john_edwards I wonder why the RR didn't follow that alignment initially rather than the looping horseshoe.
I wonder why the RR didn't follow that alignment initially rather than the looping horseshoe.
Possibly because at the time the line was constructed by the Southern Pacific the cost of a bridge over Cienega Creek would have been prohibitive. The railroad runs along the west bank of the creek all the way to Mule Horseshoe before turning back northeast toward Mescal, and Cienega Creek has cut a rather deep, wide gulch.
I have never seen water running in Cienega Creek in the 30 years I've lived here, but some old timers say it used to be a raging torrent of water during the summer rainy season, and it may have been that way when the SP line was built in the latter part of the 1800s.
Thanks, that makes perfect sense.
John
Colton Crossing
There seems to be some unknown controversy(s) regarding the planned grade separation between the BNSF Transcon and the UP Sunset Route in Colton, CA. Only one newspaper has reported on the matter, and surprisingly, the main newspaper in the county where the project would actually take place in has remained silent. It is known, however, that a consideration of Colton Crossing MAY take place at the California Transportation Commission (CTC) meeting April 7 and 8 (Wednesday and Thursday). The objecting issues seem to have been raise by the CTC, and not the railroads, which is very odd because the agreement was between the CTC and Caltrans (representing the railroads).
In a public filing March 15, 2010, though, the following informative details are listed:
Union Pacific (east-west) would go OVER the BNSF (north-south [east-west]).
The flyover would be three-tracks wide, one width of which would be for an access road.
The scheduled construction would start in September 2011, and end in March 2014.
Union Pacific's allocation funding share is 24.6% (with an additional supplemental funding of 5%)
BNSF Railway's share is 3.7%.
Projected costs are now up to $202 million.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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.
K. P. Harrier Union Pacific (east-west) would go OVER the BNSF (north-south [east-west]). The flyover would be three-tracks wide, one width of which would be for an access road.
KP how wide will the BNSF ROW be under the UP flyover? Also what is the planned top of BNSF tracks to bottom of the flyover clearance dimensions? ie can CAT be installed on BNSF?
blue streak 1KP how wide will the BNSF ROW be under the UP flyover? Also what is the planned top of BNSF tracks to bottom of the flyover clearance dimensions? ie can CAT be installed on BNSF?
I don't think the project EIR is complete, so any new required mitigations aren't known.
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! ***
blue streak 1 (4-3):
I personally have no idea how wide the BNSF right-of-way will be under the flyover. However, more importantly, BNSF plans on eventually laying a third track between the I-10 Freeway and [CP] HIGHGROVE to the south (railroad west), about a three-mile distance. I-10 is the real issue.
The Transcon two-tracks presently under the freeway are on wide centers, as seen in the above photo that looks south. (The Sunset Route is the cross-tracks, with Arizona to the photo left.) While it will be tight, undoubtedly three BNSF tracks on traditional centers would fit between the freeway overpass supports.
As far as electric catenary wires, the flyover I believe will be even higher than the freeway clearance. So, again, the question really is: Will wires fit under the freeway overpass?
Around the time of the AT&SF and BN merger, AT&SF sold its single-track line through Pasadena, CA to commuter interests. The line was subsequently rebuilt to two-tracks and catenary was strung.
That catenary seems to have fit under the I-210 Freeway with no problem, so if BNSF strings wires on the Transcon, the I-10 Freeway in Colton should not be a problem either.
K.P.
Colton Flyover
The Colton Flyover project that was in crisis mode this date has gotten a four-week Federal reprieve.
The forum thread temporarily dealing with the matter is found at the following link ...
http://cs.trains.com/trccs/forums/p/171509/1890294.aspx#1890294
An excellent source of information is the Riverside (CA) Press-Enterprise. Unfortunately, one has to register to use the site, but at least it is free. At the site, in "Search," type with quote marks, "Colton Crossing," and hit Enter and presto, you will have some nice articles to read ...
http://www.pe.com/
Coming herein: Some interpretive info news from Colton will be forthcoming within a week, and a nearby railroad flyover will be examined ...
