Paul, because of the deep cuts (60+ Feet) and high fills we could not use measured distances from RP's. Also multiple RP's were needed in some situations because the contractor was doing work outside the track structure grading, like diverting water sources to a new opening.
Since this 44 mile relocated line, in the mountains, was designed with no grades greater than 1% and no curves greater than one degree we had to build dikes and construct channels to get run off water to another opening. Can't have a creek running into a thirty foot cut.
Paul_D_North_Jr Cog railway only !
Cog railway only !
I've certainly enjoyed the one in MC's neck of the woods a couple of times, once when the Aspen were quite spectacular.
diningcar (4-12):
What you are saying HAS BEEN basically right from the inception of the Crookton line change in Arizona. But, a new situation has snuck up on us all making outdated the arrangement at Winslow, AZ.
If one looks real good at the above photo one sees the stopped tail end of a train hanging into the interlocking! That interlocking is set up so switches can be thrown while track circuits are occupied, hence, the forefront right train was able, under signal indication (red over flashing red), enter the CP to yard tracks on the right. But what if that stopped train had hung out to the signals on the photo bottom? In that case the interlocking would have been blocked.
K.P. has been noticing that on the UP and BNSF trains are getting longer and longer and longer. So, that pictured interlocking at West Winslow is becoming more and more outdated and the free flowing movement of trains greatly hindered because of it.
One way to make things more free flowing, with or without a flyover, is to lengthen the Winslow tracks, but a flyover would greatly make things more free flowing in that lengthening.
When I was at West Winslow last year it was inconclusive if the CP was just being rebuilt in kind or being expanded westward.
But, it probably was just a maintenance thing, as the railroads have their hands full with Positive Train Control issues with a looming deadline bearing down on them.
Anyway, that is how I see things. You’ve generally been right in your basic perspectives, but those perspectives are being threatened with ever increasing congestions and longer and longer trains.
Best,
K.P.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- K.P.’s absolute “theorem” from early, early childhood that he has seen over and over and over again: Those that CAUSE a problem in the first place will act the most violently if questioned or exposed.
Mountain Goat qualified, eh?
(EDIT: Referring to BaltACD's post above about steep grades)
If Balt were to carefully look around the Virginia Avenue Tunnels in DC, he would see 14 of these rascals mounted high up on H-piles continuously monitoring wall movement on the length of the trench up until the day the concrete slab covers went over the top. They measured 24/7/365 on a set routine and were all cabled to a central computer in the consultants construction office. All were set to alarm at 1/8" (0.01') of movement from the previous shot at the same location. (They were their own protection, the locals thought they were security cameras- and in a way they were)
Railroad minimum standard out west is normally 2:1 slopes with 3:1 preferred (if you had the room)...1:1 slopes usually are only allowed with the Chief Engineer's permission and a favorable soils report. ...and after climbing up and down those plus walking in loose ballast, one quickly understands why field surveying is a younger person's game.
Paul_D_North_JrFYI: a 1:1 = 45 deg. slope is a 100% grade; a 2:1 = 27 deg. slope is a 50% grade (which is why it looks so steep); and a 3:1 = 18 deg. slope is a 33% grade. - PDN.
- PDN.
And they are all steep!
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
FYI: a 1:1 = 45 deg. slope is a 100% grade; a 2:1 = 27 deg. slope is a 50% grade (which is why it looks so steep); and a 3:1 = 18 deg. slope is a 33% grade.
I can agree with Paul that those soil slopes were probably closer to 2:1 or 3:1. As I remember, the angle of repose for soil was about 30% max, and lesser angles minimumizes erosion.
K.P., the approx. 45-deg. angle that diningcar referred to is the angle between 2 horizontal lines - a giant X - to mark the location of a critical "control" point at the intersection. Reference stake(s) were set along each of the 4 'legs' - typically I set just 1, but dc and his colleagues apparently were super-cautious and set 2. The 'cat-skinners' (bulldozer operators) would then run over and "disturb" the control point stakes (knocked, crushed, or buried, etc.). In fairness, that was usually inevitable, since they were in the active construction excavation or fill zone. But with those reference stakes set, it was then real easy to reset them. A transit on a tripod could be set on one of the reference stakes, sight another one along the same line of the X, and the control point reset by just measuring the appropriate previously recorded distance along that line from one of the reference stakes. Diningcar did it another way - set up a transit on one of the stakes of each line of the X (2 transits total), each sighting another stake along that line, and then just reset the control point wjhre the two sight lines intersect.
