I have been lurking on this site for a long time and finally decided to get a screen name.
I have noticed that NS has been replacing signals between East St. Louis and New Baden. They are erecting a single mast with signals on both sides. These signals have the large single hood like the western railroads like to use. They are replacing the single mast-single signal (two masts total, one on each side of the track) with small individual hoods. Anyone know the reasoning behind this or any other info?
I heard from a signal maintainer who recently retired from NS that they’re slowly replacing the old Southern-style 3 light signals with the kind on one post (Safetran is the manufacturer, but I call them Southern-style because the Southern used them on many of their lines). I think these signals were installed in the 1980s, when they removed the Semaphores. They installed new CTC signals on this line between Mt. Carmel, IL and Princeton, IN that are really nice and really modern looking, but I don’t think they will convert this entire line to CTC because they really don’t need it, TWC with APB signals is sufficient. There’s really nothing wrong with the signals they have now, so I can’t say exactly why they’re replacing them. The signal maintainer I talked to said that he liked these signals because they’re easy to maintain and simple, so I guess the only reason they would replace them would be to make things even more simple than they already are. I would get all the pictures you can of the Southern-style signals that are left on this line before they remove them.
Thanks for the heads up. I wonder why they don’t just replace the heads and the guts from the electric box instead of digging new foundations and purchasing new masts? Seems like it could have been done a little more cost effective.
I agree. It seems like a waste of money to me to replace a signal system that is still in good working condition. I have a question. When they install the new signals, do they place them exactly where the old ones used to be or are they placing them in new locations? I’m curious because I’ve heard that they’ve been testing out running 60 MPH instead of 50 MPH between Sims and Centralia. I think the current signals are spaced far enough apart so they could run 60 MPH, but if they plan on running at 60 permanently and with the signals already aging, they might see it as more cost effective to simply remove the old ones and place the new ones farther apart for faster running. When they installed the CTC over between Mt. Carmel and Princeton, I noticed in some pictures on rrpics that the new signals were not in the same locations as the old ones. I don’t have a 2009 or later track chart to compare the old signals with the new ones, but this is just a guess and it may have nothing to do with the new signals. They might just want to do some modernizing and save some money in maintenance by installing new ones, but I still think it’d be best for them to leave the old signals in place.
The old signals and masts are cast iron for the most part and the new ones Aluminum requiring no painting and much less weight.
Slightly farther from the track for high wide clearances?
New heads and lens made for LED lights with less electricity needed. That translates into much lower maintenance costs by not needing to replace incadescent lights. Hooded lights cut down on needed cleaning of lens.
Wiring insulation today has much longer life than even just 20 years ago.
I haven’t been able to look at two consecutive signals yet. The new masts are localed within probably 100 yards of the old ones (atleast the ones I looked at).
That is a good point, but couldn’t they just remedy that by replacing the electric box (the big silver shed on the ground)? The masts and lights could have stayed, right?
I see the benefits of going to Aluminum instead of the steel the old ones are made of, but all of the signals on this line are in excellent condition. I haven’t found one yet that shows any rust, and I really don’t think they’re that costly. The old signal system’s wiring shouldn’t be much of a problem. Insulation 20 years ago should still be in good shape today. I would imagine they’ve probably made “under-the-hood” improvements to the system over the years. I still don’t see the cost benefits because if NS really wanted to save money on these signals, they need to set them up for approach lit mode. Right now, every signal is constantly on 24/7, 365 days a year. If they want to save money, they need to set them up in approach lit mode. Now, with PTC, that’s something that I think is a waste of money. I’ve read up on PTC, and I think it’s going to be harder and more difficult than it appears. Generally, I like it when the government gives advice when it’s needed, but in this case, I say let the railroads decide how to improve their own safety. One exception: The only legal mandate I would like to see is in dark territory. What comes to mind is the Graniteville collision in 2005. NS was operating up to 49 MPH in dark territory. After the collision, they lowered it to 25 MPH but only voluntarily. With PTC, the Government simply reacted to public outcry over the collision in California (Metro-link I believe?) without taking everything into consideration. This is what I would do, leave all the main lines with signals alone, maintain the signals as they are unless they’re in really bad shape then replace them, focus on signaling dark territory lines (could move the old signals on heavier main lines to the dark territory lines), and mandate that trains in dark territory can only go a maximum of 25 MPH. Forget PTC and instead make these modest changes that will improve safety. A well skilled conductor and engin
I would suspect the biggest differences between the old and the signals it that the new ones are operated by electronic circuitry vs. relays and switches in the old systems.
Here in California, Union Pacific is upgrading the signal system on the Alhambra Sub in a sometimes odd way. At some locations they are installing TWO systems at the same time! One is a new “old” system, the other a new “new” system. Then, they will deactivate the new “old” system and put in service the new “new” system.
So, California joins your St. Louis area in railroads doing things that raises eyebrows!
I was actually though St. Louis about three weeks ago. Before I passed through, I noted that UP in Nebraska has now replaced some over 30-year old tri-lights with newer style tri-lights. It is unknown if that tidbit would be useful to you, bkpigs, but I thought I would pass it along.
Actually, if signals are being installed at the same physical location, what is pictured is the norm. The active signals face traffic and the inactive signals are perpendicular to the traffic route. When the systems are changed over, the signal positions are changed for the new system to face traffic and the old to be perpendicular until such time as the old signals are removed from the property. Even where new signals are installed where there were no previous signals, the new signals would be perpendicular to traffic until such time as they are activated.
[quote user=“K. P. Harrier”]
bkpigs (10-12):
Welcome to the forum ‘screen name’ group, bkpigs!
Here in California, Union Pacific is upgrading the signal system on the Alhambra Sub in a sometimes odd way. At some locations they are installing TWO systems at the same time! One is a new “old” system, the other a new “new” system. Then, they will deactivate the new “old” system and put in service the new “new” system.
So, California joins your St. Louis area in railroads doing things that raises eyebrows!
I was actually though St. Louis about three weeks ago. Before I passed through, I noted that UP in Nebraska has now replaced some over 30-year old tri-lights with newer style tri-lights. It is unknown if that tidbit would be useful to you, bkpigs, but I thought I would pass it along.
