General Discussion

Arizona Bridge Fire

In surfing the web, this contributor stumbled across a news item (with five photos) about a bridge fire in Maricopa, AZ in June.  Much bridge timber was charred.  It is unknown if the new, trackless concrete bridge next to it for the future second main was quickly pressed into service with a shoofly or not.  If UP did, repairs to the burned bridge could be done at the railroad's leisure instead of in crisis mode.  Long live the new concrete bridges!

For those interested, the news article about it is currently at the link below

http://maricopa360.com/?p=5134

K.P.

K. P. Harrier:

Arizona Bridge Fire

As usual, interesting photos.  Looks like the firemen were soaking the bridge timbers with foam....

cacole:

....The City of Willcox, Arizona Department of Transportation, and Union Pacific have been haggling over the crossings in downtown Willcox, with the city and state wanting the railroad to build an overpass or underpass, and that seems to be holding up construction.  Main streets of Willcox run parallel to the railroad so close that there's no room for anything except grade crossings....

One solution I've seen is for an underpass below both the adjacent street(s) and railroad and using adjacent side streets for a partial clover leaf (eg, Lake & Lehigh along the Metra MDN in Glenview, IL).  This requires a temporary shoo-fly and detours. 

The problem usually is the impact of the approach ramps on properties along the road.  If the City wants it in this case, I'm guessing the problem is "wanting the [UP] to build (pay for!) an overpass or underpass."  This would be 20% of the total with Federal funding; but then the State may not want to appropriate its allocation for this project, leaving the railroad with 100% of the costs.  Similarly, all the communities along the EJ&E want the CN to shoulder the entire cost of crossing improvements.

Update as of July 12, 2009

Pomona, CA

On the west side of Pomona, as part of the Alameda Corridor East project, the Southern Pacific (SP) route is being relocated to the Los Angeles & Salt Lake (LA&SL) right-of-way.

There has been no discernable activity around the Temple Ave. area on the far west side of this project.

However, much is happening around Humane Way.

Many boulders were being transported around

One very noisy piece of equipment slowly clanged toward the camera …

Then, did some work … And, then just waited …

It waited for some equipment moving around in the east, for a “meet” almost in railroad fashion.  The confines are so narrow to work in that a “dispatcher” is almost needed to coordinate the construction movements …

In the downtown Pomona area … New track circuit boxes are being installed.  Note the high LA&SL ballast right next to the foreground public roadway

‘Out of the Blue’ Highway Bridge

A new highway bridge is being constructed in Fontana, CA between Citrus and Sierra Avenues., just west of West Colton Yard.  It is unknown if it resulted from President Obama’s economic stimulus package or not, but things are moving very quickly.  As seen below, it does not appear that the bridge’s path was sufficiently cleared, but the bridge is progressing anyway.  Even the advertising sign on the upper left will be blocked.  The Sunset Route is by that advertising sign and Interstate 10.

It is wondered by this forumist if the new highway bridge will block the view of the new signal bridge west of Sierra Ave, a signal bridge that hasn’t even been put in service yet!  The photo below was taken last year

On the morning of Tuesday, July 14, look for:  “Examining a Mystery Track in Pomona, CA.”

MP57313:

K. P. Harrier wrote:

The following four photos were taken on March 20, 2008 from Temple Ave., in Pomona, CA.

 

Hard to tell in the distance - are they now working on the realignment of the Sunset route through West Pomona?  The new grade has been there for some time, but I have not been out to see if track construction has started. 

The last time I was in Ontario in April nothing had yet been done to extend the double track thru that town. Also Trains Magazine reported that the double tracking project has been totally suspended due to the severe downturn in carloadings

Examining a Mystery Track in Pomona, CA

As of July 14, 2009:

Terminology:  LA&SL = Los Angeles & Salt Lake, the original UP line in Southern California to Salt Lake City, UT; SP = Southern Pacific

A westward, previously posted LA&SL view of new grading:   From Hamilton Ave. with a new, uninstalled turnout in the distance

A previous view, likewise from Hamilton Ave., looking eastward:  The north side SP tracks are on the left, the south side LA&SL track is in the center.  Note the rusted underpass guard railings in the way of the new LA&SL grading

Based on the above, apparently, in going eastward the second LA&SL track will shift to the north slightly, and go under the new signal bridge on an SP-side alignment

