One has to hand it to BNSF - they are the Class I that seems to have most consistently added capacity to their system over the last decade or so. That could be attributable to not having to commit capital to share buybacks anymore.
They have added and expanded logistics parks, continued to eliminate single-track bottlenecks with second bridges at major river crossings and second, third and even fourth main track additions, and have expanded their intermodal reach into the Southeast and Midwest with agreements to reach Atlanta and North Baltimore.
As the economy recovers from COVID-19 it is going to be interesting to see what happens to their revenue numbers.
That would then bring conjecture as to whether they replace it with a flyover similar to the one in Arizona or whether they use crossovers. I would suspect crossovers for two reasons - the environmental and other permitting for a larger faster flyover are likely to be daunting in CA, and leaving room for a future third main track through that area may be an important consideration.
MikeF90 Rumor has it that BNSF is thinking about removing the Frost 'natural' flyover in order to straighten out the trackage and remove the adjacent 35 MPH zone (and clearance issues?).
Rumor has it that BNSF is thinking about removing the Frost 'natural' flyover in order to straighten out the trackage and remove the adjacent 35 MPH zone (and clearance issues?).
Man they've been talking about this for years... Are they finally going to pull the trigger this time?
I may have mentioned this 'under the radar' capital project last year, but the new Mojave Narrows replacement bridge on the Cajon sub is complete and one track is cut in. Higher track speeds and no more clearance issues, yay! Extensive photo coverage is shown here: https://www.trainmaster.ch/XC-20-2.htm
Reportedly the stone piers for the old bridges will remain for possible use by a third track, if ever needed. IMO they will need to extend the third MT from Summit first to accomodate 'no fitters' better.
Links to my Google Maps ---> Sunset Route overview, SoCal metro, Yuma sub, Gila sub, SR east of Tucson, BNSF Northern Transcon and Southern Transcon *** Why you should support Ukraine! ***
Looks like heavy snow in AZ caused a derailment. Trains are backing up in Belen and Barstow cameras.
Just watched NOV. 1 action with all shots taken at or near the flyover - none at either E or W connections. Trains were operating E or W on all THREE tracks in either direction at this location. Looks like this is all being done at the DS's discreation.
Interesting shot of twelve deaheaded WB locomotives on Main 2. Comments or observations welcome.
New Video .. no shots of the switches
SD60MAC9500Here's a statement from said Hogger I mentioned earlier
Yup, that makes sense. Looking at the replay of Flagstaff tonight, EB on M1 and WB on M2, reversing the previous practice. Less juggling for DS, for sure.
Here's a statement from said Hogger I mentioned earlier
The reason for the fly over is because of the fuel pads in Belen as well as the grade separation along the Gallup Subdivision (Winslow to Belen). West of Winslow, the preferred track for eastbounds climbing the grade is track 2, the southern track. East of Winslow the preferred track for eastbound climbing the grade is track one, the northern track. The fuel pads in Belen are located where they are because of this. As a result, trains would crossover from one track to another at Winslow. This caused delays for trains waiting to crossover. The fly over is to keep to flow of traffic going and have trains cross over to the main track they need to be on.The wash has nothing to do with the flyover. This wasn't the original location for the flyover. The wash and dangerous of flash floods have played a role into how the flyover will he built (drainage system).
Sure-- a train with 1 hp/ton is better off running right-hand Needles to Seligman and left-hand east of Flagstaff. So a flyover is nice, tho we're surprised BNSF thinks it's worth the cost. But on paper there's no reason to put the flyover this far west. The left-hand eastward grades are a tiny bit steeper east of the flyover to Seligman -- not enough to matter, but it suggests they only put it here because the land happened to be easy to get.
I suggest that there is no eastward 'left hand running' issue. The trains on the Seligman Sub all stop for a crew change at Winslow, which has four main tracks in which to park trains. The DS's can send them eastward on either main 1 or main 2 from Winslow.
I am thinking the Seligman Sub may be the issue because eastward trains use the south track (ruling grade 1.42% compensated) when ascending from the Colorado River while the north track is 1.80% compensated. Thus all but the lowest tonnage eastward trains use the south track until MP 514. This then dictates that the north track west from MP 514 will have predominately westward trains as they approach Needles where there are four main tracks in which to redirect them further west as th DS's choose. Further thoughts solicited.
SD60MAC9500 A hogger on the Seligmen Sub group stated the purpose is keep trains from stopping as the reason for the flyover. He says it's due to the left hand running arrangement east of Winslow. So I'm going to assume the original location for this flyover was suppose to be somewhere between Winslow and Belen. Yet they couldn't get the land? To build in the original location..
