2nd Continuation of memo to Paul D. North Jr. (5-5x):
The new crashworthy Metrolink cars do not currently operate on the SP Sunset Route, except on the LA&SL side. They cross the Sunset Route, though, at Colton Crossing, on the BNSF.
The red over lunar signal you mentioned not being able to see was shot from the signal's BACK side, and is the below background mast with a single-bulb head over a four-bulb head on the left. The referred to example situation was of a train coming at the camera.
The track on the left (the turnout route) is the transition track to the BNSF.
The railroads (AT&SF, Metrolink, and UP) over the years couldn't seem to make up their minds on the above right track. It was pulled up, laid, pulled up, and then laid again and UP and BNSF interlockings and tracks rearranged. The UP (LA&SL) track alignment was originally a totally separate line. The CTC track even had its own depot about a mile north (east). Sunset Route trains never saw this trackage back then, as SP and UP merger hadn't even been thought of.
In the just above southward (westbound) view, the rails are still in the roadway as it used to be 50 years ago, but the flange grooves are no longer present. When K.P. was a kid back then and rode the City of Los Angeles, City of St. Louis, and Challenger trains through here, the station trees were non-existent. I believe the depot is dated 1904.
Several blocks south of the above views (beyond the far background), that track's right-of-way went diagonally through what is now Metrolink's Riverside station stop and parking lot.
Now that I've totally put you to sleep, Paul, I'll move on ...
Continued ...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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.
deserdog (5-10):
Thanks so much for the Arizona report, John. Having personally been to the site of CP SP917 CASA GRANDE a number of times in the past, it was great seeing your photos of the new high speed uninstalled turnouts now onsite.
desertdog
I suspect, John, that the above turnout resting trackside on the EAST side of Thornton Rd. will be dragged to the WEST side before it is installed. The north (Main 1) side of CP's tend to have the switches back to back, whereas the south side (Main 2) have them far apart. In years past railroads seemed to have alternated the close-together switches between Mains 1 and 2, but the two-tracking of the Sunset Route hasn't done that.
The above previously shown looking eastward photo of CP SP568 BANNING (M.P. 561.8) is an example. Main 1 is on the left, with the turnouts back to back, Main 2 is on the right with the turnout far apart on the far ends of the CP.
'Down' by Salton Sea
For those interested ...
One of those (among many in this stretch) two-mast single-box tri-light signals is in the below view along Salton Sea. Photo dated Monday, May 2, 2011.
K.P. hopes to put together a tri-light signal presentation that will point out a big difference in signals between past Sunset Route two-tracking efforts and the current effort. It is also hoped a BNSF Cajon Pass photo or two can be posted too, showing the difference in tri-light philosophes now between BNSF and UP. It is one of those subtle things that may have escaped some at the forum ...
-------
In the works: Updates (from Monday, May 9, 2011) on Magnolia Ave. (Riverside), Milliken Ave. (Ontario), and the 'Up and Over' in the City of Industry, CA.
Update as of Monday, May 9, 2011
Los Angeles Metropolitan Area Review
Part A (of A-D)
The 'Up and Over'
City of Industry, CA
The most glaring new addition to the 'Up and Over' has been the inclusion of chain link fencing, at both ends.
From Puente Ave. on the west end:
From Valley Blvd.:
The non-CTC absolute signal on the west end that governs the industrial track's entrance to the Main, with fencing in the forefront:
Continued in Part B
Part B (of A-D)
The chain link fencing on the east end, by California Ave.:
The old cut off Main on the west side of California Ave. (photo bottom):
In the above photo, long time thread readers will remember how the photo bottom center track use to branch off to the left as the shoefly, straddling the south side of the "Up and Over.'
The old Main (right) looking eastbound:
Continued in Part C
Part C (of A-D)
An eastward telephoto from California Ave.:
In the above photo, the far side CP signals are NOT across from each other. The right signal is farther back because of a powered derail (barely visible on the right).
