Western Railroad Discussion > Coast line upgrades, CTC LOSSAN plan

The other thread got so long......I shoulda posted this in the 1st place.....

LOSSAN is the San Diego to SLO public rail agency
I wont be surprised if they drop Devon from the CTC......Its short, and there's a grade crossing in the middle of it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/25/20 13:49 by pdt.

---

---

---

Is it funded?

JGFuller Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Is it funded?

The rail and ties have been dropped and M/W equipment train arrived today...  I know that doesnt addrees the CTC, but a 2021 completion to Guadalupe seems pretty soon for it not to be funded... 

Interesting to see they chose Honda (long out of service but still in place) vs. Surf.
Honda is somewhat longer.

And as I said the UP was not doing it out of the goodness of their heart or some 1971 traffic base.
The old adage of "Follow the money" generally applies. Joint partnership aka You do the work and
then get out of the way!

Out 



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/25/20 13:57 by callum_out.

JGFuller Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Is it funded?

It's been funded for more than a year now.  Project is running about 6 months late, I *assume* due to Covid.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/25/20 14:37 by OTG.

You may rest assured that UP will not advance any proposed work until

• An Agreement is signed.
• The money is in the bank

I have no understanding that this has occurred. The slides are LOSSAN's wish list - not drastically different from when I did modeling for them 10 years ago.

The ties and rail are ordinary maintenance, to maintain the mandated MAS, without slow orders. If the route weren't in the National System, the Coast would be Class 3, unless CA stepped in to provide otherwise. In essence, CA can run additional trains between LA and SLO on a good schedule, because UP is obligated to maintain the track to Class 4 standard [P=80 F=60], because that's how it was in 1971.
 

railstiesballast Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Interesting to see they chose Honda (long out of
> service but still in place) vs. Surf.
> Honda is somewhat longer.

There's a pedestrian crosswalk to the beach from the station platform at Surf, which crosses the siding at grade.  More potential problems if regularly used for meets..



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/25/20 14:12 by pdt.

pdt Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> railstiesballast Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Interesting to see they chose Honda (long out
> of
> > service but still in place) vs. Surf.
> > Honda is somewhat longer.
>
> There's a pedestrian crosswalk to the beach from
> the station platform at Surf, which crosses the
> siding at grade.  More potential problems if
> regularly used for meets..

i was surprised they chose Honda over Sudden, seeing as Honda has been OOS for going on 20 years and Sudden is still semi regularly used for meets (when it's not chocked full of stored cars).

Surf only has a passenger platform on the main track somit makes sense not to power up that siding as it couldn't necessarily be used for passenger meets.

JGFuller Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You may rest assured that UP will not advance any
> proposed work until
>
>

• An Agreement is signed.
  >
• The money is in the bank
  >
  > I have no understanding that this has occurred.
  > The slides are LOSSAN's wish list - not
  > drastically different from when I did modeling for
  > them 10 years ago.

The project is funded and already underway.  In the last month or two departure signals have been added to some of the sidings scheduled to get them according to those slides.

Very informative.Thanks for sharing.Bill Webb

JGFuller Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If the route weren't in the National System, the
> Coast would be Class 3, unless CA stepped in to
> provide otherwise. In essence, CA can run
> additional trains between LA and SLO on a good
> schedule, because UP is obligated to maintain the
> track to Class 4 standard , because that's how it
> was in 1971.

The Coast was Class 3 for years (mid 80's-early 2000's) between Wunpost and Oxnard. It wasn't until UP put in welded rail that the speeds were raised...

Also according to the budget document, they will be adding a siding, and second platform at Carpenteria, and extending Camarillo siding south, possibly making it 2MT....

http://www.octa.net/pdf/LOSSAN_Business_Plan_FY_19-20_and_FY_20-21.pdf



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/26/20 00:05 by ats90mph.

