timz (8-16):
Even though I have a small bit of surveying experience, your logic is most likely better than mine, so I'll go with yours.
The area of the big floods and line relocation of 1939 railroad west of Cajon is partially shown below. Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE The cleared land in the background (by today’s tracks) is where the old track angled towards the camera.
That must have been some washout back then, over 70 years ago! But, it really didn't affect overall mileage that much.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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.
diningcarThe June 1986 Santa Fe Los Angeles Division track chart shows MP 0 on the First District being equivalent to MP 746 + 1364 feet on the Needles District.
K.P.HarrierIn cursory measurements of both old and new lines through Barstow from present day aerials, it looks like there is a half mile difference.
Too cursory, apparently. The 1961 (?) topo map shows us where the old main was, which we can then measure on the online aerials-- not a perfect measurement, but good enough to see there isn't a half-mile difference. Like I said the charts show the new line 18.4 feet shorter than the old, and we can't argue with that.
The circa-1939 changes at Cajon and on the big curve above Keenbrook probably account for 0.1 mile of shortening or a bit more. The rest of the half-mile must be east of Victorville-- various 1930s (?) changes that I'm not familiar with.
timz (8-14):
In cursory measurements of both old and new lines through Barstow from present day aerials, it looks like there is a half mile difference.
What map were you referring to?
diningcar (8-16):
The "half-mile worth of line changes by 1940" MAY be related to the line relocation in 1939. In 1939 the line railroad west of Cajon was totally desecrated by flooding, and the railroad built a totally new alignment.
One of the old, abandoned culverts:
The above culvert is seen (lower photo third) in relation to the present line (very top):
I just thought I would pass these things along ...
Take care all,
K.P.
[quote user="timz"]
diningcar: San Bernardino to Barstow was opened for operation in 1885 and was listed at that time as 80.73 miles.
By the way: starting in 1975 the empl TT showed 81.3 miles Barstow to San Bernardino on the former-westward track, instead of 80.8. Don't try to account for that-- odds are it's just a mistake.
diningcar: The June 1986 Santa Fe Los Angeles Division track chart shows MP 0 on the First District being equivalent to MP 746 + 1364 feet on the Needles District.
As my posting stipulated, it is not determined where in San Bernardino the 80.73 miles of new construction tied into the track(s) then existing. However 80.73 is the exact mileage reported when Santa Fe made its 1916 report to the Interstate Commerce Commission regarding this construction.
I suspect the only way this minor quandry can be resolved is to have access to the original maps created at the 1885 construction date, or their subsequent officially updated.versions..
Mileage in ETT's is the location chosen to pay train crews for their trips. it has no significant relationship to the accurate engineering distances.
diningcarSan Bernardino to Barstow was opened for operation in 1885 and was listed at that time as 80.73 miles.
diningcar Further info located: The June 1986 Santa Fe Los Angeles Division track chart shows MP 0 on the First District being equivalent to MP 746 + 1364 feet on the Needles District.
Further info located:
The June 1986 Santa Fe Los Angeles Division track chart shows MP 0 on the First District being equivalent to MP 746 + 1364 feet on the Needles District.
Johnny
ANOTHER THOUGHT!!
This railroad from San Bernardino to Barstow was opened for operation in 1885 and was listed at that time as 80.73 miles. We do not know the location in San Bernardino where the MP 80.73 would be but the MP 0 was at Barstow and was very likely where the THEN EXISTING depot was situated. The present depot was constructed several years later and probably has no relationship to the MP 0.
K. P. Harrierthe present north side more direct routing [at Barstow] is 0.5 mile less.
timz (8-2/4):
You brought up two matters, both dealing with mileposts. It is hoped the below explanations will be satisfying, though of an unofficial nature.
ISSUE #1: LONG MILEPOSTS
It appears BNSF has gone to "long miles" for Mains 1 and 2 between Summit and Cajon to avoid confusion. Previously, in the olden days, a westbound train on Main 1 (North Track) would pass a marker with 64.4X on it right across from 62.4 (South Track). Then, pass 63 and 64 markers. Conceivably, a trainman could get mixed up in a crisis and request an emergency response to M.P. 64 while meaning M.P. 64X, delaying responding assistance when minutes could be critical. With a non-confusing system of long miles, there is no confusion, including for the DS who has an overview of the whole subdivision track layout.
