What's Up With RTD and Caltrain's Grade Crossings?

Ever since the Denver RTD A Line opened in 2016, it's been plagued by strange grade crossing issues that eventually resulted in human crossing watchmen being posted for a number of years followed by a regulatory battle with the FRA.  Since then Caltrain has reported similar issues with a new grade crossing activation system citing them as one reason for the delays in their new electrification project. This begs the question, WTF is going on with RTD and Caltrain that would involve trouble with grade crossing activation, a problem that has been solved for well over a century. 

RTD A-Line Crossing Guards in 2017

A Twitter threat got me to Google this issue and I found a communication filed with the FRA from Denver Transit Partners that appeared to answer most of the questions if one read between the lines a bit. If you've tuned into my PTC reporting before you might remember how the entire concept was lifted from a grade crossing safety technology and while that has had a lot of implications on the signaling side it also means that project planners and political leaders have a ready made tool they can use to "solve problems", chief among these being NINBY complaints about grade crossing related crossing delays. 

RTD A-Line WiMAX PTC/WCAS Antennas

To make some more technology connections the RTD commuter rail network uses a traditional pulse code cab signal based ATC system and as it is an isolated network one might assume it would look to use ACSES as its PTC solution as that's the best way to leverage the cab signal system and avoid issues with wireless data.  Well for some reason they decided not to go in this direction and the reason is likely tied to the desire to implement a Wireless Crossing Activation System (WCAS).

At this point you might be wondering why an isolated 80mph commuter rail line needs a Wireless Crossing Activation System.  Well I was also confused until I saw that Caltrain had gotten itself into the same trap. Anyone that has ridden Caltrain knows that it's crossings tie up a lot of congested downtowns, especially around station stops and while Caltrain is in the process of a pretty extensive grade crossing elimination project, it's pretty clear if one reading the WCAS capabilities outlined in the previously mentioned DTP document that local motorists have a pretty strong voice when it comes to a frequent (4tph+ all day) commuter rail line snarling downtown traffic. 

Typically the example to justify WCAS is one of differential train speeds.  A "snow" freight train will activate the gates longer than a "fast" commuter trains will. While that is technically true there are scores of rail mileage in the US where 80mph passenger trains are mixed with 50mph or slower freight trains wit no ill effect.  On systems like Caltrain or RTD the number of freight is so tiny as to render this a non-issue.  The real "problem" is stopping trains.  Trains stop adjacent to a crossing and then keep the gates down for the duration of the station stop.  In addition to the longer delay there is likely a psychological element with drivers being delayed by a train that is just sitting there.  I have been told that some commuter rail operators like SEPTA and the LIRR have made use of timeouts to more aggressively raise the gates during long station stops, but I have no first hand experience with these. What WCAS looks to do is to have trains approaching the crossing negotiate if they are stopping or non-stopping  and then the crossing system delays the crossing activation and uses the attached PTC system to protect the crossing using a temporary speed restriction of some kind. 

This sounds great, but remember we have wireless involved as well as general complexity so, in the case of RTD, if this process fails, the backup is to use the full length signal block to trigger the crossing, resulting in a 90 second activation time.  There are additional issues of stopping trains (or trains that need to stop) getting non-stop activations that again result in a longer than planned crossing activation.  This brings us back to the DTP submission.  They are upset because CFR Part 49 Section 225 specifies a minimum 20 second activation time and at no point has this ever been a problem, in their eyes the FRA is baselessly trying to prevent motorists suffering from a few seconds of extra delay here and there.  Unfortunately Section 225 also says that a crossing system has to function AS DESIGNED and any deviation is considered a crossing malfunction.  This means that if your crossing protection uses neon lights and an air raid siren they had better work even if those aren't generally used elsewhere. 

From the FRA's point of view, the WCAS systems (at least used by RTD) was designed to have a certain activation time, the implementation isn't meeting the design spec so regardless of the 20 second minimum activation time the WCAS is not operating as designed and is therefore in violation of the regulations, thus the watchmen.  Sure, there are safety considerations involved with inconsistent crossing times, but the real issue is the meeting a design spec that was driven by the political considerations of crossing delays. 