Mike, thanks much for that link ! I was curious but hadn't seen that kind of info on this project before, so that's helpful - although at 15.86 MB in size, that's a huge file !
Scaling from the profile - always a little risky, but that's the only way to answer blue streak 1's question with the paucity of data on it . . . - I get 36 to 37 feet from Existing T/R to Proposed T/R - more than enough for BNSF to install catenary.
My other observation is - the whole area shown in that diagram, especially with the western/ left end with the wye and loop, and the lead to the UP storage tracks on the southeast/ left-bottom- is going to look a lot like a model railroad's convoluted track layout !
- Paul North.
Catenary for single-level light rail cars can be considerably lower than for freight railroads handling double-stack trains.
The Colton Flyover and a Whole Lot of Signals
Part A (of A-H)
As you undoubtedly know, negotiations have been Federally extended for up to another month regarding the Colton Flyover project in Colton, California. Also, a bunch of signal poles were recently unloaded by the Colton Signal Department. This series will examine a possible connection between the two.
First, those signals.
A south side view of the completed offloading looking northeast at the WEST end of the stack of masts.
A view looking northwest at the EAST end of the stack.
Thus, by stacking those poles with some bottom ends facing west, and some facing east, the stack can be piled in a relatively stabilized manner.
If one takes the time to count the masts' bottom ends, there seem to be about 40 masts, give or take 5 masts or so.
Continued in Part B
Part B (of A-H)
Between [CP] AL515 RESERVOIR (M.P. 515.1) in Pomona and [CP] AL533 SIERRA (M.P. 532.4) in Fontana is a distance of 17.3 miles of future two-tracking. It is estimated that 20 masts (with signal heads on them) would be needed, whether it is to replace the present target signals on single-track or replace everything with signaled two-tracks.
An example of the present siding arrangement is Ontario. View looks east at the west end of the NORTH ONTARIO siding.
The below photo looks west at the EAST end of the NORTH ONTARIO siding.
In Ontario there are allot of grade crossings, much like in Pomona. In the top photo just above, note the grade crossing in the photo middle. Both photos above were shot from public grade crossings.
Between Pomona and Fontana, there are four sidings, namely NORTH MONCLAIR, NORTH ONTARIO, GUASTI, and SOUTH FONTANA.
Eastward through West Colton Yard there are now all new tri-light signals. Where, then, could the other 20 masts be used at?
Continued in Part C
Part C (of A-H)
Remember, the section of track EAST of the Colton Crossing (M.P. 538.7) is basically, with a few exceptions, all old target signals to and including the holding signals at [CP] SP543 BRYN MAWN on the eastern side of the community of Loma Linda.
Looking east at [CP] SP542 LOMA LINDA.
(The grade crossing the above photo was shot from months ago is nearing the time when an overpass will be constructed to replace it. In theory, the Ice Deck Siding could thereafter be extended eastward and a long train parked on it without blocking Hunts Lane.)
The view below looks west at those holding signals at BRYN MAWN.
The other 20 masts of that 40 plus or minus total possibly could be used in the above section.
This forumist is inclined to believe that the lower photo above is where a new double-crossover could be put in, not that it will. But, there must be a reason why UP stopped putting in tri-lights from that location westward to Colton a number of years ago.
Continued in Part D
Part D (of A-H)
Back at the signal yard in Colton ... A few views of a whole bunch newly unloaded equipment.
Sticking out like a sore thumb among all the newer equipment is an old tri-light on the photo lower left. It looks like one of the nearly 30-year old signals that stood guard on the Palmdale Cutoff (West Colton to Palmdale). Another old mast is alongside it.
Continued in Part E
Part E (of A-H)
The Colton Signal Department site is right by a residential area, and easily accessible for curious lookie loos.
The great number of containers on flat trailers that had been at the site are now ALL gone, every one of them. Two of those now gone containers are shown below during offloading.
Continued in Part F
Part F (of A-H)
About three railroad miles north of where the potential Colton Flyover would be built is a another flyover, in San Bernardino, where Metrolink's Los Angeles-San Bernardino line flies over the BNSF Transcon.
Notice the wide bottom of the flyover, and the much sloping dirt-work involved. It seems such would be rather cheap to construct, at least the sloping dirt part ...