In the above photo also, the foreground track curves, and heads to the background. It then rises and goes over the north-south Hacienda Blvd.
Aerial of the Hacienda Blvd Overpass
On the bridge itself, and the approaches, there appears to be room for three-tracks. Presently, the "New Siding" is used oftentimes to hold cuts of intermodal cars, with and without containers on them. Thus, when the 'Up and Over' is finally two-tracked, it is very possible ("possible") a third-track will be laid towards the camera (in the above photo, background right) to the present CP AL500 NEW SIDING (photo center). Because of the new signal spacing, the signals at the top of the 'Up and Over' doesn't appear to allow for any signals at the present CP AL500 NEW SIDING, so if a third-track was laid, the now powered switch would probably be converted to a manual switch, and a two-bulb automatic absolute signal erected like the last photo in Part "A."
Also, if a third-track was laid, will the alignment shift in the photo center be eliminated? If so, there would need to be a new track laid from the photo center to the left, and the tracks alignment shifted in the foreground lower left.
Back looking west again ... The fencing resumes (where the 'Up and Over' walling ends), and comes right up to California Ave.
In nearby matters to the east ...
K.P. does not know if the below situation is a sign of good times coming (or bad), but a whole bunch of intermodal containers are stacked up at the City of Industry yard, just east of the engine facility.
Pomona, CA
At the future CP AL514 HAMILTON in Pomona, everything is still quiet and no further work on the future new CP seems to have been done.
Ditto about the Diversion project in Pomona!
Continued in Part D
Part D (of A-D)
The Milliken Ave. Flyover
Ontario, CA
The digging down on the west side of Milliken Ave. is getting deeper, so that a vehicle in it can now be below ground level! Exactly what is taking place is unclear to K.P.
Related, the new tri-light signals still have not been activated between the Guasti area and CP AL533 SIERRA. Also, the missing new east side westbound siding signal at CP AL529 SOUTH FONTANA still is missing.
The Magnolia Ave. Underpass
Riverside, CA
The newly connect tracks looked in better shape ...
... and a train approached ....
... but, still under a slow order ...
... and then just creped across Magnolia Ave.
Putting the two-tracks back to normal speed seems to be taking an unusually lengthy amount of time.
This four-part series has been a snapshot of the known current situation in the Los Angeles area eastward.
K. P. Harrier ...snip... In nearby matters to the east ... K.P. does not know if the below situation is a sign of good times coming (or bad), but a whole bunch of intermodal containers are stacked up at the City of Industry yard, just east of the engine facility.
In partnership with CSX, UP restarted a streamlined container service last year named 'UMAX'. Hopefully this will do better than its predecessor service.
K.P., that seems perfectly logical that UP might extend a COI 'yard lead' west to just short of California Ave - the ROW seems plenty wide enough. I would expect them to bridge the adjacent sidings over the flyover into 2MT first. Pretty slow progress to date
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! ***
KP We are seeing a lot of the U-MAX containers on UP/CSX run thru trains here on CSX.
desertdog (5-10):
desertdog Looking eastward from the same location [Cox Rd.], it seems like it would be a bit of a squeeze getting two tracks under the I-10 overpass if the new rails were to continue along the current grade much further. More likely, a transition will take place beginning at about this point. In fact, the roadbed is graded on the north side of the existing main once you get beyond the highway bridge and continues towards Toltec where there is a passing siding on the north side (M.P. 928.8). The second main (Main #1) will thus likely pass through the adjacent space to the left of the support pillar: John Timm
Looking eastward from the same location [Cox Rd.], it seems like it would be a bit of a squeeze getting two tracks under the I-10 overpass if the new rails were to continue along the current grade much further. More likely, a transition will take place beginning at about this point. In fact, the roadbed is graded on the north side of the existing main once you get beyond the highway bridge and continues towards Toltec where there is a passing siding on the north side (M.P. 928.8). The second main (Main #1) will thus likely pass through the adjacent space to the left of the support pillar:
John Timm
Yes, John, it looks like it would be "a bit of a squeeze getting two tracks under the I-10 overpass" in Casa Grande, AZ. Presently, the track is basically in the middle of the opening between two bridge support groups, making the opening in halves. If the present track was realigned so the opening was in thirds, two-tracks would easily fit through that opening.
