Of Tragedies and the Floodlights
On February 1, 1996 a westbound runaway occurred shortly out of Summit, on what is now Main Track 3. Two of the three crewmen perished in a huge pileup and inferno near what is known to railfans as Stein's Hill.
For those interested, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) findings can be read and down loaded with the below link. There are a number of juicy photos included, none of which are gory.
http://www.ntsb.gov/Publictn/1996/RAR9605.pdf
BEFORE that incident, on December 14, 1994, a BNSF predecessor (Santa Fe) train ran away and rear ended a standing UP near Cajon. The NTSB testified before a Senate Committee on a broad range of accidents, including the 1994 Cajon Pass incident. That accident is a small part of the whole testimony, which can be found at ...
http://www.ntsb.gov/Speeches/former/hall/jh960227.htm
In both cases the problem officially was traceable to one-way radio waves (or in that mode) to the end-of-train device.
It was sometime after the 1996 wreck, though, that BNSF posted security at Summit, and installed the Summit lights. Later, a trailer and floodlights were positioned strategically further down the hill at Cajon (not far from the Cleghorn Rd. exit of I-15).
It is unknown if the aggressive contracted security and their tactics got them hung out to dry in court or not, but they seem to quietly mind their own business now, except to rightfully deal with trespassers.
For years, rules governing not using the steep 3% line under certain conditions bottlenecked the single-track 2.2% line, and often trains could be seen waiting at Summit an hour or more. With the advent of triple-track (and two-tracks for the 2% line), there is little traffic conflicts now and everything is pretty free flowing. Most of the bottlenecking nowadays seems to be on the east slope of Cajon Pass, where loosely three-tracks become two-tracks at CP MARTINEZ.
Exactly why BNSF is continually paying so much money for night lighting and security is unknown to this forumist, but they must have some valid reason for it as stockholders put up with it. Now that some trains stop by CP MARTINEZ, security has often been observed by the east end of those floodlights, both night as well as daytime.
With the continuing security in mind, one would think BNSF would start triple-tracking from CP MARTINEZ to CP LUGO. But, as noted just recently in this thread, the new TWO-TRACK cantilever signal bridges that will be at CP LUGO tell us triple-tracking CP MARTINEZ to CP LUGO may be way off in the future.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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.
From the NTSB report on the 1996 derailment at the link provided by K.P. above: [emphasis added , and "anglecock" made into just 1 word - so the computerized automatic censor doesn't suppress it and thereby lose the main point of these quotes ! - PDN]
"This anglecock, which was the first of six anglecocks found in the closed position, was removed, decontaminated, and given to the supervisors. Two of the six anglecocks, one later matched with the B end of car ACFX 84070 and the one from car ATSF 92018, had sustained no major damage." (page 19 = 27 of 87 of the "PDF" format version)
"During the 16-minute stop of H-BALT1-31 at Summit, ample opportunity existed for unknown people to tamper with any anglecock on any car in the train. Although the crew saw no one, the darkness and the open terrain sufficiently allowed for someone not to be sighted by a crew." (page 45 = 53 of 87 of the "PDF" format version) Although the NTSB ultimately decided it couldn't reach a conclusion on this because another photo showed that the anglecock from ACFX 84070's B end was open after the derailment, the sudden change in the performance of the train's braking system and the emphasized portions of the excerpts above leaves little doubt in my mind and provides ample justification for what BNSF then did there to improve security.
"During the 16-minute stop of H-BALT1-31 at Summit, ample opportunity existed for unknown people to tamper with any anglecock on any car in the train. Although the crew saw no one, the darkness and the open terrain sufficiently allowed for someone not to be sighted by a crew." (page 45 = 53 of 87 of the "PDF" format version)
Although the NTSB ultimately decided it couldn't reach a conclusion on this because another photo showed that the anglecock from ACFX 84070's B end was open after the derailment, the sudden change in the performance of the train's braking system and the emphasized portions of the excerpts above leaves little doubt in my mind and provides ample justification for what BNSF then did there to improve security.