TLDR NIMBYs demand the lowest possible crossing latency, planners see their shiny new PTC driven WCAS tools as a way to placate the NIMBY's, the technology fails to live up to the promise and finally the FRA gets mad.  There are multiple points to "fix" this issue  The FRA can be more flexible, the politicians can stand up to the NIMBY's or maybe the technology can be simplified.  Whatever the ultimate solution hopefully this sheds some light on the problem. 

Signs! Signs! Everywhere a Sign! - Western Passenger Roads

 It's been a while since my post on Western Freight Railroads, that that's due to the unfortunate situation that many of the commuter agencies that do operate track between Chicagoland and the West Coast put little or no effort into their interlocking signs.  This installment will attempt to cover the interlocking signs of Metra, the South Shore, Railrunner, Denver RTD, Coaster, Metrolink and Caltrain. 

Starting with METRA, it directly owns and operates those lines that were cast off from freight railroads where there was little or no freight service and/or a general bankruptcy and abandonment.  This consists of the Rock Island division, Electric Division and SouthWest Corridor. In all these cases it appears that METRA just stencils a barely legible name on the relay huts with black paint.



There is an exception to this on the Milwaukee District lines that are are jointly operated between METRA and Canadian Pacific. In this territory interlockings are provided with white on Metra blue signs.

In the Chicago Union Station area, Amtrak provides Conrail style white on blue signs, although the font isn't quite right.

One might have thought the Chicago South Shore and South Bend would use some sort of heritage inspired sign, however this is not the case with plain white black on white stick mounted signs located at the interlocking limits.

With its strong roots in transit instead of traditional railroads, Denver's RTD just labels its signals with a lever number and milepost.

Albuquerque RailRunner uses cute ATSF inspired  black border signs at interlockings as well as maintaining a few originals. 

 

 

While  LA Metrolink has gone in with the METRA style of not giving a damn.

However across the county line, San Diego Coaster has gone all in for a period correct ATSF black border type sign.

Last and least we have Caltrain that has gone in for the stencil method.  However the stencils are larger and more legible and Caltrain also provides secondary signs with the full interlocking name.arranged in a vertical format at every interlocking entrance.

Well that finishes my coverage of railroad "station" signs in the United States.  If I am able to get enough references I'll see if I can do the same for Canada.

Denver Light Rail Signaling - Checking All the Boxes

From time to time I have brought up some of the quirks inherent to North American light rail signaling systems.  Because they exist in a regulatory and cost grey area (not really railroads, not really subways, able to stop on sight in traffic, etc) the signaling systems they employ tend to be very economical.  Well this past summer I traveled to Denver and rode around on its extensive light rail network.  There I noticed that the RTD light rail had methodically checked off every box on the light rail signaling checklist and I figured I should share it here.

1.) Missing Wrong Direction Signals 

See that little red circle?  Yeah, that's plated as a signal because the RTD's commitment to single direction ABS is so complete that all wrong direction movements need to get talked past the stop disc at the next interlocking.

2.) No Distinction Between Auto and Interlocking Signals.

See any difference between the ID plate on the interlocking signals in the first picture and the ABS signal in the second?  No?  Well that's par for the course on a light rail system.

3.) ATS

Light rail systems don't uniformly lack speed and signal enforcement.  They just opt for the budget versions.  RTD Light Rail has some sort of loop based ATS on its main line sections, but the operators weren't too helpful in providing the details on how it worked.  Of course where ATS proves impractical one gets a nice little sign.

4.)  Single Headed Signals.



Light rail systems hate confusing drivers with multiple signal heads, so flashing aspects warn of diverging movements.

5.) Vehicle, Signal Thyself

Dispatchers cost money, so LRVs simply set their destination and let track mounted sensors do the rest.

6.) New Lines, New Rules

How can consultants bill those hours if they just say to stick with the same old thing?  Of course the line that just opened in 2017 would have some new signal rules requiring a second head!

7.) US&S N-3's

You look hard enough around a large light rail system and you'll find a US&S style N-3 signal head 😏

Did I miss any?  Throw something in the comments and I'll see if I can find an RTD example ;-)