When I was at the Cox Rd. grade crossing (M.P. 923.6) just west of that freeway overpass location way back on Tuesday, August 5, 2008, it looked like the future second-track on the south side (left, westward view) ...
... would alignment shift right under the I-10 Freeway Bridges (eastward view) ...
... so that the second-track would then be on the north side east of I-10 (westward view) thereafter.
Below is an aerial link to that alignment shift location in Casa Grande ...
http://mapq.st/jjIXKj
If one tinkers with the MapQuest aerial view (move it back and forth, side to side), one will see the south grading (whenever the aerial was shot) west (left) of I-10 has the lightly colored, fine sub-ballast, but the north side east of I-10 back then only had been graded and lacked the sub-ballast.
Such an alignment shift also takes place under the old Ramon Rd. overpass in Thousand Palms, CA, just east of the new CP SP598 RIMLON (M.P. 597.7).
An aerial view of that alignment shift:
http://mapq.st/jtZvvY
The Ramon Rd. Bridge was modified for the second main when that part of the Sunset Route was two-tracked in 2008. But, it is unknown if that modification will continue to exist, for on the trip to Niland on March 12, 2011, in the CP SP598 RIMLON area, a new multi-lane overpass (over the tracks and I-10 Freeway) was being constructed at or near that CP.
http://mapq.st/j5Qgqm
In the just above link, a map is shown, and on the bottom is Bob Hope Drive. That is the road that will be extended northward up over the tracks and freeway.
So, John, I thought I would pass those tidbits alone to add to your recent fine Casa Grande, AZ track laying post series.
I and my camera were hoping to get back to Arizona to check on the two-tracking progress, but have been thwarted by auto repairs. My Toyota blew its transmission (soon after getting back from Arizona), and after a month is still an absolute nightmare. I got more than my money's worth on the car's extended warrantee as the car has had numerous costly problems, but now it is out of extended warrantee (what a time to blow a $4000 transmission!). Thirty years ago my Chevy blew a tranny (after getting back from Arizona too!) just out of warrantee, and I never bought another Chevy. I have similar feeling now about Toyota. The car just has been a chronic nightmare. So, I won't likely get to Arizona anytime real soon, at least until I get a new non-Toyota car, or feel the 2007 'junk' can reasonably make it to Arizona and back from California ...
Anyway ... Thanks so much, John, for the visuals from Arizona.
Best,
K.P.
Secret Administrative Cult?
The reply above this one somehow was mysteriously duplicated here, and once I figured that out hours later, edited it to show the "Secret Administrative Cult?" text.
Since I can't seem to figure out how to quickly contact an administrator, would some apparently watchful, secret administrator (possibly in China or India) please delete this reply?
Thanks.
It has been really interesting reading through this thread. Took a while, though!
I live 20 miles from the work being done right now on the Blair Subdivision here in eastern Nebraska, and a lot of what I've been seeing there is a sign of what is soon arriving here.
K. P. Harrier
This style of signal setup with the masts, heads, and equipment house all combined is commonly called a flowerpot signal. But whether signal heads can "bloom" is up to the reader to decide...
With all the sudden signaling changes over there, how aggressive has UP been on removing old code line as shown in the picture?
Jovet,
I had never heard the term "flowerpot signal," but I can see why they call it that. Very interesting!
Regarding the code lines, you will probably get different answers on this, depending on the location of the respondent. Along the Gila Sub in my area, the poles mostly (but not exclusively) had a single cross arm as shown on the left of this photo:
In many instances, they remained in place long after their original purpose was over, supporting a few wires necessary to connect grade crossing signals to the rail. During recent construction, some stretches have disappeared, others not. It may be that they will remain in place until the end since removing them is likely not a priority unless they are in the way.