HOWEVER ... Mains 1 and 2 presently don't seem to have milepost markers. Whoever heard of mileposts without milepost markers? The situation suggests to this forumist that the long miles is a continuing experiment, which experiment may or may not eventually prove successful, hence, long miles may or may not be permanent.
ISSUE #2: MILEPOST 0.0
The TRAINS Magazine circa 1951 section of the vertical diagramming indicated M.P. 0.0 was at the Barstow depot. The 2010 diagram part, on the other hand, showed M.P. 0.0 was 0.5 miles further east. The inconsistency has nothing to do with the 1972 line relocation at Summit in Cajon Pass, some 56 miles railroad west of Barstow. I think you, timz, will find that the following may be a satisfying explanation for the difference, presented on an east to west basis:
The east side of Barstow was very different than today, with some pronounced curves. The below photo looking semi-westbound shows the depot stop's many old passenger sidewalks. The track Amtrak uses today is just out of view on the bottom. But, the point is that there is a difference in mileage between today's swooping freight Transcon and the old, longer alignment. (Compare the photo center tracks to the bottom track. Amtrak Nos. 3 & 4 normally uses the track just out of view on the photo bottom.).
Once the lower, OLD Mains left the north side depot westward (above photo rightward), the line curved beyond the above pictured background long roadway bridge to an alignment on the south side of the present classification yard. So, all the old alignment's shifting route was just there, whereas, the present north side more direct routing is 0.5 mile less. Thus, instead of starting the Cajon Sub at M.P. 0.5 the railroad simply took 0.5 miles away from the Needles Sub, and added it to the Cajon Sub, explaining the different starting locations of M.P. 0.0.
Best,
Another puzzle: the map says the old mileposts started from zero at the Barstow depot and the new ones start from zero a half-mile east of Barstow-- suggesting the line is a half-mile shorter than it was before 1972. But far as I can see it isn't a half-mile shorter-- it may not be shorter at all. The new line around Barstow yard is about the same length as the old, the Summit line change didn't shorten the line much if any, not much change at Alray, and the line thru Sullivan's Curve is a bit longer than it was. Can anyone explain that one?
Sure, nothing unusual about railroad "miles" being much more or less than a mile-- any time you realign the RR and change its length there will have to be a short or a long mile somewhere, unless you redo the mileposts for the whole RR. But it naturally seems crazy to have four long "miles" in a row. What's the advantage, compared to the old (pre-2008?) mileposting on the North Track?
garyla As for those miles being 7,370' long, don't you love it? Only in railroading! Sailors may have their nautical miles (one minute of latitude each, and all that); fliers may need to differentiate between land miles and air miles; but only on the rails do they get this long.
As for those miles being 7,370' long, don't you love it? Only in railroading! Sailors may have their nautical miles (one minute of latitude each, and all that); fliers may need to differentiate between land miles and air miles; but only on the rails do they get this long.
I've seen Special Instructions in employee TT's that also show miles as less than 5280 ft.
Thanks for the post, K.P.!
That shot of the abutment abandoned after the 1938 flood damage is especially appreciated. There don't seem to be too many details available about that bit of route change. (For those not familiar with local history, the water damage that year is sort of legendary. It also wreaked havoc on UP's main line through Afton Canyon, and spelled the end to the southernmost part of the Tonopah & Tidewater on the Mojave Desert. It is my understanding that the 1938 soaking led to the big push for flood control in Southern California, without which the 1969 rains would have been an even bigger disaster.)
K.P.,
Would you mind sending me a description of the other map concerns you have?
I'd appreciate it, and it will help us down the road.
Please email me directly at: mvanhattem@kalmbach.com.
Thanks very much.