K. P. Harrier[snipped] http://www.ntsb.gov/Publictn/1996/RAR9605.pdf . . . Most of the bottlenecking nowadays seems to be on the east slope of Cajon Pass, where loosely three-tracks become two-tracks at CP MARTINEZ. . . . Now that some trains stop by CP MARTINEZ, security has often been observed by the east end of those floodlights, both night as well as daytime. . . . With the continuing security in mind, one would think BNSF would start triple-tracking from CP MARTINEZ to CP LUGO. But, as noted just recently in this thread, the new TWO-TRACK cantilever signal bridges that will be at CP LUGO tell us triple-tracking CP MARTINEZ to CP LUGO may be way off in the future.
- Paul North.
I agree with Paul's observation that the bottle-neck would remain, only at a different location. And it may be a worse bottle-neck at LUGO because trains will be approaching at a faster speed than they are at MARTINEZ.
Track and grade conditions dictate slower speed at Martinez and the meets are more easily controlled by both the crews and the DS.
Paul D. North Jr. and diningcar (5-18):
Paul_D_North_Jr K.P., I'll just observe that all the triple-tracking might achieve is merely to move the "bottle-neck" from CP MARTINEZ to CP LUGO. Stated another way, the bottle-neck will still be there and trains will still have to stop and should be protected by security personnel, just only at the next location down the line instead ... - Paul North.
K.P., I'll just observe that all the triple-tracking might achieve is merely to move the "bottle-neck" from CP MARTINEZ to CP LUGO. Stated another way, the bottle-neck will still be there and trains will still have to stop and should be protected by security personnel, just only at the next location down the line instead ...
I agree, and perhaps it is more secure (and I saw that previously) to have eastbound trains stop between Summit and Martinez, where security is nearby.
It should be noted that the real, true summit is east of CP SUMMIT. It should be noted, too, that the steepest east side gradient is between the true summit and CP LUGO, where the line lessons in gradient towards Hesperia and Victorville.
It would seem, at least to me, that three-tracking eastward all the way to Hesperia would be advantageous. In Hesperia with a lessor gradient, within that potential three-track area, there is a public roadway on each side of the tracks and numerous street lights, even scattered residences. If eastbound trains could be kept moving until they got to Hesperia, they could park to let faster trains pass, etc. It seems unlikely anyone would then tamper with a train amongst civilization, though I've seen security near Hesperia as well.
But, that is just theory. The hard fact is that three-tracking has stopped its eastward progression at CP MARTINEZ, and that is the way it is.
Take care, guys.
K.P.
Notice that the "bottleneck" that's been moved east is no longer necessarily caused by heavier trains waiting their turn down the easier 2.2% between Summit and Cajon. There are now two tracks (Mains 1 and 2) providing that option. But that's not to say there won't be occasions where the dispatcher has a couple of slow movers eastbound up Main 1 and he runs a faster Z train around them on Main 2, thereby forcing the heavy westbound to still wait at Summit.
And let's not forget that some UP westbounds coming off the Salt Lake Route have the option of jumping off BNSF just west of Summit at Silverwood, completely avoiding the choice between 2.2% vs. 3%.
Back when BNSF, and ATSF, only had two tracks on Cajon, the bottleneck of westbounds at Summit was often because they simply had to wait for the guy ahead to clear the next block. I can't tell you how many times I watched the parade of WBs stack up on what was then Main 2 from Summit east. Because of the 20mph speed restriction on the 3% grade of Main 2 west of Summit, the next WB would pull up and stare at a red signal at Summit until the train ahead crept its way slowly downhill beyond the intermediate signal roughly 2.5 miles away.
This was painfully apparent one spring day in 2004, when the economy was still hopping and all tracks leading to L.A. and its ports were jammed. A BNSF official had a barbeque up and running at Summit. One train after another was inching ahead toward Summit, each one pausing there while the train ahead cleared that first block of 3%. The official in charge was radioing trains as they approached Summit, asking what they wanted on their burger, and whether they wanted a regular or diet soft drink. The lunches were then handed up to crews when they stopped at Summit. They probably had most of it chowed down before they got a signal to proceed. It must have been quite a morale booster during a frustratingly slow day of bringing trains down the pass.
.....3% seems a bit steep on main line trackage. How many miles does this grade extend...?
I believe that is almost as steep as the "Slide" over on NS {former Pennsylvania}, near that summit at Gallitzin tunnels.