The above three views look west from the Mt. Vernon Ave. overpass.
The Colton Flyover would be in a much more confined area than the above up and over, so sloping dirt landfill sides MAY likely be out of the question.
On a major project in the City of Industry, also on the Sunset Route, the 1.6 mile railroad up and over currently being built has vertical walling throughout. That project is estimated to cost $97.3 million.
Continued in Part G
Part G (of A-H)
To further help put the $202 million future Colton Flyover in perspective, another comparison may be in order.
A few years ago BNSF's Cajon Pass had triple-tracking extended eastward for nearly 16 miles, from KEENBROOK to SUMMIT. Note all the walling necessary railroad east of Keenbrook.
By Blue Cut, a full track width of solid rock had to be cut away.
New walling was also needed in Blue Cut to shore up Swarthout Canyon Road.
Continued in Part H
Part H (of A-H)
Between BNSF's [CP] CAJON and [CP] WALKER, a sloping embankment was modified with walling so two-tracks (walling top) and a railroad access road (walling bottom) could exist.
In the above two views, the steep climb is from left to right. The right side looks lower because the tracks are farther away from the camera than the left side. The photos were taken from a fast food restaurant's parking lot on the east side of I-10. In the above upper view, theoretically, FIVE trains could pass by at one time in this view! (SP: One on the CANYON siding and one on the Main; BNSF: One each on Mains 1 & 2, and one on the lower Main 3.)
The whole nearly 16-mile BNSF Cajon Pass project cost a whopping $80 million, or close to $5 million a mile, or in the neighborhood of double the traditional costs of laying track. The Colton Flyover, on the other hand, only covers 1.4 miles, and will cost an astounding $202 million, or over $144 million a mile! That price sounds like the whole structure will be on a giant up, over, and down bridge where occasional very strong Santa Ana winds from the north can pass THROUGH the structure and not yank passing freight cars off the top.
It is hoped all this puts matters in perspective, and also, the unofficial guess at future signal usage in the vicinity of Colton gives the forum a better picture of the present area and what developments may be like in the future.
K.P., great series of photos! It is amazing how much work went into that third track.
Thank you as always for posting!
Update As of Friday, April 16, 2010:
Pomona, CA
Part I (of I-II)
The future [CP] AL514 HAMILTON in downtown Pomona has had another turnout assembled, but not installed. It is for our "Main B." (South to north, "A" to "D.")
Like that weird situation west of Temple Ave. where a wood tie turnout (photo center bottom) was inserted into a track with all concrete ties ...
... in another odd twist, the new turnout by Hamilton Blvd. also has wood ties on a concreted tried future main. The new turnout will be located just west of the White Ave. underpass, which is partially visible on the below photo's upper right.
Continued in Part II
Part II (of I-II)
An eastward view of the uninstalled turnout, as viewed from Hamilton Blvd.
In other matters ...
As you probably know, the outcome of the Colton Crossing (CA) matter is pending. Since federal economic stimulus money reportedly involves an impending time limitation, the matter should be settled very soon one way or the other. But K.P. envisions another controversy, a future one looming on the horizon, involving a nearby alternate (below) Sunset Route routing ...
... and, is a situation that is not obvious, but very, very subtle. Plus, the State of California has its own super big problem sometime in the future as well. But, maybe both BNSF and UP as well as the State (with all its design wisdom) will somehow make a mental connection between the two, and figure out a mutual benefit between all the parties. That possibility (and it is just that, a possibility) will be the subject of an upcoming posting series in this thread.
The agenda for the ACE April meeting has been released. It appears that the only significant 'diversion' and fourth track ROW issues are the relocation of a billboard for new north main (D) grading and the protection or relocation of fuel pipelines adjacent to the new south main (A).