A hogger on the Seligmen Sub group stated the purpose is keep trains from stopping as the reason for the flyover. He says it's due to the left hand running arrangement east of Winslow. So I'm going to assume the original location for this flyover was suppose to be somewhere between Winslow and Belen. Yet they couldn't get the land? To build in the original location..
Way back, before the line relocation in the 60's, the left hand running began with a flyover near Ashfork due to the gradient east out of Ashfork. When the line relocation bypassed Ashfork (and that gradient), the first CTC on the entire line was put in from Seligman to Winslow and the dispatcher made the change via CTC somewhere between Seligman and Winslow (and probably closer to Seligman).
So, for historical reasons, if nothing else, I doubt that a location east of Winslow (or possibly even east of Williams Jct or Flagstaff) was ever considered. Otherwise, I'm sure that this location was chosen for economic reasons.
Found the parcel information. Looks like there is a large parcel that is under ATSF to the south only requiring 2 new BNSF owned parcels.
https://mcgis2.mohavecounty.us/html5/?viewer=moh&layerTheme=null&scale=4513.988705&basemap=¢er=-12645293.753747217%2C4226288.142601424&layers=
I have been attempting to analyze what would motivate BNSF to spend these $$$ as I had some former experience with such justifications. Previously, I mentioned Crozier Creek which is subject to seasonal flash flooding and it appears these modifications may mitigate that issue, but that alone would not likely justify this major modification.
Attempting to find operational modifications W/O any current info I used the old track charts in my possession to see if there were eastbound grades or curves that would benefit this with change. The ruling grades for both tracks is 1.42% compensated so that is not a factor, however the south track ( last one constructed) has fewer sharp curves and is thus not parallel from MP 457+ to MP 460+, so this could be a small factor.
Having looked at the above items it appears to my 88 year old judgement that there must be operational advantages that only those with current info can use to justify this expenditure. It was mentioned earlir that a 2.4 mile (CP to CP) siding was created which would allow longer and slower trains to park while the 70MPH Z and Q trains to keep their schedule. This may also aid the Needles conjestion which necessitated the creation of four main tracks as the DS'S can hold out slow trains for the Z's and Q's. Any info to support or dismiss what I have presented would be welcomed.
rdamonSeems like a large high-speed switch for a small siding.
This new siding is ~2.3 miles long and several setout sidings west to Needles are only about 9100 feet. Time will tell if they remove some of the shorter ones. As for the turnout, perhaps they prefer to maintain that variety.
Seems like a large high-speed switch for a small siding.
SD60MAC9500Here's the layout per BNSF Seligmen Sub facebook group
That clarifies what I've been reading elsewhere - thank you!
The earlier video
rdamon New Truxton Video
New Truxton Video
Thanks, 9500!
kgbw49 It will be interesting to see what the final track configuration looks like at each end of the flyover. That is a mighty big turnout in those videos so it must be rated for a fairly high speed.
It will be interesting to see what the final track configuration looks like at each end of the flyover.
That is a mighty big turnout in those videos so it must be rated for a fairly high speed.
Here's the layout per BNSF Seligmen Sub facebook group
much of the track between Needles and Winslow is 90 MPH for Amtrak and 70 MPH for freight. There are reductions for curves in certain locations and the crossovers are 50 MPH.
As of yesterday the Truxton Flyover is officially open.
Newest video shows some progress.
rdamon,
your question will not likely be answered by anyone on this thread. I just wanted to portray the posibility that there maybe issues specific to this site which have been very privately addressed; and of which we will probably never learn.
Does that location eliminate any enviromental hurdles?
One additional consideration - this location is on the Hualapai Indian Reservation. We do not know what constraints or trade offs were involved here - but relocation of the historic waterway may have rejected. Perhaps other factors too.
Saying once more: this location is 477 miles west from Belen which eliminates Belen as a factor.
People who were saying this was to be built closer to Belen setting up trains for the fuel racks doesn't make sense to me.. BNSF is adding or has added a 4th track in the Belen terminal to keep traffic fluid..
rdamon, I think you are right. If they are trying to switch running direction of tracks, if the flyover is moving one direction of movement over going one way, say "right to left" facing in one direction, there needs to be another pair of switches to move the other direction of movement over "left to right" at ground level if they want to keep traffic moving non-stop in both directions.
I would assume this flyover is being done for some type of fuel and time savings?
Any enlightenment on the economics of building the flyover would be greatly appreciated!
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.