There must not be any effective way to do away with that steep part, as that area has been reworked over the years and if possible, I suppose it would have been done away with by now.
Quentin
Bruce Kelly [snipped] Back when BNSF, and ATSF, only had two tracks on Cajon, the bottleneck of westbounds at Summit was often because they simply had to wait for the guy ahead to clear the next block. I can't tell you how many times I watched the parade of WBs stack up on what was then Main 2 from Summit east. Because of the 20mph speed restriction on the 3% grade of Main 2 west of Summit, the next WB would pull up and stare at a red signal at Summit until the train ahead crept its way slowly downhill beyond the intermediate signal roughly 2.5 miles away. This was painfully apparent one spring day in 2004, when the economy was still hopping and all tracks leading to L.A. and its ports were jammed. A BNSF official had a barbeque up and running at Summit. One train after another was inching ahead toward Summit, each one pausing there while the train ahead cleared that first block of 3%. The official in charge was radioing trains as they approached Summit, asking what they wanted on their burger, and whether they wanted a regular or diet soft drink. The lunches were then handed up to crews when they stopped at Summit. They probably had most of it chowed down before they got a signal to proceed. It must have been quite a morale booster during a frustratingly slow day of bringing trains down the pass.
For a train in the 10,000 ft. = 2 miles range, to completely pass through the 2.5 mile block (about 4.5 miles total) would take close to 15 minutes from locos entering to EOTD/ FRED leaving. Which also tells us that max. capacity there in that direction on a 'peak day' is about 100 trains per day (4 per hr. x 24 hrs.).
Modelcar .....3% seems a bit steep on main line trackage. How many miles does this grade extend...? I believe that is almost as steep as the "Slide" over on NS {former Pennsylvania}, near that summit at Gallitzin tunnels. There must not be any effective way to do away with that steep part, as that area has been reworked over the years and if possible, I suppose it would have been done away with by now.
Cajon is indeed both steeper and longer. The Slide is 2.36 % if memory serves, and is only a little over a mile long before it rejoins the 'normal' grade of about 1.86%.
Rather than rework the 3% grade, what they did is build an additional route but at 2.2 % instead, and then still kept the 3% route. Back in the day of passenger trains and faster freights, going downgrade they could use the 3%'s steeper hence shorter distance to advantage; also, high-powered trains such as the same and intermodals could climb it while the heavier 'drag freights' would use the 2.2% instead. Better to have 2 tracks - even though 1 of them is not quite as handy for some purposes - than just 1 track; and even that 1 'handicapped' track still had its particular usefulness, though.
EDITED about 4 hrs. later: Yes, profile is on top of pg. 24, and maps are on pg. 25. Profile labels indicate that the 3.0% is only a little over a mile long - just like PRR's The Slide ! - a couple miles above Cajon, though that seems too short to necessitate a major new alignment. However, the profile and the text also say that the new route of 2.2% grade (110 to 116 ft. per mile) is 2 miles longer, which would imply having to "catch up" with a difference of elevation from the 3.0% of about 220 - 230 ft. Since the 3.0% is about 150 ft. per mile, that implies that the 3.0% which was bypassed by the 2.2% is in the range of 225 ft. / 150 ft. per mile = 1.5 miles or so long instead, which seems consistent. Alternatively, the difference between the grades of 0.8% is about 40 ft. per mile, which implies that the difference in the grades extends over a distance of about 5.5 to 6 miles, which seems more likely to me. - PDN.
BBQ at the summit. I love it. Wish it was still like that today.
Update as of Saturday, May 21, 2011
Part I (of I-II)
CP LUGO's Cantilever Parts Still at Summit
Summit was visited, and the two cantilevered parts of the signal bridges for CP LUGO were still present (lower photo left and upper right), with most signal heads attached now.
The west laying on the ground part at Summit likely will be the east overhead part at CP LUGO.
And, the east laying on the ground part at Summit likely will be the west overhead part at Lugo.
Continued in Part II
Part II (of I-II)
A Few Tidbits about Summit and the Area
What on earth is the item in the background? Is it a short cantilever top section being assembled? If so, where could it be destined for?