The ACE site also includes newly released EIR/Environmental Assessment and Transportation Management Plan documents for the San Gabriel Trench project, which would build four new grade separations.
cacole Followup to Marsh Station Road construction: ...In addition to the rerouting of Marsh Station Road and a new interchange, grading is also taking place for the construction of new Union Pacific trackage between Interstate mileposts 189 and 292 (Marsh Station Road and Empirita Road), the two locations where the railroad crosses over and then under I-10. The relocated track will run parallel to I-10 between these two locations only a few hundred feet north of the interstate. This will eliminate the long horseshoe loop south of I-10 and will shorten the traditionally east-bound UP line by approximately 5 miles. The low clearance railroad bridge near Cienega Creek will be removed and the west-bound lanes of I-10 will be moved 50 or so feet north to allow for a median between the lanes where they are now constricted and separated only by a barrier...At the current rate of grading and bridge construction activity, the UP may be able to begin laying track in two months or less.
Followup to Marsh Station Road construction:
...In addition to the rerouting of Marsh Station Road and a new interchange, grading is also taking place for the construction of new Union Pacific trackage between Interstate mileposts 189 and 292 (Marsh Station Road and Empirita Road), the two locations where the railroad crosses over and then under I-10.
The relocated track will run parallel to I-10 between these two locations only a few hundred feet north of the interstate. This will eliminate the long horseshoe loop south of I-10 and will shorten the traditionally east-bound UP line by approximately 5 miles.
The low clearance railroad bridge near Cienega Creek will be removed and the west-bound lanes of I-10 will be moved 50 or so feet north to allow for a median between the lanes where they are now constricted and separated only by a barrier...At the current rate of grading and bridge construction activity, the UP may be able to begin laying track in two months or less.
Couple of thoughts:
1) Before it can proceed to eliminate the current restrictive clearances at Marsh Station Road, caused by the low overhead of UP's viaduct, Arizona DOT will first have to construct AND COMPLETE the 3-mile rail segment north of and parallel to I-10. To proceed in any other fashion would close the railroad. So...the railroad trackage should be up and running before too much of the highway work gets done.
Checked ADOT's website and discovered that as of two days ago, the entire Marsh Avenue highway interchange and I-10 widening/improvement project is reported to be 10 percent complete. How much of that refers to construction of the new ROW is anybody's guess, because the elements of the project were not broken out for us civilians. But the ROW construction should, by this logic, be given top priority.
2) After UP begins running over its newly shortened ROW, the old circuitous (and then redundant) trackage (CWR, ties) is to be taken up. Since ADOT would seem not to be a prime candidate to dispose of/recycle/use the track material, where would UP lay it? Might they plunk it down nearby -- like on the Sunset Route west of Tucson? An inquiring mind wonders...
ALSO, thanks again to KP and others (but mostly KP) for updating us on the Sunset Route. A news report calling the double tracking some 60 percent complete is a tad misleading, because along with the 40 percent of the second track yet to be built, there are yards/terminals remaining to be constructed at Santa Teresa, NM, Red Rock, AZ, and Montclair, CA (if UP's plans don't change). Maybe UP will start on one of them after it completes the Joliet Terminal in August (if so, I'd bet on Santa Teresa, but I'm not privy in any way to the decision making in this realm).
K.P.'s Theories of the Future
Part A (of A-D)
The Subtle Railroad Problem
In the early 1900's, it was government mandated that the Santa Fe Railway (AT&SF, now BNSF) give trackage rights to the Los Angeles & Salt Lake (LA&SL, now UP) between Riverside, CA and Daggett, east of Barstow.
Right or wrong, that arrangement has worked relatively well up to recent times. However, after the Southern Pacific (SP) and UP merger of 1997, a new situation developed. A Colton direct transition track between the SP and the AT&SF was laid, so Sunset Route trains could now also be routed via the LA&SL through Riverside.
In the above south looking photo, the Sunset Route is the cross-track on the bottom, with El Paso to the left, and Los Angeles to the right. The transition track to the BNSF is the curved track in the center.
In Colton (the top photo) the transition track is on the EAST side (left), whereas the entrance to the LA&SL in Riverside (the above lower photo) is on the WEST side (right)!
Thus, as the economy improves and more and more Sunset Route trains are routed via Riverside and the LA&SL, BNSF inevitably will find its Transcon blocked more and more as UP trains go between the EAST side to the WEST side! Such likely will cause an ever increasing rift between the two railroads' managements.