Link to a photo (not mine) of signal no. 10742 in Cortez, Calif. (BNSF ?) and a comment that called it a "flowerpot signal":
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sp8254/4431479258/
Most of the other results that I got from a quick search were related to the confidential source "Deep Throat''s arrangements for contacting Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward during the Watergate scandal of the 2nd Nixon presidential term . . .
I too have been wondering about the present-day usage of pole lines - prompted by seeing some still standing and apparently still being used southeast of Phoenix this past January, in the vicinity of Queen Creek and the Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport, along Rt. 236/ Rittenhouse Rd., esp. where new overpasses or grade crossing improvements had occurred. Probably the better thing would be to start a separate thread on that - something I've had in mind since then.
- Paul North.
That is indeed a BNSF signal. You can tell the difference in several ways:
Use of flowerpots is rather unpredictable. UP seems pretty conservative with them. The line from the Blair Sub to Sioux City, IA was re-signaled several years ago, all with flowerpots. More recently, the line from Council Bluffs, IA to Missouri Valley, IA was re-signaled, with standard masted signals. The formerly mentioned flowerpots are the only ones I know of around here. BNSF is more liberal with them; they're now all over the Crawford Hill area in the Nebraska panhandle, for instance.
Keep in mind the term "darth vader signal" is inherently pejorative. I happen to like UP's modern masted signal design: it's functional and minimalist. Let's just say the new signaling design across Nebraska's trans-con isn't quite the same. Seeing the pictures in this thread, it struck me how on the Sunset Route UP is installing "traditional" UP modern signal designs, or, BNSF modern signal designs! (Ladder is inclined and faces parallel with the track--See photos from the 26-Mar-2011 post by K.P., photo1, photo2.) I even wondered before if BNSF installed these signals at the Colton diamonds.
I asked about the code line because the Blair Sub is former Chicago & Northwestern, and there isn't much of any code line along it left. Though, what is left has been left there mostly untouched but not in service. I guess I'm kind-of surprised there aren't more in California who are clamoring to steal it for the value of the copper.
K P it sounds like Arizona is out to get you. I had a similar incident about 30 years ago when we lived in southern California. We spent the weekend at a friend's trailer on the Colorado river swimming and boating. The next Monday morning while driving to work in the Los Angeles basin I blew a radiator hose. If this happened 24 hours earlier I probably would still be stranded somewhere in the desert.
Back to railroad topics. I note in reading this thread that almost all of the highway crossings are bridges OVER the railroad tracks. If the railroad had a choice they would prefer to go over the highway instead of the other way around. The reason is to prevent an accident similar to one in England when I was there a few years ago. A car pulling a trailer came off the overhead bridge approach and landed on the railroad tracks. A couple minutes later a high speed train came along and a major disaster resulted.
ccltrains K P it sounds like Arizona is out to get you. I had a similar incident about 30 years ago when we lived in southern California. We spent the weekend at a friend's trailer on the Colorado river swimming and boating. The next Monday morning while driving to work in the Los Angeles basin I blew a radiator hose. If this happened 24 hours earlier I probably would still be stranded somewhere in the desert. Back to railroad topics. I note in reading this thread that almost all of the highway crossings are bridges OVER the railroad tracks. If the railroad had a choice they would prefer to go over the highway instead of the other way around. The reason is to prevent an accident similar to one in England when I was there a few years ago. A car pulling a trailer came off the overhead bridge approach and landed on the railroad tracks. A couple minutes later a high speed train came along and a major disaster resulted.
That risk needs to be weighed against the costs of bridge construction and maintenance. A roadway bridge over a railway is maintained by the appropriate administrative administrative jurisdiction - state, county, township, or municipal whereas a railroad bridge over a highway is maintained by the railroad. A highway underpass needs less change in elevation, hence less excavation and a shorter footprint, than the amount of fill and length of approaches. This is mitigated by the need for temporary tracks, roadways, and crossings during construction phases. Much depends on the environment at the site.