A possibility ... On Main 3, between CP SUMMIT and CP CAJON there has been for nearly forty years three blocks with two masts between those blocks. It is known the SECOND future signal from CP SUMMIT is of the mast type. The below reshown photo is that location.
K.P. has not personally seen the FIRST Main 3 signal railroad west of CP SUMMIT for over twenty years, way back in a happier day when railfans could roam around the tracks and the Pass freely. The signal's location is in a rather secluded area. Maybe someone at the forum has seen the location and knows whether or not a new, not activated yet signal has been put in there, either a mast or cantilever structure, or a pending situation. K.P. believes that that secluded area is the only potential area for another cantilever structure, if one is even in the future.
About non-signal matters ... For those out of the area, this view is of the recently discussed manned security office presently at Summit.
Lastly, for the current project, at least a half a dozen containers ...
... are presently at the Summit staging site, both grouped and few scattered very nearby.
Update as of Friday, May 27, 2011:
The New Signals
Lugo, CA
The top, horizontal sections of the new cantilever signal structures, previously being prepared with wiring and signal heads at Summit, are now at CP LUGO (M.P. 50.1) and fully attached to the vertical support parts.
The WEST structure from the west:
The above from the east:
The EAST cantilever bridge from the west:
Both structures from the east:
That 30 M.P.H. speed limited highway which virtually everyone does 60 M.P.H. or more on is visible on the above last photo's lower left.
Paul, the profile in the 1974 Trains story is misleading. That's not how the South Track/Main 3 has been portrayed in ATSF or BNSF profiles. I know how much you love crunching numbers, so check this out:
Distance between Summit (MP 55.9) and Cajon (MP 67.8) on Main 3 is 6.9 miles. Moving westward from Summit, the abrupt drop into 3 percent descending grade starts very close to Silverwood, MP 56.6, about 3/4 mile from Summit. The 3 percent then ends about a mile east of Cajon. So, subtract a mile and 3/4 from 6.9 miles, round to the nearest whole number, and we're talking five miles of mostly 3 percent.
Older ATSF timetables listed grades in feet per mile instead of percent. The South Track was shown as 158.4 feet per mile. Divide that by 52.8, which is the magic number for converting all feet-per-mile figures to percentages, and you have 3. Multiply 158.4 feet per mile by 5 miles, and you have an elevation change of 824 feet from one end of the 3 percent to the other, which agrees with the BNSF track charts and 7.5-minute topo map. Again, that's 5 miles of fairly consistent 3 percent.
Bonus fact: I've mentioned this somewhere before, but ATSF and BNSF track charts show a very short blip of 2.8 percent on the North Track (today's Main 1 and 2) just east of Cajon, where the track(s) curve away to head up into Sullivan's Curve. If you've ever stood there, it's fairly obvious to the naked eye, no need for telephoto compression. So, the conventional wisdom stating that Mains 1 and 2 have a maximum grade of 2.2 percent is not completely accurate.
Paul_D_North_Jr [snipped, from post above on Saturday, May 21, 2011] . . . Alternatively, the difference between the grades of 0.8% is about 40 ft. per mile, which implies that the difference in the grades extends over a distance of about 5.5 to 6 miles, which seems more likely to me. - PDN.
Update as of Thursday, July 21, 2011:
The New Color Light Signals
The signals between CP FROST and CP LUGO are in transition from old target units to the new color light ones. On the above date, the Lugo area was checked out, and the new signals still have not been cut over yet.
Not too terribly far from Cajon Pass a similar long cut over period took place (past tense) at ...
Colton Crossing
Colton, CA
The new north side color light signals at Colton Crossing, looking south (westbound) with, from left to right, Mains 3 and 1, and the transition track to UP's Sunset Route towards Los Angeles.
An eastbound BNSF Transcon train passes the newly activated south eastbound signals.
So, signal cutovers eventually take place, but they seem so long in coming, months and months ...
A side note about the old target signals that once protected Colton Crossing ...
... since control of Colton Crossing apparently changed hands, from BNSF to UP in conjunction with the Colton Flyover project, the recently taken down old target signals are stacked up in the UP signal dept. yard in Colton.
Update as of August 5, 2011:
Track Identities East of Summit
Part A (of A-B)
K.P. was advised in the past that between CP SUMMIT and CP MARTINEZ track identities were, from north to south, Martinez Siding, Main 1, and Main 2, with the identities east of CP MARTINEZ Main 1 and Main 2.