At each end of the 9,997 foot Camarillo siding there are very business street crossings so lengthening the Camarillo siding pass these two streets would cause traffic problems if a long train was stopped blocking the street during a meet.  If a long train stops short of either street crossing so as to not block the street crossing then lengthening siding would seem to be a waste of taxpayer.  If you wanted to lengthen the Camarillo siding it would be better to lengthen the north end, geographically south, but then you would need to build a bridge so that Pleasant Valley Road goes over the trains at a cost of a lot of taxpayer money.  In the morning and evenings the Pleasant Valley Road railroad crossing sees a lot vehicle traffic.

If railroads really wanted to take business away from trucks all they need to do is learn how to deliver a trailer/container on time to the customer 99% of the time at a much lower cost than trucking charges to their customers.  Shipping customers like to save money and will gladly change shipping methods and change their production schedules to allow for the longer train shipping time if the cost is lower and what is shipped is delivered 99% + on time year after year.

Are these CTC islands where track warrants are needed to pass between CTC segments?  

Todd Clark
Canyon Country, CA
Trainorders.com

to nswer ur question....yes, between the CTC islands is TWC.

The Track warrants extend over the CTC islands, which is why its so confusing.    UP needs to write ointo the rulebook specific operating instructions for movement over CTC islands within TWC territory, so as to make it clear.

within the limits of the CTC island, signal indications supercede TWC, is my understanding.  Just one of the things thats confusing, is what are the limits of the CTC island.  IMHO, They need to have 'Begin CTC", and ":end CTC, Begin TWC" signs. 

Obviousy, technically, the warrants shoud by up the the begining of CTC, and then after the end of CTC...but that's not going to happen, as a train would need  close to a dozen warrants to make it from Goleta to Guadalupe.

Crews also need to be made clearly aware of which signals are automatics, and which are home signals.  Whould be best if all the home signals had 2 heads, and the automatics, 1 head.    Unfortunately, singalling still seems to be haphazzard, and not well planned out...  It just seems that in this day and age, just the existance or non existance of a signal plate isnt much to go on, regarding automatics vs home signals.



 



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/28/20 10:40 by pdt.

I believe the designations you seek for signals are already in place.

The home signals at a control point are Absolutes, and do not have a number plate. GCOR 9.2.15

Intermediate signals have a number plate. GCOR 9.2.22

CTC extends between opposing outer home signals at each end of the Island.

TWC extends between outer home signals at adjacent Islands.

This is a new one on me. Examples?
" It just seems that in this day and age, just the existence or non existence of a signal plate isn't much to go on, regarding automatics vs home signals."
 

Im not saying discontinue the number plate distinction, just have something additional to reinforce it.  Like some standardization.  I think it would be helpful of at least all the high home signals they install now should have 2 heads, and automatics have 1 head.   Is that so complicated. 

I know the rulebook.   I just think it can use some updating, which is hardly unusual.   If anyone has to tell you "think of it this way", that means the rule isnt clear.

Also, take a look at a 1960's rulbook, signal aspects.  Its pretty simple and straightforward.     Signal aspects today are  a joke.  6 or more different aspects for 1 indication.  Thats ridiculous.   I know its cause of all of the mergers and different previous RR signal systems,   But i dont see that its gotten any better in the last 30 years.  Im just sayin...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/28/20 20:49 by pdt.

"6 or more different aspects for 1 indication.  Thats ridcullous. "

Amen, Brother. Canada fixed that with a nationwide rule book and signal indications. However, they all have number plates! [Altho a single-head Stop signal does have a "A" plate.]

Not so sure about having all Intermedaites be single-head.  Seems that Approach Diverging [route] / Advance Approach [speed] / Clear to Medium [CROR] would require two heads.

 

webmaster Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Are these CTC islands where track warrants are
> needed to pass between CTC segments?  

the above agreement states, "complete ctc on the remaining route goleta-san louis obispo."

the electric switch lock boxes on both ends of the listed sidings at the hand throw switches where a train can clear the main would be a requirement in ctc (with a few exceptions).

from the info in this agreement, i would think that means that ctc rules will govern the main track authority between goleta-san louis obispo so there would be no track warrants.

somebody PLEASE feel free to correct me.............

66