--Matt
Matt Van Hattem
Senior Editor
Trains Magazine
mvanhattem@kalmbach.com
A Map in the Land of Hard Reality
Cajon Pass is basically my turf (and not too far from home), and I rejoiced at knowing TRAINS made a 'local' map. Personal matters have been preventing me from studying the map in detail, but this thread stunned me, and time for further review of the map will be set aside in a few days.
I think part of the problem Bruce Kelly found is that so many of the old timers have died off, and known and willing sources of verification are limited and drying up fast. And, the railroads has been so skeletonized that the sense of the past (and comprehending of it) is fast becoming nonexistent.
Chard Walker (I actually heard him lecture once) would be absolutely shocked if he saw the map in TRAINS. For him, maybe TRAINS in a couple of years will run a totally accurate similar presentation (and larger) that is thoroughly verified (BEFORE the rest of the old fogies - including me -- die off too).
A Few Places Mr. Kelly Mentioned or that Were Brought Up in this Thread ...
This is THE real Blue Cut.
In the above photo, note the highway overlook walling on the lower right. Also, the view has so much plant and tree growth it is currently difficult to take a photo that does justice to the scene.
In that growth is that bridging that is synonymous with the name Blue Cut.
One abutment remains from the flood (that TRAINS failed to mention) that prompted Santa Fe to relocate the line some 70 years ago.
In the above photo, the current three-track line is behind the lower background hilling. The photo was shot from Swarthout Canyon Rd.
This is Stein's Hill (upper left) and the old "South Track" (now Main 3) on the right curving rightward.
The cut (by Stein's Hill) for that "South Track" was much narrower years ago, but in 1996 a horrendous runaway pileup occurred (and closed I-15 for a few days) just around the curve (behind the right hill) that inspired the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) to issue new, specific policy regarding end-of-train devices. The cut was widened to move the carnage from the site, including a GP60M that was later restored to operating condition.
The new bridging over water by Highway 138 has crudely painted M.P. markings. It is unknown if the marking is 'long miles' or the traditional type.
Hopefully, this limited amount of photos taken this date will in some small way add to and partially make live what has been mentioned so far in this thread.
Take care, all.
A PS note to MP173:
I would go with any Chard Walker book.
... and to timz:
Between Summit and Cajon on Mains 1 and 2 all the miles are 7370 feet long (or, basically 1.4 miles) instead of the traditional 5280 foot mile.
Anyone know if it's true all the mileposts on tracks 1-2 Cajon to Summit are 1.4 miles apart? If a bridge is 1.1 miles west of MP 57, what do they call its milepost location?
BruceThanks for your kind words about the Cajon map of the month. You're right - there were a lot of sources and information to digest. Like many of the Maps of the Month we put together, some of those sources wind up conflicting. When that occurs, we rely on experts in the area to help us resolve those conflicts. In the case of the Cajon Pass map, we were fortunate to have cooperation from both railroads, so I have to take issue with your assertion that we did not run the map by people familiar with the area who had “boots on the ground” (as you put it). Railroaders and others familiar with the area looked at the map, the dates, and the track chart. They gave us some valuable information and suggestions for correction before the final map went to press. By the way, I really like your idea of preparing a construction diagram showing where exactly the third main track was placed in relation to the other two tracks. That would be fascinating. As you correctly observe, the Trains map was not intended to be that kind of diagram. But I’d look forward to doing a diagram like that someday as well. Bill Metzger
Dunno if Walker's book is definitive, but no book is definitiver.
I was fascinated by the map and spent a couple of hours (along with Google Maps) reviewing the area. I have never been to Cajon and probably wont, but like many others have been mesmerized by the photos and the Trains coverage from the 70's.
Is there a definative book on Cajon? Would it be Chard Walker's book? Is there a modern upgrade to this fascinating section of real estate?Ed
Bruce KellyThe line relocation near the Mormon Rocks was, according to Chard Walker's first book on Cajon Pass, in 1976, not 1972. The Sullivan's Curve relocation was in 1977.
The Sullivan's Curve relocation was in 1977.
More likely they were both 1977? (A change on the south track may have been around that same time.)
