SignalTraffic Forums

So for those of you that actually paid attention to what I was taking from Phil's earlier this year, you probably remember that I snuck home a strobe module.

It needed work, it looked like crap and was dirtier than a Las Vegas House (capital 'H'), Because today was a slow day, decided to strip it down, give it a paint job, and reassemble it. The paint isn't perfect - it's pretty bad, actually, due to the humid weather outside, but the black matches the Durasig black perfectly.

The strobe is made by some unknown manufacturer, and was (still is?) made as a complete easy to install add on - simply remove the signals old visor, remove the lens, attach the strobe visor, route wires through lens hole, remount lens, and attach wires.

The hardest part - one I didn't quite grasp, was putting the lens (LED module, in my case) in with the wires there. It's a *very* tight fit, and when I was trying to get the LED in the gasket kept popping off. Also, these were made for glass lenses obviously - some LED modules don't fit (such as GE DR6 and EOI Incandescent style. Dialight 433 models fit, and that's what I'm using. I trashed the faded green Mark IV the visor was attached to, and took one head of my black DC and put it on.

The strobe tube works, but has limited time left, due to some sputter on the tube. I'd like to find a replacement, but the tube is 11.5 inchest long from end to end, the glass is 9.5 inches long.

Anyways, here's a vid of it firing. It's hard to hear, but the discharge is very audible.

While that's really cool, I can't imagine it fitting in with any indoor display, the strobe is just too obnoxious. Very cool though, and great work!

I like it! What's inside the 'strobe tube'? And does the box thing on top of the visor control it?

I think the strobe is ICC. They're the only company I've heard of making them. (I've seen three go on ebay, and I saw it somewhere else too... )

Wasn't this signal made by a company of Native Americans? I remember seeing something about that a while ago.

Here is the manuf's page:
http://www.elliottequipment.com/barlo_strobe.htm
Elliot Manuf'g produces these. When ordered "you" can specify visor unit assembly only or an entire 12" section and if these will go in the red or yellow section as flash rates are different for the two.
They also produced-for a time- a "Halo" strobe. The srobe element on the Halo was in the shape of a circle around the outer edge of the signal lens.
Considering they are "illegal" in the MUTCD, most jurisdictions had to cease using them.
As far as maintenance, they were a beast. You were LUCKY if you got 12mos of life from them. The power supplies were generally suspect, and you could see them start to fail as the flash rate would begin to decrease.

The new wave replacement that came out for the Barlo was:
http://www.msiled.com/strobefly4_12.pdf
a neat unit that if ordered had the option to change the flash rate each cycle. The White Lightning" just didnt have the visual punch though...

I also took the liberty of altering your thread title for id purposes-hope thats cool w you!

signal-in-the-box wrote:I like it! What's inside the 'strobe tube'? And does the box thing on top of the visor control it?

I think the strobe is ICC. They're the only company I've heard of making them. (I've seen three go on ebay, and I saw it somewhere else too... )

The tube itself is xenon glass, with an exciter wire wrapped around it, mounted in two ceramic ends. The box on the visor is the transformer ("power supply"). If my memory on xenon is right, the transformer bumps up the 120v to about 800v, and feeds both ends of the strobe. Inside the visor section is a switch, fuse, and a trigger. The switch is for safety, to deactivate the strobe in case someone takes it apart (ahem), and the fuse is .. well, a fuse. The trigger, however, is connected to the trigger wire that's wrapped around the outside of the tube. When it's ready to fire, the trigger fires like 22kv (I think.. ) through that wire, which excites the xenon gas, making it pop. The 'clicking' noise is not the xenon tube, but the exciter wire firing. That transformer on the wire is heavy - about 10 pounds alone!

pyth wrote:While that's really cool, I can't imagine it fitting in with any indoor display, the strobe is just too obnoxious. Very cool though, and great work!

.. Uh, yeah. I was going to hang it next to my (Nick's old) Mark IV, but now I'm not so sure. I may drill out a weather cap and put a toggle in it to 'deactivate' the strobe. Hack, but that way I don't have to change any wiring to show it off. Actually, the bright flashes aren't *too* distracting. it's the loud "snap!" when the bulb is fired that's more annoying.

SignalLab wrote:Here is the manuf's page:
http://www.elliottequipment.com/barlo_strobe.htm
Elliot Manuf'g produces these. When ordered "you" can specify visor unit assembly only or an entire 12" section and if these will go in the red or yellow section as flash rates are different for the two.
They also produced-for a time- a "Halo" strobe. The srobe element on the Halo was in the shape of a circle around the outer edge of the signal lens.
Considering they are "illegal" in the MUTCD, most jurisdictions had to cease using them.
As far as maintenance, they were a beast. You were LUCKY if you got 12mos of life from them. The power supplies were generally suspect, and you could see them start to fail as the flash rate would begin to decrease.

I'm not 100% sure this is them. I sent them an email, will see what they say. Mainly, my biggest doubt is the tube itself. My tube is longer than the one they have - even the picture of the older style tube doesn't match. (Mine has ceramic ends, the older tube they have pictured has a wire for wire clamps mounted in the visor assembly.