(The slopes from Cajon Pass may look like 45 degrees from horizontal (1-to-1 or 1:1 as I explain in a moment), but that's unlikely. Typically they're like 2 or 3 units horizontal per vertical unit - "2-to-1 2:1 or 3-to-1 3:1 respectively - which are angles from 27 deg. to 18 deg., respectively. That's likely since I understand the soils there are pretty loose and subject to disturbance and settlement from seismic activity. However, those slopes - particularly the 2:1 ones - do look more like 45 deg., especially when you have to climb them lugging a lot of heavy surveying equipment and materials . . . )
Those of us "experienced" enough to have learned and done surveying with a transit, steel tape, and plumb bob have an understanding of the accuracy, precision of the measuring process and the results thereof that some GPS users haven't had to learn and use.
*Not a GPS unit, rather is a robot total station, blue tooth and radio linked to a controller in the hands of the operator/rodman 1-man crew (the guy out there with a reflector prism on a pogo stick). Looks to be a Trimble Total Station (S-7 or S-9, there's Swedish orange Geodimeter technology in there somewhere!) What DC was doing in his day with 3-5 people is now being done with one or two, and a lot faster. (plus less brain damage in the office).... The total station can also measure things remotely using reflectorless light beam technology. The total station is automated fairly well, to the point it can follow you and your prism (until it falls in lust with truck mirrors, shiny bumpers or headlights with its wandering eye - BossHen has decided they're male...)
Machine Control Systems (the Spectra Precision "magic" that controls Tonka toys made by CAT/Deere/Komatsu etc) is only as good as the people operating it. Surveyors still get called-out to figure out what the cat-skinners and their in-house technicians did wrong. Slowly, the bottom feeders are getting culled from the herd and the finished product is improving.
PDN and I have seen what happens when machine grading goes wrong. and DC/PDN/MC knows what happens when the cat-skinner can't read grade stakes
(That's about $30K sitting there in the photo if you add in the controller and the reflector on the pogo stick.]
Friend KP, we have discussed this 'crossover' issue before under the topic of bias running of trains and I apparently lacked the correct words to explain how I and many others see it.
Your specific concern with the 'line change' can be answered with the analysis of the high speed turnouts at Williams Jct.; East Perrin; West Perrin; East Doublea: West Doublea; East Eagle Nest; West Eagle Nest; East Crookton and West Crookton . Each of these permits crossing over from one track to the other at 40-50 MPH. This was the designed plan that now exists across the entire southern transcon. And it works where there are more than two tracks like Cajon although that is not the best example because the 'grade issue' dictates that EW trains take the track with the most favorable grade which does not paraellel the other two tracks in places.
Continued diningcar (4-8A):
You aptly described how the surveying industry was in 1959-1960. It was crude, but you got the job done. Circa 1990 when I was slightly involved with surveying, the GPS miracle units were just starting to be used. Now, they are everywhere. And, there is a lack of people to sites too, with just small teams.
The first surveyors must have had crude equipment when first laying out that now abandoned Transcon line in Arizona, and used charts as you did.
Now, it is all done automatically for the surveyors with GPS based units. It is unknown if the following is a GPS unit too, but it strikes this contributor as surveyor related. The below photo was shot in San Gabriel, CA relative to the trench under construction involving the UP’s Sunset Route.
It is still unbelievable to me, diningcar, that the natural crossover (where one track went over the other) on the abandoned line never was replaced on the 1959-1960 reroute you were involved in.
I guess the railroad’s rationale is that most trains don’t interfere with each other in changing from right running to left running in Winslow (AZ), so the natural crossover was never replace. But as the Transcon gets more and more traffic, it seems the railroad will have to deal with the interference problem. I’ve often wondered where a flyover would be put in at, and if Winslow would someday be four-tracks, biased to two in each direction.
Take care,
diningcar (4-8A):
Back in 1959-1960 the clean air must have been invigorating to work in.
I thought your reference to 45 degree angles for slope cut-work must be a standard. Currently, Highway 138 in Cajon Pass here in Southern California is being rerouted in the Summit area, and recently in photographing that work new 45 degree slopes were encountered.
Continued …
In other words, at the west end of the line change MP 419 is a mile plus 3016 feet west of MP 418, which suggests the 1960 line is about 3016 feet longer than the old westward track. (Or, more precisely, it's 3016 feet longer than the original 1880s single track-- don't recall if the westward track west of Ash Fork ever got shifted.)
Track chart shows 3016 feet from MP 418A to MP 419
RMEequivalent data from an ETT after 1960?
I'll check the chart-- as I recall distance on the 1960 line is longer than the old westward distance, shorter than the old eastward distance.
Back in 1959-1960 we surveyors did not have the modern tools to measure distance without a tape or satelites to establish alinement, but we did have recent aerial photos plotted with two foot vertical contours. We had a 100 foot steel tape (chain), a new K&E transit and a new Zeis level.
We measured horizontally and level, sometimes for ten feet or less, by using a plumb bob.