Diagram #1:
Previously, the below March 25, 2008 photo was posted in this thread.
While it is not real clear in the above photo, K.P. has looked at the original and the southernmost signal (right) therein has number plates, so, at that photo time, that signal was an INTERMEDIATE as it had been for nearly 40 years.
However, the signal was changed to an absolute, color light type, so both Mains had such. The intermediate's location was altered slightly so both masts were thereafter directly across from each other.
A previously shown high-up, eastward telephoto view of CP MARTINEZ:
Continued in Part B
Part B (of A-B)
However, CP MARTINEZ was field checked on August 5 and 6, 2011, and a limited amount of metal identification track signs (visible on both sides of the right signal) indicate things have apparently changed.
In the above photo, the WEST sign for eastbound trains (rightward) indicates the identification of the south track (from thereat eastward) as Main 2.
On the other hand, the EAST sign for westbound trains (leftward) shows the identification of that south track (from thereat westward) as, not Main 2, but Main 3.
So, a revised diagram is presented to the forum as ...
Diagram #2:
It does not seem practical for track identifications to change at intermediate signals, but it does at absolute CP signals, even the switchless ones, which is a little unusual. That possibility seems to have been tapped at BNSF's CP MARTINEZ.
----------
In the two diagrams in this series, arrowed o's are shown. While all tracks are bidirectional CTC, the arrowed o's show a general tendency for routings by dispatchers.
The Future of Triple-Tracking and ...
On August 9, 2011 K.P. had personal business very near the BNSF where its Transcon goes under Bear Valley Rd., which bisecting is towards the east side of Victorville, CA. A special effort was made to visit the new replacement color light intermediate signals at M.P. 42.9, and found they still had NOT been activated yet.
The fact that the recently activated new color light signals at Colton Crossing (the Transcom is the cross tracks), some 20-25 miles from Cajon Pass ...
... stood un-activated for a year tells this forum contributor that the new color lights between CP LUGO and CP FROST could be months from activation. (Now, watch them be lit up tomorrow ...)
Except for CP LUGO, where the new cantilever structures give approaching trains a good view of the signals in that curvy, mountainous area, the Lugo to Frost section has all mast signals, as with the M.P. 42.9 signals above.
Since BNSF has a history of NOT erecting signals and then replacing them with something else soon after, triple-tracking may be over, at least for the foreseeable future. It could be one or more decades before triple-tracking comes to the eastern slopes of Cajon Pass.
If it ever does come, perhaps ("perhaps") the recently two-tracked west slope 2.2% line between Cajon and Summit (the old North Track line) might be triple-tracked! That would take away the last hindrance to totally free flowing operations on the west side. But, K.P. sees a possible sign in the future -- a very soon one at that!
In 2012 the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) is scheduled to five-lane the present two-lane Highway 138 from I-15 westward to the San Bernardino-Los Angeles County line.
K.P. believes the thing to watch with that widening is the future roadway bridging over the BNSF 2.2% line. Since it will be an additional structure, with the future in mind, it may or may not be constructed with a THREE-track wide opening for tracks underneath.
The present bridge (just above, will probably remain) was constructed in 1983, nearly 30 years ago! (Wow, has it really been that long?)
It has been almost three years now since the third-track was put in service at Cajon Pass proper, in November 2008.
That track is already being reworked, testifying to the maintenance upkeep orientation of the BNSF Railway. A few photo shots taken railroad west of CP CAJON on Thursday, August 11, 2011:
And, then there was a long maintenance machine 'hiding' below mainline track level.
(The signal on the right governs a side set out track with both a manual switch and manual derail on it.)
So, the three-tracks that are on the western slope of Cajon Pass are well maintained, as are the two-tracks on the eastern slope. But, the future for more three-tracking going down the eastern slope is presently not good ... at least in K.P.'s opinion. It can be noted that the grade on the east slope is less than on the west slope, thus reducing any urgency for triple-tracking that eastern slope.