Looking westward with a telephoto shot from the Metrolink Downtown Pomona Station stop.  A UP eastbound has transitioned from the LA&SL to the SP and is heading to Arizona and eastern parts.  The signal bridge shows the future LA&SL track signal clearly on the SP side

But that second LA&SL track can’t go very much farther eastward on the SP side, as platforms are in the way.  This view shows the Pomona Amtrak station (upper center).  The only alternative is for the track in question to swing back to the LA&SL side.  Notice that there is sufficient clearance for another track on the photo center left to bottom center.  Clearing away a present side-walkway will be no problem.  Since the Metrolink station stop is on the photo left bottom (south), WHY there is a handicap ramp ACROSS from the Amtrak station (north) is somewhat baffling … But there is a logical explanation …

Interestingly, there is an overhead walkway between the Amtrak side (north, left) and the Metrolink stop side (south, right).  Again, another track would clearly fit on the LA&SL side.

But, the second track cannot go very much farther east, as the line is single-track over an underpass (railings on center right) as seen in this previously posted June view looking west toward the stations’ walkway overhead bridge

The emphasis in this post has been the LA&SL track that swings to the SP side that may return back to the LA&SL side.  At this point in time, it is unknown if that track will be another mainline track, or merely a track Metrolink uses to park commuter trains overnight midpoint between Los Angeles and Riverside.

In light of that previously mentioned, baffling Metrolink handicapped ramp for wheelchair access to commuter trains on the SP side, this theorist is now inclined to believe the LATTER possibility above is the most likely eventuality, i.e. an overnight parking track for commuter trains.

It should be noted that PRESENTLY there is already a track connecting the LA&SL and SP a short distance to the east, and, in its present form, dates from soon after the UP-SP merger.  Below is a previously posted westward view of that “SP side” connection (left).  Note the two-track confinement of the underpass guard railings

The “LA&SL side” transition track (left), looking east

A northward cross section view:  In light of that north side handicap ramp, Metrolink will likely use both the LA&SL and SP routes for a Pomona stop on its LA&SL Los Angeles-Riverside runs.  Any commuter train having to transition between the routes on the east side will have to use the transition track between the mast signals with single-lamp top heads.  The nearest track (leftmost signal) is the present Metrolink route and LA&SL line.

As stated previously under this topic, between Los Angeles and Pomona BOTH the LA&SL and SP routes are now considered the Sunset Route.  However, many eastbound trains heading to Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, and points beyond, are actually routed to the LA&SL track to Riverside and north to Colton, where they rejoin the Sunset Route and resume their Sunset routing to eastern points.  The reverse happens too, but not nearly as often.  Metrolink uses that LA&SL Riverside route.  The actual Sunset Route from Pomona eastward is devoid of all commuter trains, but hosts Amtrak Nos. 1 & 2, the “Sunset Limited.”

It is hoped the above possible explanation for the mystery track in Pomona halfway makes sense.

K.P.

Update as of Saturday, July 18, 2009

Palm Springs, CA

In a very high temperature of 110F, it was surprising to find UP track workers busily at work on Main 1.  Looking railroad west:  From left to right at [CP] WEST GARGET:  The Garnet siding, Main 2, and Main 1.

On the background right, Main 1 ended until just a year ago.  Now, two-tracks go east as far as the east switch of [CP] THERMAL.  The foreground track is the Garnet Siding, used by Amtrak’s Sunset Limited, Nos. 1 & 2.  The Palm Springs station stop is clearly market by bold yellow lines.

Looking west again:  Adjacent Amtrak’s handicapped accessible ramp, UP forces recently built a nice grade crossing for its own use

About that Cypress Ave. Overpass, Fontana, CA

The bridge supports:  The four north side supports, then the westbound I-10 lanes, the as yet only one center divider support (dark red), the eastbound lanes (blue pickup truck), the Sunset Route trackage.

From the same area as the above photo, looking eastward only two blocks is last year’s new high signal bridge.  The Sierra Ave. overpass is in the background

Looking west from the Sierra Ave. overpass:  Note that the Citrus Ave. overpass, only a mile to the west, goes line-of-sight behind the signal bridge’s ‘not put in service yet’ left lower head.   The new Cypress Ave. Bridge will be between Sierra and Citrus Avenues, and a bridge support is on the far center right.  Likely, though, that ‘trains can’t see the signal’ problem will be the railroad’s problem to deal with …

Is It a Good Sign among All the Economic Doom and Gloom?