CSX has 1 flower pot at each exit end to depart their new Fairburn intermodal terminal which are semi automatic. It appears to this poster that they are used where there is not much electronics required?? Railway man any ideas???
ccltrains [snipped] I note in reading this thread that almost all of the highway crossings are bridges OVER the railroad tracks. If the railroad had a choice they would prefer to go over the highway instead of the other way around. The reason is to prevent an accident similar to one in England when I was there a few years ago. A car pulling a trailer came off the overhead bridge approach and landed on the railroad tracks. A couple minutes later a high speed train came along and a major disaster resulted.
Also, I doubt if the remote contingency of that bizarre accident in England has any influence on the preference of US railroads for which one is on a bridge, for several reasons (in no particular order):
First, you have my sympathies when it comes to car issues--as well as furnace, water heater and A/C issues. They never occur at convenient times (usually on weekends or holidays) and they are almost always costly. Hopefully, you will be back in the Copper State soon with camera in hand.
Okay, that said, I looked at your explanation of the impending track work at C.P. Casa Grande and will respectfully offer an alternative. Click to show quoted textOn 5/11/11 you wrote: “I suspect, John, that the above turnout resting trackside on the EAST side of Thornton Rd. will be dragged to the WEST side before it is installed. The north (Main 1) side of CP's tend to have the switches back to back, whereas the south side (Main 2) have them far apart. In years past railroads seemed to have alternated the close-together switches between Mains 1 and 2, but the two-tracking of the Sunset Route hasn't done that.” If I understand what you are saying, you believe they will be installing a universal crossover just west of Thornton Rd. at the current C.P. SP917. But since there will already be a universal crossover at Ethington Rd. (M.P. 914) I don’t see a need for another this close. However, a single crossover east across Thornton Rd. from Main #2 to Main #1 would allow the local to have yard access and, among other things, be able to switch Abbott Labs and Frito-Lay off Main #1. Current track configuration: C.P. Casa Grande -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Thornton Rd.------> _________________________________________/ Siding. ______________________________________/ Yard lead. What I envision is happening: --------------------------------------------------------- Thornton Rd.-------------------------------- #1 __________________________________ Thornton Rd._______/___________ #2 _________________________/ Yard lead. Does this make any sense? I hope to get back down to C.G. in a couple of weeks and perhaps will have the definitive answer then. John Timm
If I understand what you are saying, you believe they will be installing a universal crossover just west of Thornton Rd. at the current C.P. SP917. But since there will already be a universal crossover at Ethington Rd. (M.P. 914) I don’t see a need for another this close. However, a single crossover east across Thornton Rd. from Main #2 to Main #1 would allow the local to have yard access and, among other things, be able to switch Abbott Labs and Frito-Lay off Main #1.
Current track configuration:
C.P. Casa Grande
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Thornton Rd.------>
_________________________________________/ Siding.
______________________________________/ Yard lead.
What I envision is happening:
--------------------------------------------------------- Thornton Rd.-------------------------------- #1
__________________________________ Thornton Rd._______/___________ #2
_________________________/ Yard lead.
Does this make any sense?
I hope to get back down to C.G. in a couple of weeks and perhaps will have the definitive answer then.
K.P. and others,
Sorry about the way my response posted. I've tried several times without success to display the whole post without requiring the link but have other things to do today beside fight with the technical vagaries of the forum.
Paul- Agree with all of your comments and the reasoning why. In England they run the Intercity 125 trains (125 MPH) and many roads in England are the country road type with minimal protection on bridge approaches so bad accidents do happen. While I was on the board for Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) we opted for the rail to be over the highway whenever possible. Two reasons for this: The system was built by a government agency, not a for profit company, and where we had electrified lines we did not want people contacting the catenary. That could really ruin your day. I realize that most of the photos of the overpasses in California had the rail line over the highway, however, most of the photos of crossings in Arizona were the opposite. It is far cheaper to maintain 100 feet of track laid on the ground than 100 feet on a bridge.