Which Track is the New Third-Track? ... And about Freeway Widening
Part A (of A-J)
From San Bernardino, many years ago there was just 'double-track' eastward, with each track signaled in only one direction. In 1972, the San Bernardino to Barstow line (including over Cajon Pass) was CTC'ed with each track signaled bi-directionally, thus becoming 'two-tracks.' Then, around 1992-3, in a somewhat weird track arrangement, a third-track was extended eastward from San Bernardino a little bit to a new CP called BASELINE.
In the early 1990's, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) was thinking about widening the railroad-paralleling I-215 Freeway, and as a result, there was talk of relocating the Santa Fe tracks to alongside Southern Pacific's Palmdale Cutoff. That obviously fell through, with Caltrans deeming it too costly after studying the matter.
Early to the mid-part of the first decade of the 21st century, triple-track was extended eastward from BASELINE to VERDEMONT. BASELINE received a radical revision, so that today the track layout is as below:
The new third-track was Main 3, the lower of the above three.
Now, nearly two decades after Caltrans had their freeway widening idea spring forth, the I-215 Freeway is finally well along in being widened, right adjacent to the now triple-track ex-Santa Fe BNSF mains.
A northward view of the new southbound 5th Street off ramp:
For over fifty years the 5th Street southbound exit was a left lane exit that funneled traffic off to 6th Street, though signed 5th Street. But now it actually gets cars off at 5th Street.
Looking north (eastbound) from the new 9th Street bridge towards BASELINE
The freeway curves northwestward, as does the railroad right-of-way. Freeway revisions there are well along.
In the above two photos, in the background, I-215 is below track level, hence, unseen.
As a side note, years and years ago, where the Main 2 (center track) now curves (second photo upward), there was a switch there and a track went straight north, and was part of the famous Redlands Loop. The track made a big loop and came back to San Bernardino and crossed 2nd Street by the San Bernardino Depot (a block to the below photo's left).
Part B (of A-J)
The new track is Main 3 all the way eastward to Devore (which is between VERDEMONT and KEENBROOK).
An eastbound view from Glen Helen Parkway (formerly Devore Rd.) in Devore: The new third-track Main 3 is on the right.
A closer view of the new Main 3:
In the above photo, somewhere in the background curve, an alignment shift takes place, so that Main 1 becomes the new track eastward, as evidenced by a new, single-track bridge for Main 1.
Continued in Part C
Part C (of A-J)
Passing through Blue Cut, Main 1 (right) is still the new track ...
... as well as by the old campground (still the right track, the one with an eastbound on it).
The above two photos are reshown ones.
Continued in Part D
Part D (of A-J)
Just railroad west of CAJON, looking westbound, an alignment shift takes place, so that Main 3 (center-foreground LEFT track) is again the new track.
Just eastbound of CAJON Main 3 alignment shifts (right of center) back to its original route of the 3% single-track line (background) that was first built in the 1880's ...
... while Main 2 takes up the new track status (center track of the three on the lower left).
A reshown view of a westbound on that new Main 2 curve:
Two-tracks (Mains 1 and 2) then head eastbound up and around Sullivan's curve, and heads to the WALKER crossovers. The third track (Main 3) heads up on a separate alignment to SUMMIT.
Continued in Part E
Part E (of A-J)
The below reshown photo shot on May 17, 2008 shows the original single-track eastbound, uphill track alignment. The 1913 single-track alignment becomes Main 2 at the new universal crossovers called WALKER. LEFT of Main 2 in the background is the new Main 1 that once had the old Alray siding on it in pre-1972 "double-track" single-direction Automatic Block Signal (ABS) days. The present background Main 2 alignment previously was Main 1, and before that the North track. Got all that?
Just a week after the above photo was taken, the previously shown below May 25, 2008 photo shows the original single-track west of WALKER no longer aligned to right side Main 2, but to the left side Main 1.
So, it was somewhere on the west side of WALKER's approaching curve that an alignment shift took place.
Continued in Part F
Part F (of A-J)
On June 12, 2008, track laying westward under and past Highway 138 was observed. It is known that that track laying started that day about a quarter of a mile railroad east of Highway 138.
So, a day or two before that must have been when the track was laid westward out of WALKER, because newly laid track was present by WALKER on that same June 12.
