kgbw49 (3-25):
It was good to hear about your successful personal observations on the east slope of Beaumont Hill between Banning and Palm Springs, CA. Sometimes there are a lot of trains there, as you saw, and other times none to very little. Interestingly, California seems to be serious about running Indio-Los Angeles commuter trains, but such would be totally incompatible with Beaumont Hill. UP likely would permit such commuter trains if California paid for a third-track. Now, that would make your travels on the east slope of Beaumont Hill even more exciting!
My familiarity with Beaumont Hill and the area you described stretches back decades. Many years ago one magazine had an account of an engineer running eastward down the east slope, in the area that you vehicle traveled, and said the SP speed limit was 25 M.P.H., and if one went one mile per hour over that they would be fired. It is assumed that was true, as trains were much slower back then. Today, the freight speed limit is 40 M.P.H. With two-tracks and with little stopping, it must be a pleasure running downhill on Beaumont Hill.
From your description you seemed to have seen a fleet meeting a fleet on a two-track line. On the single-track from Wellton to Estrella in Arizona UP might focus on fleeting, and run on that single-track one way, and then fleet the other way. The un-activated new signals in the Wellton area suggests the wye switches will be replaced with standard turnouts, thus any further two-tracking in Arizona might be a long way off.
K.P.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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.
CCL
You are correct in saying that CP had a survey through Yellowhead Pass. The Canadian Government made many and extensive surveys west of Winnepeg.
The decision NOT to use Yellowhead was made by James. J. Hill who was an early investor in CPR. See Pierre Berton The Last Spike page 13-20.
Van Horne had nothing to do with it. Hill hired Van Horne on to CPR, and after this if I recall correctly. It is in the same book.
Mac
ADRIAN BALLAM The terminals are a problem as well? I thought it was mainly the lack of double-track or longer sidings east of El Paso, because perhaps the issues are more widespread. I never knew that from the discussions. Where are the specific terminal issues you are referring to (I have feeling West Colton may be one of them) and how would they factor into the longer train equation? Your right about CN being a totally different railroad from UP, but I wasn't really comparing grades between the two in this case. I was more comparing fleet numbers and just surprised that UP has found themselves in this locomotive shortage mess, despite not reading on this until now. CN is facing a similar crisis, but it makes sense for them because they have not had anywhere near as many units as UP ever in their history and have not experienced this level of traffic growth. I guess the more units the better for trains in grade situations, but instead of comparing CN and UP here, why not compare UP and CP? CP's traverses two very steep passes on its transcon in BC and Alberta and they don't use the same number of locomotives on their trains and there is less double-track to accomodate 10,000 foot. They do frequently runs trains of that length through Rogers and Kicking Horse. I don't think Beaumount could compare to Rogers or Kicking Horse.
The terminals are a problem as well? I thought it was mainly the lack of double-track or longer sidings east of El Paso, because perhaps the issues are more widespread. I never knew that from the discussions. Where are the specific terminal issues you are referring to (I have feeling West Colton may be one of them) and how would they factor into the longer train equation?
Your right about CN being a totally different railroad from UP, but I wasn't really comparing grades between the two in this case. I was more comparing fleet numbers and just surprised that UP has found themselves in this locomotive shortage mess, despite not reading on this until now. CN is facing a similar crisis, but it makes sense for them because they have not had anywhere near as many units as UP ever in their history and have not experienced this level of traffic growth.
I guess the more units the better for trains in grade situations, but instead of comparing CN and UP here, why not compare UP and CP? CP's traverses two very steep passes on its transcon in BC and Alberta and they don't use the same number of locomotives on their trains and there is less double-track to accomodate 10,000 foot. They do frequently runs trains of that length through Rogers and Kicking Horse. I don't think Beaumount could compare to Rogers or Kicking Horse.
Adrian,
You are bouncing around more than a fart in a skillet here. I can not cite which UP terminals might be able to build a 10,000 foot train on a single departure track. There might be one or two.
As to problems, they are site specific, but the general problem is that when you double two 5,000 foot cuts together you are almost certainly hanging out on the lead, blocking it. You might even be blocking a main track. How long does it take to make an air test? Did the carmen charge and test both cuts, or does the road job spend an hour or two chaging the train before starting an air test? The only question is how much of a mess these trains create in the terminals.