And some of them lasted a long time, I will admit. I don't think their performance was *that* bad. This one I have, for example, is from 1991 (date stamp). It flashes every 1.5 seconds, and from the looks of the xenon tube, it's been firing a looong time. Also, I know that the ones on I575/GA515 (at the intersection of GA515 and GA108 were going for about five years back in the late 80's early 90's. There used to be some at GA515 and GA53 in Jasper, too, but I rarely went that far up back then, so don't remember how long they were up.

On the other hand - I'm sure weather has a lot to do with it. When I took this one apart, the transformer/power supply had about 5 pounds of silicone sealant around and in it. I scraped more sealant off of the transformer and visor than I ever have before. Oy!

And remember, the MUTCD isn't fully adopted by all states! It's possible that some states still allow 'em.

SignalLab wrote:The new wave replacement that came out for the Barlo was:
http://www.msiled.com/strobefly4_12.pdf
a neat unit that if ordered had the option to change the flash rate each cycle. The White Lightning" just didnt have the visual punch though...

I also took the liberty of altering your thread title for id purposes-hope thats cool w you!

Aw, I was kinda partial to the old "Frankenstein" movie. (Which all you youngun's here probably don't even know of. Shame...!)

The LED thing is interesting - offering it in colors, too!

interesting that your tube is different. I cannot say for sure if they produced more than one type. Will have to go back and look at a few of mine. The original variety had the power supply mounted to the top of the visor (where it was free to bake in the sun) while later versions came mounted on the side of the visor, like yours. Typically the power supply was the culprit for failure. I can tell you with upmost certainty that these units were serious maintenance headches. So much so that many jurisidicitons and GDOT itself utilized quick disconect hangers to allow for quick replacement of the units. This is also why most installations in the state were single section.
I would be interested to know the history of yours if it hasnt had any replacement parts in it since '91. Truly the exception to this state's experience.
As far as the MUTCD is concerned, some state's (Alabama for example) have a specific section (5.9, Strobe Signal Heads) of their state's suppllement to the Manual. In other words they adopt the manual, then publish "additions" to it. Here is a neat map of those states:
http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/state_info/
In Ga's case, the Manual was adopted in full, and the heads on State maintained routes were removed. Wish I had gotten a pict of the HUNDREDS of units that were at DOT maintenance barns.
The locals that maintained state system signals got a letter from FHWA "encouraging" conformance. One jurisdiction in particular has bucked the MUTCD arguing the installation of the units was beneficial to the safety of the intersection....but now I am wayyyy off topic.

SignalLab wrote:interesting that your tube is different. I cannot say for sure if they produced more than one type. Will have to go back and look at a few of mine. The original variety had the power supply mounted to the top of the visor (where it was free to bake in the sun) while later versions came mounted on the side of the visor, like yours.

Oh, nono, mine's at the top too. In fact, that's where 90% of that silicon was - the metal 'cover' over the transformer is not molded to the round visor, so the sides of it have about a 1/8in gap all the way around. Wide open to weather in there, even with all the silicone! That's what stuck me as odd (and cheap) about the whole thing! I sent the maker an email, inquiring about the strobe. If they reply, I'll post here what I find out.

SignalLab wrote:Typically the power supply was the culprit for failure. I can tell you with upmost certainty that these units were serious maintenance headches. So much so that many jurisidicitons and GDOT itself utilized quick disconect hangers to allow for quick replacement of the units. This is also why most installations in the state were single section.

Ah! I'm not arguing that fact. :) Was just saying that of the ones I saw regularly, they seemed to last a while. And yea - the ones on GA515 were singla-head units. One between the two heads on the span whire. (Don't remember if the ones I saw regularly had the quick-disconnect tops or not.)

SignalLab wrote:http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/state_info/
In Ga's case, the Manual was adopted in full, and the heads on State maintained routes were removed. Wish I had gotten a pict of the HUNDREDS of units that were at DOT maintenance barns.
The locals that maintained state system signals got a letter from FHWA "encouraging" conformance. One jurisdiction in particular has bucked the MUTCD arguing the installation of the units was beneficial to the safety of the intersection....but now I am wayyyy off topic.

Yup, Maryland has it's own, for example - which is essentially a copy of the national one, with their own comments and paragraphs added.

Anyways, it's a neat little device, and I'm glad I got it working. The more I think about it, the more I may make a custom little weather cap to house a switch in.

do you remember the ones at SR400 adn SR 53? they had two per approach between the thru heads-made you dizzy! I like your switch idea, I kept mine hooked up thru the disconnect plug...for ease of use.

SignalLab wrote:do you remember the ones at SR400 adn SR 53? they had two per approach between the thru heads-made you dizzy! I like your switch idea, I kept mine hooked up thru the disconnect plug...for ease of use.

Not directly - I rarely (if ever) went up 400. (Except to go to Dahlonega or Helen. Heh..)

I always thought this was a Georgia thing, honestly, until I got older. Mainly because I never saw them anywhere else..!