mudchicken The fun will be watching MoDOT squirm in their regulatory shorts. I don't know a railroad field engineer or public works engineer that would not want the supports up-armored for new construction. (but they did not have final say in the matter -this incident will be cited for years to come)
The fun will be watching MoDOT squirm in their regulatory shorts. I don't know a railroad field engineer or public works engineer that would not want the supports up-armored for new construction. (but they did not have final say in the matter -this incident will be cited for years to come)
I was intrigued by some new construction going on the northern part of the Surf Line in Camp Pendleton. Turns out that CalTrans is adding the "armor" to the bridge columns that hold up the pair of bridges where I-5 crosses over the Surf Lines a couple of miles south of the San Onofre check point.
Having the columns taken out from a derailment would be an incredible pain in the backside as it is a choke point for both rail and highway traffic. Methinks CalTrans stated squirming in their shorts when they realized what happened in Missouri could happen here.
- Erik
erikem Having the columns taken out from a derailment would be an incredible pain in the backside as it is a choke point for both rail and highway traffic. Methinks CalTrans stated squirming in their shorts when they realized what happened in Missouri could happen here.
If either or both of those spans were taken out, things would be in a world of hurt, for sure. At first reading, I thought maybe you were describing seismic hardening, but then I recalled that all that was necessary in the county had been done a few years ago. I can't even imagine the mess of folks going up I-15 and getting back to the coast via CAL-74 or CAL-91 (which is already a disaster between I-15 and Orange County). Good that someone at CalTrans got to thinking about that scenario.
When those bridges were built originally, ATSF wanted crash rails (from Bill Byers on down), Caltrans and CalPUC declined to have that stuff placed because of the additional cost. It's CalPUC's call and I suspect the re-alignment /addition of track thru there after ATSF may have a little to do with armored piers. A retired ATSF/BNSF Structures engineer I know is still actively keeping tabs on bridge failures w/o crash barriers. He uses pictures of the Chaffee incident and the recent CSX incident to prove a point when the inevitable whining starts and when AREMA is challenged over the need for crash walls.
It is almost comical to read this thread, as though the highway was at fault. If the railroads would not have crashes, then others' property would need so much crash protection. Just maybe?
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Or they could build longer steel spans without supports vulnerable to a train hitting it.
Modeling the "Fargo Area Rapid Transit" in O scale 3 rail.
CalTrans has a history of needing to be repeatedly hit on the head before they act. The 1971 Sylmar quake showed the the bridge columns needed serious redesigning. Their first reaction was to require stronger columns for new construction, then the 1989 Loma Prieta quake showed that the old bridges needed reinforcing, so they started a reinforcing program, and it took the 1994 Northridge quake to get them to get serious about the reinforcement program.
One other bad thing about those two I-5 bridges is that they only leave room for a single track. Other construction going on through Pendleton appears to be adding more double track mileage. OTOH, with the long stretch of single track through San Clemente, a short section of single track a few miles south isn't the end of the world.
Chuck: CA-91 was a complete mess 25 years ago... I don't want to think of what it would be like with I-5 shut down for an extended period.
And if there weren't highway crashes that then end up down on the railroad it would be a perfect world. Just maybe?
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
schlimm It is almost comical to read this thread, as though the highway was at fault. If the railroads would not have crashes, then others' property would need so much crash protection. Just maybe?
If the highway guys wouldn't have crashes, then we wouldn't have 30,000+ people dying per year... Not to mention a fire that burned up quite a bit of the campground at San Onofre State Beach last Wednesday. Also not to mention dozens of people killed over the last couple of decades from trucks colliding with passenger trains.
AT&SF Surf Line through what is now Camp Pendleton dates to 1887-88. Interstate 5 dates to 1963-66 time frame, so I-5 had to accommodate the AT&SF line, not the other way around.
In a perfect world, derailments wouldn't happen and the RR's would love not having derailments. Since we live in an imperfect world, derailments do happen and it is best to plan for them.
"+1".
The cost of the heavier piers / crash walls in comparatively minimal, and can result in lots of other benefits such as much better earthquake resistance, less vulnerability to settlement/ sinkholes/ undermining, greater capacity for future lane additions/ widenings, heavier trucks generally, overweight special loads (62-ton M1 Abrams military Main Battle Tanks there come to mind), etc.
- Paul North.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.