You claim UP is short of power. Where did you get that? Last I knew they had 400-500 units stored and traffic volume is generally down. You say you were not comparing grades, just "fleet numbers", but you wondered why the UP had so much power on their trains. I told you why, the grades demand it. You can not take CN as a standard, becuase it is blessed with remarkably low grades. The only other road that came close was perhaps the NYC and the GN. The NYC was almost an accident in that regard and J. J. Hill demanded the best grades that could be reasonably be got becuase he knew that the road with the less severe grades could always underprice the competition, or make more money matching the high cost line's rate.
What do you intend to compare in the third paragraph? In the late 20th century the CP invested many hundreds of millions reducing the westbound grades over Kicking Horse and Rogers passes, and Notch Hill to 1%. Why? Because they could cut the power required for any given train in half!
Why westbound? Because their grain, suflur, and coal traffic is all loads west, empties east.
Power is a matter of physics, which does not vary by carrier. The amount of power is driven by ruling grades, speed required over sustained asscent, and the transit time demands of customers. Each of these can vary by route and may yield different horsepower per ton requirements. Simple example, a unit coal train may get 1 HPPT on a given route, a stack train 1.5 HPPT and a hot UPS trailer train 2-3 HPPT.
Beaumont does compare with Rogers or Kicking Horse. Beaumont is not quite as steep as the westward ascents on the CPR, but is equaly steep in both directions with about 3,000 foot rise westward and a fall of about 2,500 feet eastward. Traffic on Beaumont is much closer to being ballanced than on the CP, so heavy trains are being operated in both directions.
You need to study the profiles and understand the traffic before you get into how each carrier powers its trains. There is more going on than meets your eye.
Totally anecdotal but back on February 5, 2018 I got to see a great display of UP railroading on Beaumont Hill on a short trip between Banning and Palm Springs, CA.
Between those two cities, UP had 8 trains running on the double track - 4 in each direction. We hit two - one westbound and then catching and passing one eastbound before it really got rolling downhill - just after pulling out of Highland Springs Avenue and heading east on I-10.
Then, as we came over the crest of Beaumont Hill (actually San Gorgonio Pass), where you can pretty much see all the way to Palm Springs, there were 6 trains visible at one time, all moving, probably running almost on each other's markers. Three coming at us westbound and three more moving eastbound.
It may not have been the same as the multiple sections of the 20th Century Limited back in the 1920s and 1930s, but it was impressive nonethless. Of course, the eastbounds coming down the east slope of Beaumont pass really were moving. The westbounds heading up grade were steady but much slower - clearly needing all that horsepower both on the front end and in several cases the DPUs pushing on the rear.
It was impressive!
CN transcon goes through Yellowhead pass (think thats the name) which is the lowest easy grade in Canada. Trains had an article a while back showing all of the grades in US and Canada. Van Horne's original route for his CP was through Yellowhead however this was rejected by the government. Ottawa was worried that if the line was built through Yellowhead the southern areas might leave the dominion and join the US. Thus CP was forced to build near the 49th parallel through the inferior Kicking Horse and Rogers pass.
ADRIAN BALLAM Additionally, UP runs many locomotives on their trains along the Sunset Route. Most have a minimum of 3 or 4. Here's an idea: why don't they reduce the number of locomotives on their trains and/or increase the length of their trains, combine them like CN does. Very few, if any, trains on the Sunset Route exceed 10,000 feet and while there may be constraints on making the trains that long each of El Paso, it is not impossible west of the city since apparently 83% of the line is double-tracked. Even that being said, if the sidings are so short on the lines east from El Paso to Kansas City, Dallas and Houston, they could still run a couple of trains and continue have the others at shorter lengths. In fact, UP does this on the line to Kansas City as I have seen videos of manifests exceeding 150 cars (close to 10,000 feet).
Additionally, UP runs many locomotives on their trains along the Sunset Route. Most have a minimum of 3 or 4. Here's an idea: why don't they reduce the number of locomotives on their trains and/or increase the length of their trains, combine them like CN does. Very few, if any, trains on the Sunset Route exceed 10,000 feet and while there may be constraints on making the trains that long each of El Paso, it is not impossible west of the city since apparently 83% of the line is double-tracked. Even that being said, if the sidings are so short on the lines east from El Paso to Kansas City, Dallas and Houston, they could still run a couple of trains and continue have the others at shorter lengths. In fact, UP does this on the line to Kansas City as I have seen videos of manifests exceeding 150 cars (close to 10,000 feet).
First, 10,000 foot trains are hell to get into and out of terminals not designed for them, and most are not.
