs into the signal system normally.

With what system, pray tell?

Usually there there are not such systems in dark territory, but that is not to say one couldn't if they wanted to. One (circuitry) can exist without the other (signals). I'm not saying all or even a lot of territories do...just the fact they exist.

You're right, I don't know the particulars...what systems currently run, where, etc. But it seems in the realm of common sense to think that you could install track circuits in dark territory, and link them to PTC.

Some examples of track circuits in dark territory: crossing protection and slide fences.

MQT3001 wrote: Usually there there are not such systems in dark territory, but that is not to say one couldn't if they wanted to. One (circuitry) can exist without the other (signals). I'm not saying all or even a lot of territories do...just the fact they exist.

You're right, I don't know the particulars...what systems currently run, where, etc. But it seems in the realm of common sense to think that you could install track circuits in dark territory, and link them to PTC.

Some examples of track circuits in dark territory: crossing protection and slide fences.

If you're going to the trouble of bonding the rails, installing the circuitry for detection, setting up blocks, just throw up some signals. The signal installations aren't the expensive part, its everything else that is expensive. That's why PTC is an 'easy' overlay in Dark Territory, no need to run bond wires, no need to install relays, etc. Just put some point detectors on the switches, set the GPS limits of where you want the 'blocks' to end, and off you go. Over simplified for sure, but it PTC doesn't require the rails to carry the circuit.

Slide fences are NOT necessarily tied into the track occupancy. The ones I've seen are just that, a wire fence, that when something hits it, puts a signal to 'red'. They aren't necessarily even tied into the surrounding signals (that's why they work as a 'stand alone' in dark territory), and can have a special plate on them like a D marker.

AEI readers, defect detectors, et al don't need circuitry. They have 'presence detectors' (PD's) to determine when something is, or isn't, on the site, and to make the item function. Diamonds and frogs have 'trap' circuits which don't offer detection at all. If a diamond breaks, it can result in a nasty pileup because depending where it breaks there is no detection of occupancy.

Practice Safe CSX

LANSING, Mich. – CSX Transportation has filed with the Federal Railroad Administration to deactivate the signals on its Plymouth Subdivision in central Michigan, its second such recent filing in the state. The former Pere Marquette line runs between GrandRapids and Plymouth,a distance of about 120 miles.

The railroad seeks to remove 51 dispatcher-controlled signals and 58 automatic signals. In addition, 11 power-operated track switches willbe converted to hand throw operation. It will install new approach signals at MP 29.0, MP 53.8, MP 50.9, MP 86.5, MP 83.6, and MP 147.4.

Two locations will remain dispatcher-controlled, with signals remaining in operation. Those locations are at Ann Pere, MP 52.87, and at Trowbridge, MP 84.9, near Lansing. Both locations are at-grade crossings with foreign rail lines.

In its filing, CSX states that the signal system "is no longer needed for present-day operations." If the signal discontinuance is approved, CSX will operate the line with track warrant control. The line already has a 30-mile stretch of trackwarrant control between Lansing and Lake Odessa.

The line once hosted Canadian Pacific trackage rightstrains betweenChicago and Detroit,in addition to CSX's own traffic. Most CP trackage rights trains shifted to a new Norfolk Southern routing via Elkhart, Ind., in 2005 and the last operated via CSX in 2010.

One step closer to selling the line off to a Shortline or just abandoning it completely.

It might just be a stalling tactic to postpone having to finish the CTC. FRA/MDOT will have to approve this before it could happen and I'm sure the rail passenger folks will be screaming that this will mean the death blow to GRR - DET passenger service in our life time. That will mean hearings, talk, talk talk, etc. Might just give them a long enough postponement so the CTC expense will hit 2015 financials and not 2014. Who knows what goes on in the heads in Jacksonville.

trnwatcher wrote:It might just be a stalling tactic to postpone having to finish the CTC. FRA/MDOT will have to approve this before it could happen and I'm sure the rail passenger folks will be screaming that this will mean the death blow to GRR - DET passenger service in our life time. That will mean hearings, talk, talk talk, etc. Might just give them a long enough postponement so the CTC expense will hit 2015 financials and not 2014. Who knows what goes on in the heads in Jacksonville.

The legal folks might be trying to make themselves worth their salary.

For the filing fee, you may as well try to save yourself the cost of CTC with PTC on top. Worse comes to bear, they install new equipment where they would have anyway.

Well...time to stir the pot. This does not appear to be the beginning of any new major project, but Haddix Road, the first signals east of Lake Odessa, is getting a new control box.
Haddix Road 7-24-14 by MQT3001, on Flickr
Of course this could be just a new box just here and nothing else, but there are other possibilities...will the signal crews keep working eastward after GR is done? Will Lake Odessa -> Ensel get CTC? Interesting questions to consider.

Of note, that WB signal mast has been around awhile...almost certainly installed before 1945, when this "poor-man's CTC" was installed. Originally had semaphores on it, until those were removed in favor of searchlight heads. Tell-tale signs are the base control cabinet and the finial on the tip of the mast. This is unless this signal was replaced with like parts at some part...but that is very unlikely.

I see a new signal base right next to the new signal box. I would say they're going to get replaced.

I see a round battery well with a silver painted metal top in front of the new cabinet... Not a new base

Is that orange conduit sticking up behind the battery well?

Practice Safe CSX

CSX_CO wrote:Is that orange conduit sticking up behind the battery well?

Practice Safe CSX

Yes

MQT3001 wrote:

CSX_CO wrote:Is that orange conduit sticking up behind the battery well?

Practice Safe CSX

Yes

Signals are probably toast then. Plus I've heard CSX is on a searchlight "seek and destroy" mission. Want to be rid of the old electro-mechanical mechanisms in them.

Practice Safe CSX

CSX_CO wrote:Plus I've heard CSX is on a searchlight "seek and destroy" mission.

Search(light)ing, seek and destroy!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-tvJcTPxHc&t=97s

so a rumor has been going around about about new signals to replace the ageing search lights, is there any light to spread on this. I know very well bl2 will join in on this

AndrewsTrains wrote: ↑

Mon Apr 26, 2021 3:14 pm

so a rumor has been going around about about new signals to replace the ageing search lights, is there any light to spread on this. I know very well bl2 will join in on this

That's been the rumor for awhile...I wouldn't get too excited until new conduit starts sprouting and signals start to get delivered...