Wayne Junction to Glenside track/signal project

SEPTA's work on the Wayne Junction to Glenside track and signal project
continues and one casualty is the old "Chelten Hills Layoff Track" in Jenkintown, just east (south) of the station. This was once a double-ended siding off the eastward track with catenary overhead, but in
recent years the east switch was removed and there was a bumper on the end instead. SEPTA used it occasionally for temporary MOW equipment storage. It was accessible from either track through a crossover. As part of the current project, SEPTA has installed two new crossovers (one facing-point and one trailing-point) east of the existing one. The Chelten Hills Layoff Track was removed sometime last week, with only the switch remaining. I assume the existing crossover will also be removed.

I believe that both crossovers will remain.

Clearfield wrote:I believe that both crossovers will remain.

There only is one existing crossover: the trailing point (North) switch just south of the station.

The new crossovers, facing and trailing point (installed, but not yet in service), are further south of the current location. The removal of the Chelten Hills Siding and existing crossover will facilitate construction of the extension of the station platforms along the parking lot. And that will be to compensate for the loss of useable platform at the north end of the current station when Jenkin interlocking is reconfigured.

I remember when the south end switch of Chelten Hills siding was removed. I was still regular conductor on the C746 freight out of Lansdale the night that a SEPTA MOW vehicle ran through the switch lined against it right before 4am, causing enough damage to delay the morning rush by about 90 minutes and annulling my run since we couldn't get by the scene. The south switch was removed after that incident....this was either late 1999 or early 2000.

Crossover track panels for Tabor Jct. are awaiting installation down by Fern Rock as well.

Now that the new bi-directional signals are in service on the southern end of Jenkintown, by the new crossovers, I notice that inbound trains get a flashing-green-over-red indication, presumably for "clear". On the outbound side, that aspect was used to indicate clear for R1, R2 or R5 as opposed to the steady-green-over-red for the R3. It seems like the flashing green would indicate some kind of condition (e.g. diverging clear) on the clear signal. Is this standard, or is it some unique SEPTA variation on signaling?

The "crossovers" south of Jenkintown station are actually now an inservice interlocking called Jenk South. The flashing clear that the home signals at Newtown Jct., Tabor interlocking, Neshaminy interlocking, and the new Jenk South is called a Cab Speed. Under the Cab Speed aspect, the engineer is to operate the train in accordance with what is displayed in their cab signal apparatus in the locomotive. Take Neshaminy for instance: if you were going northbound on #2 track approaching Neshaminy and you have a Cab Speed on the home signal, you don't necessarily know for sure what you are lined to do based on signal aspect alone. If you are lined #2 to #2 northbound, the cab signal system will display a clear and remain at clear through the interlocking; if you are diverting, say from #2 to #1, the cab signal apparatus display will drop from approach medium to approach to correspond with the speed of the crossovers, the speed of the move.
SEPTA has implemented Norac rule 562 from Newtown Jct. to Jenkin Interlocking (now newly reconfigured, its officially north of Jenkintown platform) which means their are no fixed automatic block signals governing train movements or indicating track conditions. Everything if governed by locomotive cab signals.

RDGAndrew wrote:Now that the new bi-directional signals are in service on the southern end of Jenkintown, by the new crossovers, I notice that inbound trains get a flashing-green-over-red indication, presumably for "clear". On the outbound side, that aspect was used to indicate clear for R1, R2 or R5 as opposed to the steady-green-over-red for the R3.

Actually, the aspect displayed at Jenkin for trains bound up the Mainline (R1/R2/R5) was a red-over-flashing-green: "Limited Clear" aspect.

Flashing-green-over-red, as stated above is a "Cab Speed" aspect. Lawn, Chelt, and South Fox Chase interlockings also display that aspect for movements on the Fox Chase Line.

Now that Rule 562 is in effect to Jenkin....does that mean for West Trenton trains, the cab signals drop into "non cab territory" mode for the move within Jenkin alone as they move from the new 562 territory into the Neshaminy Line 562 territory?

Silverliner II wrote:

RDGAndrew wrote:Now that the new bi-directional signals are in service on the southern end of Jenkintown, by the new crossovers, I notice that inbound trains get a flashing-green-over-red indication, presumably for "clear". On the outbound side, that aspect was used to indicate clear for R1, R2 or R5 as opposed to the steady-green-over-red for the R3.