We used random transit points (stakes in the ground or a hole drilled in rock, filled with lead and a finish nail inserted) and the calculated offsets from the random points to whatever location we needed. We had no hand held calculators with the trig functions. I had a book of trig functions to eight decimal places and to seconds of a degree that were applied to whatever angle we had turned, or needed to turn. When necessary because of a specially difficult we would use two transits working in tandem. I as party chief (called Transitman) had a very good Rodman who also made the pencil calculations with me to check each other. I worked at home many nights to prepare the calculations so that we would not be delayed while in the field, and I made further computations, on critical issues, to further check our work after after it was staked.
After the initial stakes were established and the contractor destroyed them with his work we had to re-establish them several times as excavation was made in 15 - 20 foot lifts. We had previously established reference stakes to the alinement control points by setting the transit on that point and turning an approxmite 45 degree angle and setting four stakes on each side at random distance. Then we turned 45 degrees the opposite way and established four more RP's so that when we had to recreate the alinement we used two transits, one along each RP line, and plunged those lines at an approximate 90 degree intersection which was the desired control point. I have not covered every possible situation but hope this info is of benefit.
diningcar (4-8):
A surveying class was taken many moons ago so I can somewhat relate to the art of the trade, but the Crookton line change raises a few loose end in my mind that maybe you can more educate me on.
Through aerials a general plot of a line (such as the Crookton line change) can be worked out, but surveyors with boots on the ground eventually have to be present. How do surveyors go about staking out inaccessible areas, before the bulldozers open up a path for them?
Thanks,
The 1960 line change resulted in the creation of Williams Jct., which was 2.9 miles east of Williams. Therfore 2.9 miles must be added to both the EW and WW miles I just furnished.
The distance from Williams Jct. to Crookton for both EW and WW on the relocated line is 44 miles.
diningcarUsing an ETT from 1955 I added the distance between stations ...
But what are the equivalent data from an ETT after 1960?
Using an ETT from 1955 I added the distance between stations with the following results:
WW - Williams to Crookton 40.5 miles; EW Crookton to Williams 41.6 miles
WW - Williams to Ash Fork 23.0 miles; EW - Ash Fork to Williams 26.5 miles
diningcarthe 2nd main track along the A&P line was considerably longer
(Turns out the eastward track was 0.91 mile longer than the westward, Crookton to Williams.)
Yes indeed KP, I will offer the following:
The original A&P line and the 1960 line change alinement are approximately the same distance, 44 +- miles. However the 2nd main track along the A&P line was considerably longer because of the reduced grade alinement between Ash Fork and Williams, perhaps as much as two miles although I no longer have access to the data. So indeed the question about overall track miles varies dependent upon which track you have in mind..
Pamela (4-3):
There was NO significant mileage difference. It was just that the relocation had more sweeping curves and avoided the rollercoaster aspect. Forum contributor “diningcar,” who actually worked on the project back in 1959-1960, may want to weigh in on this.
How many miles were saved with the bypass alignment from the original alignment?
diningcarwhether the longer, looping line [west of Ash Fork] was the A&P line or the 2nd track
Look over the mileposts at the west end of the separated mains, on this page and the adjoining pages
http://cregory.net/ATSF/19500000-1952TC/06/06-103.html
The eastward track has the X-mileposts, and the mileage discontinuity. The westward track has continuous mileposts because it was the original line.
A friend looked up the 1910 timetable reprint-- it shows 17.6 miles Ash Fork to Crookton. The 1942 timetable shows 14.7 miles Crookton to Ash Fork on the eastward track.
KP and any others,
The bridge at 35.225 - 112.567 is accessable by the dirt road on the north and I think is the one I saw which had the red native stone abutments. So if you or anyone can get a closer look it should have the same characteristics as was seen further east with the red colored abutments.
if indeed we can determine from the visable construction characteristics which track was constructed by the A&P it should clarify any questions about whether the longer, looping line was the A&P line or the 2nd track.
diningcar (5-13)
So, THAT is the bridging area you spoke of, the bridging closer to Ash Fork (AZ).
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.2219119,-112.5394998,49m/data=!3m1!1e3
In that aerial I can’t help but wonder if the ex-bridging was over the great lime green “Antifreeze River" …
I’ve always wanted to photograph that higher, larger ex-bridge spot, but it did not appear readily accessible while passing on I-40. However, aerials suggest a side road south of I-40 might (“might”) allow one to photograph the ex-bridge site, possibly with as little as a 500 feet hiking in.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Ash+Fork,+AZ+86320/@35.2205441,-112.5412773,785m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x8732a92dacef96f3:0xdf647a8d84217a24!8m2!3d35.2250114!4d-112.4840675
Next time I’m out that way I might try to brave passage on the questionable side road to hike the 500 feet. If photos there can be taken, they will be posted for your nostalgia …
But, as you mentioned, the aerials definitely show a darker north side cement-work.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.