Sherman Hill Oddity

[croteaudd]

PennyBommer (5-3):

 

Thanks!  Your thoughts show strong intelligence and railroad understanding! 

 

Forum participant “timz” is absolutely right:  In the 1947 area of time, because of a spectacular and disastrous collision wreck, Union Pacific quickly put in towards the west end of the Tie Siding a fly-under!  Previously, westbound and eastbound trains had to wait for the angled diamond to be trainless!  

 

When we think of Sherman Hill (Laramie-Cheyenne, Wyo.), most focus just on that segment!  I prefer to see the whole Chicago, Ill.-Ogden, UT stretch.   Chicago to Omaha is left running, Omaha-Cheyenne is right running, Sherman Hill is for all practical purpose now left running, Laramie to a tunnel flyover arrangement east of Echo Canyon is right running, and finally left running again to Ogden, UT.  When looked at it from that whole stretch perspective the very simple solution is to build a flyover somewhere west of Laramie, Wyo.  It would also help to two-track the single-track old C&NW stretch between Fremont, Neb. and Mission Valley, Iowa.

 

Such may have been put on hold with Precision Scheduled Railroading.  But the angry ‘will of the people’ may put an end to blocked grade crossing account of long, long, long, long trains!  That may inspire relooking at Sherman Hill once and for all time, with such a revamping as outlined above.

 

Flyovers are expensive and may be the reason BNSF has never put in a counter-Truxton flyover in the Clovis, New Mexico area.  As is, BNSF solved one problem while causing another.  Kind of illogical, really.  Grade crossing regulation (read train length) may inspire another BNSF flyover in New Mexico, unless the master plan is to make Truxton-Chicago all left running.

 

Getting back to UP, a reported dislike for flyovers only goes so far, with a point in time when not having a flyer strangles operations.  Not having been to the Sherman Hill area in years it is difficult to make assessments of the situation there.  But the continued use of old signals tells me UP may be caught between a rock and a hard place and doesn’t know what to do.

[timz]

PennsyBoomer

UP never constructed any "flyovers" on this segment

Almost never. The flyunder they built about 1947 just west of Hermosa presumably only lasted until CTC arrived 1953ish.

https://goo.gl/maps/AJ64PMCRyxc9cKV87

 

[PennsyBoomer]

croteaudd

The sidings there also don’t conform to present train lengths. And the thorny left running may give way to the return to right running, which would dramatically speed-up operations. When UP figures out what it wants to do on Sherman Hill, I would say expect something dramatic!

The reason for LH running over Sherman has to do with traffic flow for prevailing grade. Westbounds keep to the left from Cheyenne in order to use the 0.8% ascending grade via No.3 track between Cheyenne and Dale Jct. as well as the 1.75% descending grade via No.3 track from Hermosa to Red Buttes. Eastbounds use Nos.1 and 2 track from Laramie for the lesser 0.8% ascending grade and almost exclusively use these tracks to Cheyenne, rather than No.3 track with its short sidings and slow moving westbounds. Thus geography determines the nature of operation, that would be a lot "thornier" with eastbounds contending with 1.75%, for example - or all westbounds trying to surmount Sherman Hill on the maximum grade rather than the early 50s line construction of No.3 track via Harriman.

UP never constructed any "flyovers" on this segment of railroad such as AT&SF did at Pineveta and BNSF currently has at Frost and the newly built one at Truxton. The Sherman Hill territory has been CTC since the early 50s with both ends of Cheyenne and the Borie Cut-off available for switching the traffic flow, as well as both ends of Laramie so that there is sufficient flexibility. A dispatcher could also flip to or revert from LH running at control points west of Laramie based on the relative position of trains as the Overland has them about every 8-12 miles.

Insofar as the short sidings on the line via Harriman, they have been short for a long time and are arguably superfluous but for extraordinary circumstances such as being able to hold a legacy length train between the switches to get around it account a road failure, etc., or when trouble on the hill or high winds force a dispr. to route some intermodal traffic that way wherby the sidings may come in handy to pass slower westbounds that take several hours to make Dale Jct.

Eastbounds may use No.3 track via Harriman and westbounds Nos.1 and 2 track west of Hermosa, often because of tons per operative brake considerations or just for convenience in sorting traffic. With the deterioration in volume from the 70-90 daily trains this route used to handle a little over a decade ago, I would not expect anything dramatic without a major fluctuation in the geography.

[BaltACD]

Is PTC in effect on Sherman Hill?  Does the traffic mix on Sherman Hill require PTC to be installed?  Where legacy signal systems continue in effect PTC has not been required.

[timz]

croteaudd

the thorny left running may give way to the return to right running, which would dramatically speed-up operations.

Running westward trains on the 1.5% climb instead of the 0.82% would speed things up?

[croteaudd]

Those that have been to Union Pacific’s Sherman Hill (Laramie-Cheyenne, Wyo.) know that it is a really cool place to see trains.  Oddly, while the UP system has had most of the applicable system’s signals changed out in conjunction with Positive Train Control, Sherman Hill has not had such a conversion and the old signals linger on.  In my opinion such occurs when a railroad does not know what the lessor of many evils is.  The sidings there also don’t conform to present train lengths.  And the thorny left running may give way to the return to right running, which would dramatically speed-up operations.  When UP figures out what it wants to do on Sherman Hill, I would say expect something dramatic!