The very long line of stored locomotives at West Colton Yard appears to have shrunk.

Before (April 15, 2009):

As of this date:
 

Some laid-off enginemen have reportedly even been called back to work!

Hopefully, two-tracking the Sunset Route can resume full force in the near future 

K.P., thanks once more for the updates.  You have the Sunset Route covered like a blanket!

A quick query about the track work at Garnet:  looks like a surfacing gang at work there.  Is there more going on, or is that all there was? Thanks in advance.

 I took a trip from Tucson to Casa Grande Sunday, July 19th, using the old State Highway 79 as much as I could because it parallels the Union Pacific line.

No work was apparent anywhere.  All of the Ames equipment staging areas were abandoned.  Weeds are growing in the new right-of-way that was graded and graveled last winter.

Grade crossing signals have been moved and the crossings have had the new track added, but that's all that has been accomplished this year.

The Union Pacific seems to be concentrating all of their effort in California.

Too Hot of a Question to Handle!

Literally!  This forumist was determined to photograph and understand what a new, but somewhat odd, Sunset Route signal displayed.  But a 3 A.M. rising was not in the cards.  Instead of an arrival in Indio at 5 A.M., it was more like 10 A.M., and my car thermometer already said it was 110 degrees out!  At an ideal location (the Jackson Street Bridge, where the below photo was taken, looking eastbound), I waited … and waited.  Nothing ever came.  And it was just too hot to stay …

The new Sunset Route signals (at least in the Beaumont Hill area) use, in order of a train passing them, (1) a flashing yellow, then (2) yellow over yellow, and finally (3) a red over green for a crossover routing, assuming the route is clear for such.

This person has theorized some first masts (as in the above photo) may have a yellow over green indication (accounting for the lower single heads), but has not personally seen such.  The second, more than two miles ahead, should be yellow over yellow, with the third red over green.

Could someone verify this?  Or, at least explain to us what is actually displayed.

Thanks,

K.P.

Pepper Ave., West Colton Yard, CA

Monday, July 13, looking east:  Even more ballast had been laid.  This forumist has seen over the years pink, white, light-gray, and tan ballast, but never chocolate brown

However, by Monday, July 20, the chocolate colored ballast had been smoothed out and mixed to a more traditional color and look

The signal masts in the first photo seem to have a single lower stop-take siding indicator head, possibly lunar, with manual switches which was pretty typical for SP.

billio (7-19):

After being ‘roasted’ alive in Indio, in heading homeward, I just happened to stop by the Palm Springs Amtrak station where the track maintenance work was being performed.  The distinct impression was that only in the general vicinity of the Amtrak stop was where equipment was active.  I though single-tracking 6.5 miles between [CP] West Palm Springs and [CP] GARNET was sufficient, hence, I did NOT return east a few miles to check that area out.  I just could not believe UP would single-track 15 miles between [CP] WEST PALM SPRINGS and [CP] RIMLON.

In watching the moving track equipment, I had to marvel.  All their windows were closed!  Workers were in total air conditioned comfort!  They must have said to themselves:  “Look at that poor fool with a camera just roasting on the Amtrak platform!”  They probably were right!

cacole (7-20):

Thanks for your report.  To know that weeds are now growing in the new grading is depressing, but that is reality!

Next time you take a Tucson to Casa Grande journey, I suggest going a little farther, to Maricopa.  That is where all the new track construction action was at the end of May when I visited Arizona.

Locking Horns -- The Colton Flyover Controversy

Late last year, the press related that a controversy existed between Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) and Union Pacific (UP) pertaining to the proposed Colton Flyover, but this forumist knows of no specific published details about the controversy.

However, the following may or may not be the problem, and is related only as an opinion.  But, just reason things out …

In the 1990’s, Santa Fe Railway and Burlington Northern Railroad merged, resulting in today’s BNSF Railway.  It basically was an end-to-end merger.  In response, Union Pacific gobbled up Southern Pacific, with the surviving name publically being Union Pacific.  It was more or less a parallel merger, and such type mergers are often fraught with controversies.