Continued in Part G
Part G (of A-J)
On a revisit to the WALKER area last month, on November 13, 2011, that finished for three years grade crossing was photographed:
While the above photo's foreground grade crossing paneling looks older, it IS the newer track, as discerned from examining the last two photos in Part F.
In examining the curving WEST of that grade crossing ...
... aerials of it appears ("appears") like the shift was west of the grade crossing ...
Aerial WEST of the Grade Crossing
... but it wasn't. It WAS east of that rural grade crossing.
That west side shifting appearance probably can be attributed to a big line relocation that took place in the 1970's, from the north side of the nearby creek to the south side of it.
Continued in Part H
Part H (of A-J)
Thereafter, Main 1 is the new track (the lower of the TWO photo center tracks) all the way up the Pass ...
... through Silverwood ...
... past Summit ...
... and on to MARTINEZ, over what was first the new Martinez siding before being melded into the present Main 1. At MARTINEZ, in the foreground are Mains 1, 2, and 3, in the background are Mains 1 and 2.
Because all the signals in the above MARTINEZ view are absolutes now, Main 2 in the background right can become Main 3 in the foreground right.
The above four photos were previously shown.
So, there we have it ... if any had wondered how all the alignment shifts worked.
Continued in Part I
Part I (of A-J)
Some Photos of the I-215 Freeway Widening in San Bernardino
From the new 5th Street Bridge, a northward view of how precarious and zigzag-like I-215 is now for motorists. The new bridge on the photo top is the new 9th Street Bridge.
Railfans that are accustomed to driving with one eye on the road and one on the tracks are advised that that trick doesn't presently work very well through here ... Both eyes MUST be on the road constantly!
The exiting transition "259 Freeway" to the Crosstown Freeway currently has a bizarre path for motorists to follow.
A temporary single-lane road was also improvised (left) for those southbound from the Crosstown Freeway over the 259. The northward view below was from the Baseline Rd. overpass.
Heavy rebar cross-laying is in place for the Baseline Rd. overpass by the 'Eastbound' (EB) 'Control Signal' (CS) of the CTC control station BASELINE.
Continued in Part J
Part J (of A-J)
Some I-215 Freeway Widening Photos in San Bernardino
A north northwest view from the Highland Ave. overpass: The triple-track Transcon by lower Cajon Blvd. is seen, with a towering crane as a key photo composition element (for those among us that get turned on by big cranes).
Two transition roadways (upper middle left and upper right) are being built between I-215 (far right of center) and S.R. 210 (barely visible in background). Mains 2 and 3 (of 3 mains) are visible on the lower left.
A southeastward southbound I-215 view, with the big railroad curve that Cajon Sub trains traverse (towards the camera) in order to head northwestward towards Cajon Pass.
For years K.P. has fearfully imagine a train derailing on that curve and hitting his passing car on the freeway right next to the tracks. In light of the second photo in Part F, perhaps a new freeway alignment will be built farther from the tracks than previously.
For those not from the area, now you know how the new track shifting works around Cajon Pass, and the mad construction that visitors to the Pass may encounter on the far west (south) end of the Pass, in San Bernardino.
Up in the High Desert on the east slope of the Pass, the new color light signals between Lugo and Frost still are awaiting activation.
The same holds true in Cajon Pass itself, the steep Main 3's new color light signals between Cajon to Summit still have not been activated yet.
No further triple-tracking eastward seems to be planned, even though the Abo Canyon project in New Mexico is finish.
This 'changing sides' effort has been contemplated for the last couple of years, and now that the photos were finally taken, text composed, and posted, it could be many months, possible even years, maybe a decade or more before any reportable triple-tracking is presented herein.
Until then take care everyone,
The Highland Jct. Area
San Bernardino, CA
In the December 5, 2011 post, Part J, a view was shown near the Highland Jct. area, of the I-215 Freeway construction. On February 11, 2012, K.P. returned, and found the Muscupiabe Drive bride east sidewalk's south approach still unfinished. Nevertheless, he braved all the vultures hanging around on the north side, and got this photo for the forum:
The view seems to show that the new revamped freeway in this area will be below track level and close to those tracks. A retaining wall is presently being built.
The Main 3 (the left track) in the above view was the first segment (early to mid-2000 to 2010) eastward of the triple-tracking of Cajon Pass.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.