Second, the Sunset Route is almost all on a grade, often exceeding 1%. UP needs power for reasonable speed on these grades and for Beaumont Hill between Colton and Yuma which is 1.7 and 1.8% average in some miles. It as a very different railroad from CN, and CN is the exception in that it has such gentle grades that it can run long trains. Whether or not that is a good idea in terms of service quality is a serious question.
This response here makes me laugh (not that I don't believe that is true). Watching trains very frequently in British Columbia, CP runs many trains (potash, grain, intermodal, manifest) these days with Union Pacific units, which I believe were bought by CP yet I am not 100% sure since they haven't been repainted nor the UP name and symbol been rubbed off like CN had done when they bought second-hand from UP, BNSF and most recently, CSXT. Yet, according to the above, UP has a locomotive shortage? This is ridiculous.
I understand why CN has locomotive shortages right now because they never purchase units to the extent of UP or BNSF. Very few CN units are in storage now and they are so desparate for them, they need to lease more units to accomodate significant traffic growth and severe congestion. It boggles my mind UP is in this position now. Very surprising and sadly, laughable.
K. P. Harrier So, IF BNSF is taking units out of storage and returning them to service, is UP likewise returning their power by Marsh Station Road in Arizona back to service also? Does anyone out that way know?
So, IF BNSF is taking units out of storage and returning them to service, is UP likewise returning their power by Marsh Station Road in Arizona back to service also? Does anyone out that way know?
Well, I don't know if UP is resorting to taking some of those locomotives out of storage in Arizona, but with UP's congestion issues of late the railroad has been very strapped for locomotives on the far eastern part of their system (Texas and Louisiana) at the very least.
In Houston, I believe UP has pulled nearly every locomotive they have out of storage. Lots of SD60's and SD60M's running around, as well as some of the few remaining C40-8's, C40-8W's, C41-8W's. They've also been using a number of other railroad's locomotives as well. They've even gone to the point of stopping inbound trains in sidings outside of Houston and then running the power light into town to try and get trains out. It's a mess. But who knows, may they'll need some of those Arizona locomotives at point.
I want to say sometime in the last week there was a press release or something along those lines where a UP guy was quoted saying that UP was taking a couple hundred locomotives out of storage. Of course, I'd imagine they'd start by re-activating the easy ones to get to (ie, the ones stored in yards).
ChrisHouston, TX
Must apologize to everyone for going into a discussion of freeways and Quebec language laws. Got a little off the blog subject and will be back on it in the future. Hope that UP will soon resume filling the remaining gaps in the Sunset route soon.
K.P. was in the San Gabriel Trench area, most closely associated with San Gabriel, CA, on Sunday, March 18, 2018 and files this situation update:
The east end looking west from Walnut Grove Ave., with a low wall in construction with I-beams on right.:
The sidewalks on the new bridging over the trench at San Gabriel Blvd. seem to be in place now.
The west end from Ramona Street looking westbound:
It had been thought that things would be winding down there by now, but much construction is yet ahead, particularly on the western end of the trench, apparently because the multilayered side wall construction consumes much time in the construction process.
While the lack of two-tracking is probably because of the railroads’ focus on completing the installation of Positive Train Control, things seem to be getting better with the economy. In Arizona between Tucson and Benson, by the I-10 Freeway and Marsh Station Road, the now unused old Main 2 dead-end track had (“had”) reportedly somewhere around 200 engines stored on it.
View from March 31, 2016
In that light, K.P. while in the vicinity of the San Gabriel Trench also checked out the non-UP very small “Keller Yard” facility just south of Caesar Chavez Blvd. in the downtown Los Angeles area, with some of the commuter agency Metrolink’s sleek new F125 idled locomotives there, AND in the past red and silver BNSF store power in it similar to UP’s store power by Marsh Station Road in Arizona. The following link shows those BNSF stored units a number of months ago:
http://railpictures.net/photo/616037/
This was the situation at Keller Yard just a few days ago, with all the BNSF red and silver power gone.