Enter the Colton Flyover issue.  In the distant past, let’s say the then crossing users, (1) Atchison Topeka & Santa Fe (AT&SF), (2) Southern Pacific (SP), and (3) UP, shared equally the costs of the Colton diamond arrangement (i.e., by thirds).  However, theoretically, with the two great mergers mentioned above, one party could want the other party’s share to rise from 33% to 50%, while theirs decline from a combined 66% to 50%.  The other party obviously would desire the old thirds agreement to stay in place.  The railroads may have never settled the issue, but tolerated old agreements because the accumulative, many diamond crossings over both systems probably evened things out.

But, with the proposed Colton Flyover, we are talking about $200 million for bridging over just one present crossing location!  California voter initiative money would pay for nearly half the flyover, say $100 million for simplicity’s sake.  The two railroads would fork in about $50 million combined, and the remaining $50 million would come from unclear sources.

A third of $50 million compared to a half is big money!  Two thirds of $50 million is even bigger money.  And, without a formal, SPECIFIC agreement in advance, what division is proper, equitable, and correct?  Should SOMEONE ELSE’S merger cause your share of costs to increase?

Polarized sides so often never come to agreement, and the Colton Flyover may very well become a victim of this.  The State of California is so broke that it probably can’t contribute any further funds, and it is unknown if the Obama administration would ever intercede with full flyover funding in the name of national security and the continued welfare of the Nation (read Obama’s economic stimulus money).  If the flyover was built somehow, reoccurring maintenance costs thereafter would likely be so small as to not warrant the time to argue over the matter.
 
In the absence of a miracle, BNSF could just fill the current Cajon Pass to Riverside triple-track gap that exists for about three-miles between just north of the would-be flyover to Highgrove that would have been filled anyway after the flyover was hypothetically built.  Even without the flyover, that would allow three trains to cross the UP Sunset Route at one time.  BNSF moving three trains at once would be better than only being able to move two, and would work toward a freer flow Colton Crossing.  The flipside to that is that the unyielding BNSF might see a freer flow Colton Crossing as a reward to UP for UP’s own unyieldingness, so it might just leave that 3-mile gap as two-tracks.  Remember, however, all this is only conjectural without actual statements from the railroads themselves, but the issues and logic presented herein is believed to be meritorious.

In some ways, the problem can be traced all the way back to Abraham Lincoln’s day and the first transcontinental railroad.  If TWO railroads (a good idea in its time) hadn’t been mandated back then, we would probably not have today’s impossible Colton Flyover dilemma.

The whole thing is reminiscent of 1882, when the SAME site saw Southern Pacific (a predecessor to the current UP) park railcars over a would-be crossing  by California Southern (a Santa Fe predecessor), and stationed armed guards thereat.  That standoff was only overcome by law enforcement action that allowed CS to finally lay a diamond for crossing the SP.  The present standoff, if we have correctly identified the issue, likewise may be won ultimate by the California Southern successor, BNSF Railway, based on a never superseded PREVIOUS agreement, UNLESS that previous agreement had been superseded by mutual agreement.  But, we may never know, because it seems neither railroad is legally obligated to even build a flyover!  But, it is very difficult to imagine how anyone could just walk away from $97 million offered to them!
_____

Dated June 6, 2009, during the signal transition phase, this eastward facing photo looks toward Union Pacific’s Beaumont Hill in the distant background.  The cross track is BNSF’s Transcon, with the Los Angeles routing toward the right.  The UP vertical center LEFT track at the crossing is the historic SP track mentioned in the text above.  In 1882, that alignment was straighter.  The TOP, DARK right track, near where it bends, is the general site of a horrendous 1907 westbound passenger train wreck that incurred many fatalities.  Will the Colton Flyover effort end up wrecked too?
_____

I am the photographer that shot those shots.

It was a typical hot day in Maricopa, Az, over 100. The fire efforts were hidered by a lack of water.

The new bridge is not in service yet. The area is being set up for double tracking. This area is used by UP as well as Amtrak.

The bridge was OKed for service before midnight that night.

My entire shoot is on my site. http://85239photography.smugmug.com/gallery/8401105_wCS2i#553339740_4oPmQ

Howard WaGGner 85239 Photography