For your amusement, I offer some conjectures:
- More turnouts and signals need to show up (see diagram below)!
- Grading east of Thornton Rd. seems long and wide enough for a universal crossover, unlike Ethington Rd. A UC near a track shift seems like a bad idea.
- A UC will allow equal access to customers on both sides of the main and both east and west. Good for the switching crew.
- Grading north of existing main could indicate a siding extension.
- Having all power turnouts close together is good signaling design.
possible Thornton Rd area CP ^ | /-------- siding ext? ---------------+---?-?----?--------- MT 1 -------------------/--+--/---?-?----------- MT 2 (new) ------------/ | \--\------- UP siding ------ | \------ cust sidings ---
desertdog (5-14):
First, John, your diagrams ... I've spent considerable time in the past trying to make presentable simple diagrams for the forum, and concluded two things:
(a) The font of choice is Courier for just the diagram part, and ...
(b) For that diagram part also, on the post composition screen, on the second row of buttons, the seventh button from the left, with the mouse pointer on it a drop down appears saying "Unordered List," which I select.
That seems to do the trick ... However if you transfer the composition from WORD, you may need to use the "No Spacing" button in WORD also. Oh, the complications of just trying to make a clear post ...
Second: While I suggested a possible universal crossover CP at Ethington Rd. in the past, the current new mast erections and new signal spacing in the whole Casa Grande area does NOT support that at all. As an example, a reshown view westward from Ethington Rd.:
Those future signals in the far distance (above) are the below reshown photo's signals.
For both main tracks, the lower heads on the right (of the just above photo) proves that only at Thornton Rd. (a couple of miles to the east) will there be a universal crossover arrangement CP.
The fact, too, that the above lower heads only are of the ONE-BULB TYPE suggests the future CP SP917 CASA GRANDE will only encompass the two crossovers, and any industrial tracks connecting to the mains will be outside the CP limits and of the hand-throw type, otherwise, the lower intermediate heads above would be of the two-bulb type for, not only a yellow over yellow (or green), but a yellow over lunar to accommodate lineups to the industrial tracks.
The same holds true for the future intermediates to the east, past downtown Casa Grande, at Peart Rd. Those lower heads only have one bulb each also.
Anyway, below is a conjectured diagram of the future CP SP917 CASA GRANDE, which this 'Second Part' illustrates what was discussed in the 'First Part' of this post.
Diagraming can be done, John, but boy is it ever tricky ...
MikeF90 (5-15):
I need a little "amusement" once in a while, especially after wracking my brain over diagraming. I only post a diagram maybe every six months or so, and each time have had to painstakingly relearn how to do it all over again what I had done before.
Anyway, your conjectured diagram was a pretty good one. As explained with proof photos above to desertdog, I am convinced all the industrial switches will be outside the CP limits. It will be interesting to find out how all those other tracks will be run through the area and be connected to the two mainlines.
Take care, John and Mike.
K.P.,
First, thanks for the hints on improving my cartography skills.
What I based my observation on is the fact that the switch lying next to the present control point is left hand but pointed away from the current main towards the yard trackage. The switch that is / was lying east across Thornton Rd. is left hand also but pointing towards the current main. I believe that fits a little closer with the scenario MikeF90 has painted except that the entire crossover would likely be across Thornton rather than straddling it as it appears on his diagram. What does favor his scenario is the fact that the railroad just replaced the turnout from the siding to the main, as we both noted a few months back.
desertdog (5-18):
Another thing, John, is that the two new, uninstalled left hand switches, one presently laying trackside on each side of Thornton Rd. in Casa Grande, AZ, have concrete ties! I've been noticing that concrete tied switches on the Sunset Route are of the 50 M.P.H. type. However, in going through some file photos, I found a 30 M.P.H. Sunset Route turnout in New Mexico with concrete ties; thus making the discernment of the future track layout at CP SP917 CASA GRANDE through reverse logic rather impossible. I guess we will just have to wait and see what develops there.