Actually, the aspect displayed at Jenkin for trains bound up the Mainline (R1/R2/R5) was a red-over-flashing-green: "Limited Clear" aspect.

Flashing-green-over-red, as stated above is a "Cab Speed" aspect. Lawn, Chelt, and South Fox Chase interlockings also display that aspect for movements on the Fox Chase Line.

Now that Rule 562 is in effect to Jenkin....does that mean for West Trenton trains, the cab signals drop into "non cab territory" mode for the move within Jenkin alone as they move from the new 562 territory into the Neshaminy Line 562 territory?

That's right, the cabs cut out within the limits of the newly reduced Jenkin interlocking limits and come back online once you clear Jenkin on the Neshaminy line.

Once the cab signals are extended to Carmel Interlocking, that condition will go away.

Question:

I know they reduced the speeds for diverting moves from the Mainline to Fox Chase Line to 30mph. Now why does the south crossover (#1 to #2 northward) and the crossover from #2 to the Fox Chase Line at the north end of the interlocking seem to look like it could handle 40-mph moves? The crossovers at CP-Wood look sharper than that.

I've got no issues with the other crossovers; they had to squeeze the turnout from #2 to the pocket tight in there (and there was no change to the turnout from #2 to the 0 track. But the north crossover between #2 and #1 seems to have been changed to allow 30mph moves (as opposed to that sharper crossover that was originally in place). That is an improvement for sure.

All this conjecture and that in the other 562 thread begs one question....what the heck was wrong with the old system?????
I was a daily rider for years and somehow managed to get to work on time probably 95% of the time or better.......

Ooops, my bad......this is the SEPTA forum.

glennk419 wrote:All this conjecture and that in the other 562 thread begs one question....what the heck was wrong with the old system?????
I was a daily rider for years and somehow managed to get to work on time probably 95% of the time or better.......

Ooops, my bad......this is the SEPTA forum.

I was actually wondering the same thing at one time. The bulk of the problem is in the 'autorouting' of the RRD system by SEPTA's multi-million dollar centralized computer system. The 'autoroute' is probably the worst aspect of the entire system overhaul SEPTA has implemented thus far, for many reasons which I could fill a page with. I am certainly not a luddite by any stretch of the imagination; on the contrary, most new technology is truly fascinating to me. However, I firmly believe that there is no substitute for a living, thinking, breathing human being maintaining the train routing. Humans have some abilities that no computer that I know of possess: instinct, gut-feeling, and commonsense for instance. Seems to me that the new technology has slowed trains down instead of speeding them up. It is a common occurence for the machine to autoroute a late train in front of one that is on time, compounding the problem to two late trains as a result. I wish that I could illustrate more examples without having to type a novel to explain them.

glennk419 wrote:All this conjecture and that in the other 562 thread begs one question....what the heck was wrong with the old system?????
I was a daily rider for years and somehow managed to get to work on time probably 95% of the time or better.......

I don't know if you're just asking in jest, but the main advantage of a cab signal system is safety, because the system can automatically apply the brakes in situations which would have been uncaught with just wayside signals. These situations include "signal passed at danger" as used in UK railway terminology.

Cab signals are required to run on Amtrak's NEC, so SEPTA already has to have a cab signal system.

Removing the wayside signals is just to save on the operational and maintenance/replacement costs.

the main advantage of a cab signal system is safety, because the system can automatically apply the brakes in situations which would have been uncaught with just wayside signals.

And when was the last time a SEPTA train rearended another SEPTA train while out on the mainline or on some branch line somewhere because a engineer blew a signal??

Cab signals, in conjuntion with Speed control and ATC, have irrefutable safety advantages over the automatic block system alone. The main reason rear end collisions are a rarety is because train crews are qualified on the NORAC operating rules governing the movements of trains and are liable for punitive action by the carrier or the FRA for noncompliance with those rules. Engineers are disciplined enough to remember what signal indication they are governed by, and they operate their train accordingly. There are also rules in place for trains operating in noncabsignal-terrtitory that specifically deal with the lack of the Speed Control apparatus function, such as communcating signals with the conductor, Delay in Block, Rule 80 (restricted speed), etc. There is a saying that the NORAC rules are 'written in blood'. Truer words were never spoken.

jfrey40535 wrote:And when was the last time a SEPTA train rearended another SEPTA train while out on the mainline or on some branch line somewhere because a engineer blew a signal??

North Wales?