If the economy gets too prosperous, will UP be tempted (“tempted”) to resume two-tracking, at least for short distances, maybe for a ten mile stretch? That is unlikely, but I guess that one should never say never. If two-tracking did happen, though, it would seem a Sunset Route stretch between Houston and San Antonio would be started before anything in Arizona, but time will tell
We should not, I suppose, be influenced by BNSF’s present triple-tracking west of Belen, NM and think UP might add another track somewhere, like in Arizona. That is possible, but the situation in New Mexico is very, very different than in Arizona. Eastbound BNSF trains approaching the crew change tracks in Belen often all back up, thus westbound trains out of Belen can’t get around a slower train. A third track there would alleviate that problem. The UP crew change place in Yuma, AZ on the Sunset Route has no near the volume of trains that the BNSF Transcon has. Plus, Yuma and Arizona may (“may”) have political complications with additional UP two-tracking.
This will end the posting.
Did a quick check on Google and found that the streetview of the Marsh Station area shows the stored locomotives.
Electroliner 1935-- That experience you relate is long before the draconium language laws came in.
Thankfully as bad as it is you would still be somewhat OK in Montreal but that's due to the folks, not government policy however once outside of that forget it.
Perhaps it is somewhat OK along the US border towns in the Southern Counties. Maybe.
I have been to the Quebec area three times and dispite speaking zero french, had welcome experiences with the people. My first visit was at Expo 67 and on our last day, my two year old daughter came down with Chicken Pox. We had parked on a residential street near the end of their Subway and my wife decided to separate and let my son and I stay at Expo while she returned to the trailer. When she got to where she thought the car was, she couldn't find it. There was a Branch of a Bank at the end of the street which had closed. But she was able to get their attention, they opened up and let her in, called the gendarmes who then drove her up the streets until they found our car. All were very friendly and helpful. What could have been a terrible experience turned out to be great. They wanted visiters to be treated well and their citizens sure rose to the occasion.
Two types of subway. French rubber tired and regular steel wheeled. Michelin made out on selling tires. Liked both.
A few years ago Quebec wanted to leave Canada and be their own country. They wanted independance but wanted Ottawa to continue the subsidies. Financial annalysts said Quebec could not make it on their own unless they doubled or triple their taxes. In northern Quebec most of the residents are not French and were against leaving.
I also noted that in the maratime provinces on the east coast have very few French signs.
Getting back to railroads part of the reason for Canadian Pacific moved their corporate office from Montrael to Calgary was the potential Quebec problem. This might have contributed CP selling their lines east of Montrael although I think the main reason was lack of profitable traffic.
Ahhh..I see. Quebecs language and signage laws are draconian, and English is banned from sign usage. They have police enforcing this.
It's to protect their culture, no one in Ottawa would even dare touch that.
c'est la vie
In my prior life before retirement I saw Yum Brands all over the world. Yes, they are doing well. What I was referring to was the desecration foisted on KFC by the citizens of Quebec. No where else does this happen. Even in China it says KFC not some hyroglific.
ccltrains Been to all parts of Canada. Canada is a bilingual country and all signs, forme etc. are in English and French. I think there are about two French speaking people in British Columbia but everythung is bilingual. Then you get to Quebec and the English disappears. So much for the bilingual country. How about some Kentucky Poulet Frits? Bet Colonial Sanders is turning over in his grave.
Been to all parts of Canada. Canada is a bilingual country and all signs, forme etc. are in English and French. I think there are about two French speaking people in British Columbia but everythung is bilingual. Then you get to Quebec and the English disappears. So much for the bilingual country. How about some Kentucky Poulet Frits? Bet Colonial Sanders is turning over in his grave.
Not at all, Yum brands has a huge worldwide presence and KFC is very popular in China and just about everywhere else. The cash registers are ringing with glee, not turning over in the grave. Smiling.
Worst on ramp experience I ever had was in 1967 in Montreal. I had a 65 ford and was pulling a rented trailer to go to Expo 67. Coming up a ramp onto what I think is the 640, the ramp ended in a rectangular area just lomg enough to contain the auto and the trailer. Tnere was no way to merge so I had to sit and wait (feeling some guilt for the poor souls behind me) until a gap appeared that I felt was long enough for me to accelerate into. I think it was about five minutes before I was able to get into the stream of traffic. I was sweating because with a rented trailer, and the family, the last thing I wanted was to have an accident in Canada and in Quebec. All Street signs were in French. Back then there was no GPS. Got to the camp ground and felt a big weight off my shoulders. If it was just a car, it might have been ok to swing into traffic but pulling a trailer, I couldn't chance it.
Chuck- I stand corrected. I-5 is two lanes. Guess my feeble mind is failing me. After all I have been away from southern California for 40 years. Texas is slowly getting rid of the 100 foot on ramps but a few still exist. Nothing is more scary than using one of the short onramps and finding someone stopped at the end waiting for a break in traffic.
