Caught on Camera: Mendon, MO Level Crossing

 One side effect of taking photos from the back of long distance Amtrak trains is that from time to time you get a good shot of what might end up in a national news story. When the Mendon, Missouri grade crossing accident and derailment first took place in the summer of 2022 my impression was that it was located at a random farm crossing in the middle of nowhere. Since the former ATSF main line lost its searchlight signals over a decade ago there was no real need to check on the status of a notable signal such as this Conrail era signal that almost got wiped out in an Columbus, OH area derailment.  

Anyway, while watching the above Plainly Difficult production on the incident, I spotted what appeared to be a signal location adjacent to the collision site on County Road 113. Checking the archives I discovered a clear photo of the accident site along with the Milepost 363 intermediate signals taken from the rear of the Southwest Chief in 2013.

In addition to the signals and the unprotected grade crossing we can also see the ATS inductors that allowed for 90mph speeds across the state of Missouri. These had been recently removed by the time of the accident due to PTC making the legacy system unnecessary.  Anyway the moral of the story is to take photos of everything because you'll never know what might be historically significant.

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. 

The Final* Wig Wag

In March of 2021 the final active Wig Wag style grade crossing warning device on a North American main line railroad was retired from service on the former ATSF Raton pass route, also known for hosting the last instances of main line semaphore signals. Located in the ghost town of Delhi, Colorado, the Wig Wag was signed for the Santa Fe Trail, but according to the map serves county (dirt) road 88 and was about 100 off of US Highway 350.

Preserved, along with the semaphores, because of the only use of the line is for Amtrak Trains 3 and 4, the Southwests Chief and, until recently, the route was under perpetual threat of abandonment.  With additional funding obtained to keep the Chief routed through southern Colorado, BNSF is engaged in a slow process of replacing the traditional signaling elements. 

Although the Delhi Wig Wag will join several other Wig Wags in various states of preservation in museums and on tourist lines across the country, it was the last example operating on a railroad main line with signaling and high speed operation.A cursory search of Youtube shows a number of others in various states of operation scattered around California and, until December 2020, Wisconsin.

Don’t forget the Van Ness wigwag which was also restored! (Motor was dead for 2 years, they finally fixed it a few weeks ago) pic.twitter.com/mzRrE5C4rY

— Fresno Railfan (@FresnoRailfan) March 17, 2021

If you are into technology connections, Wig Wags represent the general lag in display technology that was also seen in the audio visual world.  Electric power was limited, long life bulbs weren't very bright so electro-mechanical systems that moved a thing were the best way to get people attention in daylight.  From a time where any grade crossing protection that wasn't some dude with a flag was cutting edge technology, the Wing Wag has joined other vintage railroad technologies that today live on only in museums or literal backwaters.

Where Old Signals Go to Live On

When railroads retire signals they are typically thrown in the scrap heap, sold off to railfans or sent down to the C&S shoppe to keep any of their surviving kin up and running.  For the general public the best they can hope is that a few of the signals will reemerge in someone's back yard or in a static display at a museum.  After all, what other use is a railroad signal than railroad signaling?  Well...as with everything in life there is a loophole to every rule.

Every so often a railroad will recycle its discarded signaling apparatus until the less vital world of grade crossing warning devices.  Now this isn't exactly common as traffic control signals have a much wider viewing angle and less complicated as they they only need to be visible for a couple hundred feet instead of a couple miles.  Still, grade crossing applications can give life to signals far beyond their typical sell by date.  

Perhaps one of the more (in)famous examples are track circuit fed warning lamps placed at a number of N&W private crossings in West Virgina.  These used surplus N&W amber PL-2 position light signals as track occupancy lights that extinguish when the circuit is shunted by an approaching train in the block.

Now I know some of you might be saying that I am cheating as those PL marker lamps may have been installed new, instead of used, but in a related use case the Cape May Seashore Line has employed surplus PL-3 lamps as so called "snitch lights" as the frequently rusty rail can make crossing activation a bit problematic.  Combated to a bare white bulb on the relay cabinet or the small white lens on the side of a crossing flasher, an amber PL-3 can be visible for miles, even in inclement weather.

In a more recent example, I came upon another recycled railroad signal in grade crossing service while documenting SEPTA's FORD interlocking in Norristown, PA.  A twin stack of GRS model FA modular drawf signals had been mounted low down on a vintage cantilever flasher mount at the Ford Street (Of course!) grade crossing. 

The extra pair of flashers had either been installed for pedestrians or because cars pulled up to the crossing would not be otherwise able to see the flashers above them.

Check out that hexagonal charm

I suspect this may have been a Reading innovation as I caught a similar pair of GRS FA Flashers on a yellow flashing "No Left Turn" device protecting the Bellevue Ave R3 West Trenton crossing in Langhorne, PA.  I am not sure if they were installed new or in the surplus bin, but you will be hard pressed to find an FA still in service as a railroad signal.

Yellow flashers all around

Of course the "No Right/Left turn" lamps like those seen above were also employed as railroad signals in such secondary roles as defect alarms, directional indicators, train order lamps and, as we see below, Take Siding indicators in low cost CTC installations.

East End Rowe, NM siding.

Perhaps the ultimate example of old signals living on in crossing applications is the B&O's reuse of semaphore signals as pedestrian crossing gate mechanisms.  I first noticed this phenomena while passing through Cumberland, MD on Amtrak's Capitol Limited and like the SEPTA signals above I did a double take as I was confronted with railroad signaling in a place I had not expected to see it.

Unfortunately the Cumberland examples were replaced before I could get good photos of them (how many times can a signal be replaced?), but fortunately I know of at least one other example of this type of signal reuse and it is transit accessible!

At the famous SEPTA Route 11 - CSX Philly Sub grade crossing, a pair of former B&O semaphores stand guard on the sidewalks stopping cyclists and pedestrians from crossing the tracks.   

 I wasn't joking.  The B&O (or Chessie System) literally replaced the semaphore blade with a red and white striped crossing gate and put it into service.

These are 90% as "good" as a in service signaling semaphore.  The train approaches the semaphore drops, the train leaves it goes back up again.  All that's missing is the / position so just pretend you're in manual block territory. 

Combine the semaphore crossing gates with old school cantilever flasher masts, frequent trolleys rumbling over an active railroad main line and a nearby B&O CPL signaled interlocking and you have perhaps the most interesting level crossing in the country.