It should be remembered, too, word is that UP wants to two-track the LA&SL single-track gap (of about 8 miles) between Ontario and Pomona.
With increased capacity thereafter, the LA&SL line would be subject to even more trains. Such would make the BNSF between Colton and Riverside even more congested.
To assist followers of the "Sunset Route Two-Tracking Updates" thread, the following photo is posted.
In the FIRST photo at the very top, the transition track in the center that goes away from the camera is the same track, but less than a mile southward, on the upper right in the photo immediately above this paragraph. That track turns into the Transcon. The Transcon here has about a three-mile gap that hasn't been triple-tracked yet because of a very old, archaic overpass in the way that needs to be replaced (below).
Part B (of A-D)
A Non-Railroad Entity's Problem
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) is constantly widening freeways, and of necessity, increasing freeway capacity. A popular approach of late has been the adding of carpool lanes. But, look at the problem Caltrans has in widening the 91 Freeway in Riverside ...
Traditionally, such rail bridge span lengthening projects call for an entirely new bridge and a new right-of-way alongside the old one. And, Caltrans, of necessity, would have to foot the whole bill!
Part C (of A-D)
Scratching Each Other's Back
K.P. proposes the railroads and the State join forces and build, in Riverside, a new higher embankment and bridge over the 91 Freeway as well as a "flyover" so the EAST side (Main 3) of BNSF's Transcon is accessed by the LA&SL instead of the WEST side (BNSF Main 1).
The following MapQuest link shows an aerial of the area. If one moves the view around, one can see that there is room to relocate the BNSF mains slightly to the west. Be sure, though, to RETURN to this page to continue reading on ...
http://www.mapquest.com/mq/7-bdda2hAw
The UP flying over the BNSF could be much as Metrolink flies over the BNSF in nearby San Bernardino. Dirt embankments should be rather inexpensive to form, so the most costly aspects would be the actual bridges over both the freeway and BNSF's Transcon.
There is a financial incentive for the railroads to do this. If Caltrans is forced to go it alone sometime in the future, the railroads will thereafter be forced to go it alone if they ever want to build such a flyover. In the latter case, the railroads would have to build at their own expense yet another new bridge over the 91 Freeway!
In the following view looking northward (railroad eastbound), there is plenty of room on the photo left to relocate the BNSF mains.
A telephoto of the above view. Note how the three mains of the BNSF become only two.
Looking southward (railroad westbound), there also is unencumbered room on the west side (photo right) for a relocation. The prominent left-side of the track tri-light signal on the photo RIGHT (for the all the way across bottom track) is where LA&SL signaling and dispatching westward to Los Angeles begins. The track in the far bottom right corner is Metrolink's station track entrance from the LA&SL.
Part D (of A-D)
Scratching Each Other's Back (Continued)
Of course, the opposite design is another possibility, namely, BNSF going over the LA&SL. The below view from Panorama Road looks toward the LA&SL bridge over the 91 Freeway. The BNSF Transcom in the background seems higher in elevation. If the BNSF rose instead, the LA&SL could lower a bit after the overpass to go under the BNSF.
In any event, it should be noted that the BNSF line DESCENDS from the north (above photo left center) to the south. So, whatever line goes over the other, a steep flyover grade could be on the north side, as a westbound would have gravity (from the rear of the train) to push the train up and over the other line.
An alternate area that a flyover could conceivably be built in is Highgrove, between Riverside and Colton. The northward view below (railroad eastbound) shows in the center the current two-track bridge over the I-215 Freeway that is going to have to be replaced for a planned freeway widening project. The bridge could be replaced with a wider, triple-track bridge as well as the conjectured fourth track that would flyover the other three-tracks somewhere in the immediate area. (Toward the photo's top left is that old bridge mentioned in the last photo of Part A, that presently restricts the line's width to only two-tracks.)
All these flyover ideas are obviously TOTALLY conjectural on this forumist's part, but the 'mutual benefit' logic of enhancing either area seems meritorious. If such a theorized flyover is NOT ever built, the BNSF will become increasingly frustrated as more and more trains off or to the Sunset Route block BNSF's ever increasing bread and butter Transcon volumes, unless BNSF trains are contractually superior to UP's Sunset Route trains, which this forum contributor does not believe is the case.