Considering all the RRs that were built single track and eventually doubled, you'd think there would be lots of places where the added second track shifted to the other side of the original single track, producing a slight S in the new double track. I think we saw some on the SP in Nevada, and maybe there's still one on the SP at Webster, between Davis and Sacramento. But can't think of many others.
I assume the Trains diagram got the mileposting wrong on tracks 1-2 between Cajon and Summit-- the RR didn't get rid of the X-mileposts, did they?
Now that the September issue is on the horizon, let's set a few things straight about that "All-Time" Cajon Pass map in the August issue before it gets tucked away. Starting at the top...
Alray was not a "former passing siding removed 2008." The passing siding was removed in 1972. All that remained until 2008 was a short set-out spur.
Just east of the former tunnels, Main 1 is labeled as Main 2. No doubt just a copy-paste of text from the nearby Main 2 tag that simply got left unchanged.
Stein's Hill is actually located about 1/4 mile north-northwest of the Hwy 138 marker. It's a hilltop you can actually drive onto, with a high-tension tower standing overhead. From there, you have a view to the northeast of trains snaking down the 3 percent of Main 3 under I-15, as originally made famous by Richard Steinheimer in the September 1974 issue (back when Main 3 was still the South Track). As shown in that issue, Stein's hill also affords views to the northwest of trains weaving through that broad S-bend near the Mormon Rocks.
The line relocation near the Mormon Rocks was, according to Chard Walker's first book on Cajon Pass, in 1976, not 1972.
Not shown at all is the 1939 line relocation between Cajon and Cozy Dell (shown as Cajon Camp on the Trains map). Devastating floods in 1938 prompted ATSF to move its railroad from the east side of the creek to the west side. If you've ever wandered among the weeds and brush in that area, you'd notice faint traces of the old right of way.
Blue Cut is shown on USGS maps as being almost 1/4 mile further northwest. All historical railroad reference in both writing and photography puts Blue Cut at the point where the creek out of Lone Pine Canyon passes under ATSF (now BNSF) at the famous concrete arch that's photographed from the turnout where Cajon Blvd. briefly swings up closest to the railroad.
On the track chart, the connection between BNSF and UP at Silverwood is labeled as "Built 2006." This connection was originally built in 1999 as a post-UP/SP merger improvement. It was adjusted slightly in 2008 to accommodate addition of BNSF's third main track.
On the track chart, the connection between BNSF and UP at Keenbrook is labeled as "Built 2007." It should not be forgotten that the original connection here, between ATSF and SP at the time, was built in 1986 in anticipation of the ill-fated SPSF merger. A curiuous piece of track that sat rusted and virtually unused for decades.
The track chart indicates in two places that present day Main 1 was "Built 2008." This broad statement perpetuates the false impression (which we saw in a previous map) that BNSF's third main track was laid entirely on the railroad north side of the two pre-existing mains. Not true. BNSF track charts, photos of the third main construction posted at socalrailfan.com, and the extensive coverage presented here by our own K.P. Harrier, reveal clearly that the third main track was laid on the railroad SOUTH side of the pre-existing mains at several locations where it would have been more difficult, if not impossible, to lay it on the north side. Rather than try to explain it in past terms, I'll define where the new, third main track was laid using present-day identifiers. I admit the following descriptions are somewhat general and do not take into account precise milepoint locations to the nearest decimal.
New main track completed in 2008 is now used as:
Main 1 from Keenbrook to the Cajon Creek bridge just below Cajon crossovers.
Main 3 from Cajon Creek bridge up to Cajon crossovers.
Main 2 from Cajon crossovers up through Sullivan's Curve all the way to a transition point near CP Walker.
I'm still waiting for the day when someone does the all-time Cajon Pass third main construction story with a color-coded map which accurately shows where the alternating segments of new track were actually laid and how it all got shifted to line up the corresponding ends. I suppose it's considered such old news now, it will only appear in some low-circulation rail history journal, if ever.
As for the Trains map, it's overall a much-appreciated and well-handled project. A huge amount of info for anyone to compile, digest, and present. Like so many other maps which have appeared in various railfan magazines, it just needed a quick look-over by people who have actually had boots on the ground there, and a few years of familiarity with the subject.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.