Take care,
Update as of Friday, May 27, 2011
Part I (of I-VI)
On a quick overview of the Pomona area, nothing significant was observed. The new west CP AL514 HAMILTON box was still resting slanted and unanchored.
However ...
Between CP AL512 WEST POMONA and AL513 EAST POMONA, i.e. on the old Pomona west siding on the SP line, was a welded ribbon-rail train with a caboose on each end, and without power. The green caboose was number stenciled "7513."
In the above photo, the high background poles are leaning because of being strongly windblown over the years. The track on the lower left corner is an industrial track to local old SP rail customers.
The ribbon-rail was bending up (photo right) and through this end of the parked train.
Continued in Part II
Part II (of I-VI)
Pomona, CA ... However (Continued)
The quarter mile of ribbon-rail.
The train's cars had many empty rail slots ...
... but some slots seemed to have two rails in them.
The west end of the train had Missouri Pacific (MP) caboose 7511 from the old "mop-up" merger (MP-UP-WP) of the early 1980's. The switch and purple derail sign is NOT accompanied with one of the increasingly popular automatic absolute 'exit signals.'
The caboose on the other end was of like Missouri Pacific ancestry, No. 7513. Just imagine all the Missouri Pacific conductors and rear brakemen that rode these cabooses forty years ago and had no idea that those very cabooses would be working a ribbon-rail train years later on the SP Sunset Route and painted UP maintenance-of-way green! It is amazing those cabooses have even survived into a caboose-less train era.
It is unknown if the above ribbon-rail cars was just a standard rail trade-out train or pertaining to some new track for the Diversion in Pomona. But K.P. observed NO new track anywhere on the Diversion.
Continued in Part III
Part III (of I-VI)
Hacienda Blvd.
You may remember this eastward photo from California St. with the distant background track hump being the bridging over Hacienda Blvd. Therein, the overpass bridge width appeared to be for three-tracks.
That bridging indeed has structural support for three-tracks. The modern concrete bridge is getting older now and starting to show ageing.
The structure is in a beautiful setting with landscape trees.
An interesting situation design concept is that both the tracks rise and the roadway lowers, a concept seldom utilized in eliminated railroad grade crossings.
It is unknown yet with the two-tracking of this section whether or not another "New Siding" will replace the current one (for a third-track over the bridge) so railcars can be parked as is so often done presently.
Continued in Part IV
Part IV (of I-VI)
The Alhambra Trench
Alhambra, CA
As reported recently, May 2011 was indeed the changeover month for target to color light signals in Alhambra. View is of the west side eastbound signals at CP AL488 ALHAMBRA.
For comparison, a few months ago when target heads adorned the cantilever signal bridge and UP workers converged on the structure and were involved in the early head replacement process.
The new east westbound signal: Note that the lower head is longer for a fourth bulb, a lunar, for yellow over lunar.
There is only a single CP box now (above) and not two as photographed previously during the transition period (below, lower left).
K.P. had ("had") six-hours of free time to checking things out for the forum, but the cell phone rang ... And the free time had been cut short unexpectedly. So, further investigation of the Alhambra area will have to wait for another time.
Continued in Part V
Part V (of I-VI)
Milliken Ave.
Later that day, a brief afternoon stop was made at the Milliken Ave. (M.P. 525.4) grade crossing in Ontario, but little obvious grading-wise had been done on that flyover project. However, more heavy grading equipment was on site now, on the east side.
And, as seen on the last photo above, concrete barricading was now present, on both sides of Milliken Ave.
More staking than previously appeared to be on the west side.
Exactly where (and the routing) the shoefly will be laid is still not clear yet, as the grading on each side of Milliken Ave. is somewhat contradictory. Is it possible the shoefly alignment will be further south (and away from the present single-track Main) on the east side than on the west, and actually angle across Milliken Ave. instead of going straight across it at a right angle as customarily done? Note how, in the photo just above, the staking seems to turn southward (leftward) near that photo's bottom.
Continued in Part VI
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.