(If the railroads don't mind their tracks being gridlocked, why did they ever consider committing to a share of costs for the over $200 million Colton Crossing Flyover?)
In all this, BNSF has more to lose than UP, as UP has two routes from Colton to Los Angeles, whereas BNSF has only one.
billiothere are yards/terminals remaining to be constructed at Santa Teresa, NM, Red Rock, AZ, and Montclair, CA (if UP's plans don't change).
billio cacole Followup to Marsh Station Road construction: ...In addition to the rerouting of Marsh Station Road and a new interchange, grading is also taking place for the construction of new Union Pacific trackage between Interstate mileposts 189 and 292 (Marsh Station Road and Empirita Road), the two locations where the railroad crosses over and then under I-10. The relocated track will run parallel to I-10 between these two locations only a few hundred feet north of the interstate. This will eliminate the long horseshoe loop south of I-10 and will shorten the traditionally east-bound UP line by approximately 5 miles. The low clearance railroad bridge near Cienega Creek will be removed and the west-bound lanes of I-10 will be moved 50 or so feet north to allow for a median between the lanes where they are now constricted and separated only by a barrier...At the current rate of grading and bridge construction activity, the UP may be able to begin laying track in two months or less. Couple of thoughts: 1) Before it can proceed to eliminate the current restrictive clearances at Marsh Station Road, caused by the low overhead of UP's viaduct, Arizona DOT will first have to construct AND COMPLETE the 3-mile rail segment north of and parallel to I-10. To proceed in any other fashion would close the railroad. So...the railroad trackage should be up and running before too much of the highway work gets done. Checked ADOT's website and discovered that as of two days ago, the entire Marsh Avenue highway interchange and I-10 widening/improvement project is reported to be 10 percent complete. How much of that refers to construction of the new ROW is anybody's guess, because the elements of the project were not broken out for us civilians. But the ROW construction should, by this logic, be given top priority. [snip]
Checked ADOT's website and discovered that as of two days ago, the entire Marsh Avenue highway interchange and I-10 widening/improvement project is reported to be 10 percent complete. How much of that refers to construction of the new ROW is anybody's guess, because the elements of the project were not broken out for us civilians. But the ROW construction should, by this logic, be given top priority. [snip]
Is this the Marsh Station Road that's at Exits 281 and 289 on I-10, about 30 miles SE of Tucson, near the Cienaga Creek Bridge ? See:
http://home.comcast.net/~tucsonntrak/ASWMRR/ASWMRR_Fanning_Home.html
Interesting project . . . Thanks for the updates and info.
K. P. HarrierA Non-Railroad Entity's Problem
I think that BNSF could be 'encouraged' to split the cost of new bridge construction by building in two stages. First, build two longer single track bridges on either side of the existing one and put them into service. Second, demolish the existing bridge and let BNSF pay for a replacement to add one or two new tracks. A similar layout exists where new bridges were built over the congested intersection of Rosecrans and Aviation Blvd in Hawthorne (on the former BNSF Harbor Sub).
Also, the need for the ex-PE bridge over the 91 Fwy could be eliminated by building a connector between the former BNSF San Jacinto branch and the UP Riverside lead at the existing diamond (hopefully new construction hasn't precluded this). The UP could then use BNSF and Metrolink trackage rights to access this minimally used lead.
billio 1) Before it can proceed to eliminate the current restrictive clearances at Marsh Station Road, caused by the low overhead of UP's viaduct, Arizona DOT will first have to construct AND COMPLETE the 3-mile rail segment north of and parallel to I-10. To proceed in any other fashion would close the railroad. So...the railroad trackage should be up and running before too much of the highway work gets done.
Not really. The Sunset Route is double track in this area. The line that crosses over I-10 on the low bridge near Cienega Creek is regarded as Track 2, the original SP line that has traditionally been used for east-bound traffic. Trains can be routed over Track 1, the second main between Vail and Mescal, which is the former El Paso & Southwestern line that has traditionally been for west-bound traffic, and is approximately one mile north of Track 2.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.