On to the general subject of this Blog. The Sunset route is a few miles south of Dallas (San Antonio) but we do have the Texas Eagle. Also have a great commuter line between Dallas and Fort Worth, the Trinity Railway Express (TRE). Rode in the cab many times as I was on the Board of DART and their rep for the TRE. DART has a great light rail system with one line being the longest in the US. Not as many trains here as in Chicago or New York but my pay check was here and had to do with what we have.
ChuckCobleighSome of those "Don Garlitts" onramps seemed to still be in use,
Of course, all three lanes carried traffic.
This was really a problem in the elevated section where you had to run uphill to gather speed to merge and couldn't see the oncoming traffic.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
ccltrainsWhile residing in Bakersfield saw the building of I-5 with four lanes each way. Same over the grapevine.
Had to refresh my memory using Google Earth, but I-5 from the split just north of the Grapevine to Stockton seems still to be mostly two lanes in each direction. I had to use G-E for the most of the refreshing because my last few years of travel up the Valley has been on the 99 north from Bakersfield, which route has been seeing a lot of construction this decade, including some realignments and relocations of the route, such that it now has a lot of three- and four-lane segments in both directions. As I recall, some of I-5 between Sacramento and Stockton is still two lanes in each direction.
It seems that most of the freeways in the DFW area had construction going on last summer when we were there a few days. It seemed like the concrete suppliers were doing pretty well, financially anyway. Some of those "Don Garlitts" onramps seemed to still be in use, though, at least in Fort Worth. (BTW, my Garmin GPS did a good job of steering me away from the toll roads, but some of the routings were pretty bizarre.)
K.P.,
Hope you are well. Thank you for the picture updates.
Oh the freeways. We lived in southern California from 1966 through 1978 then moved to Texas. My what cultural shock. California was making all freeways 4 lanes each way even then. While residing in Bakersfield saw the building of I-5 with four lanes each way. Same over the grapevine. In Texas they were still building 2 lane freeways with acceleration ramps only 100 feet long. Almost caused cardiac arrest getting on. TXDOT finally wised up and is rebuilding I-35 but only with 3 lanes each way. The road will be obsolete before it opens. When we got to Texas they still had blue laws. For example on Sunday you could buy nails but not a hammer. Guess you had to use your fist to drive the nail. Fortunately the blue laws are almost gone. You still cannot buy hard liquor on Sunday. Being retired Sunday is the same as Thursday. The only way I know it is Sunday is that the liquor stores are closed.
eolesen and desertdog (Both 3-13):
Great reading a reply from you, eolesen, about Arizona from your ‘cold country’ in Illinois, and desertdog it is likewise good to get your input too on Fred M. Cain’s posts.
Undoubtedly the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the Arizona Department of Transportation (AZDOT) are on very similar wavelengths, and likely have much the same policies and methods. The same is true with municipalities and county boards. In regard to the Colton Flyover that replaced the Colton Crossing, the Environment Impact Report (EIR) looked at SIX options, one of which included leaving the Colton Crossing as it was, the ‘No Build’ option.
The powers that be selected the least costly option, which was the Sunset Route ‘flying over’ the BNSF Transcon.
November 25, 2013
Personally, I originally favored the Sunset Route going under the BNSF, but the EIR showed that option as way more expensive. Ultimately, as stated above, the Sunset Route flying over the BNSF was chosen as most cost effective and least costly.
Getting back to Arizona and the reroute by Marsh Station Road, undoubtedly AZDOT, or whoever, looked at the options and what would be best for Arizona’s taxpayers, and chose building a new UP track as the best and / or most cost effective plan of a number of possibilities.
June 3, 2013
One thing very important about Arizona’s choice of the UP reroute in lieu of lowering the I-10 Freeway is that removing the railroad bridge would allow for future widening of the freeway. As with Interstates, two lanes each way are sufficient in most cases. But, there is always the possibility that a housing boom could take place somewhere in the Marsh Station Road area, and 20,000 houses would suddenly appear! (I saw something similar where I once lived over 40 years ago here in Southern California!) With the UP railroad completely out of the way, a third freeway lane could easily be put in in each direction.
And freeways get more traffic. About 1965 the highway across from what is now West Colton Yard in the Rialto-Bloomington area of California was two-lanes in each direction. As a teenager I got to travel that highway at the ungodly hour of 5 A.M. in the morning, and the freeway was absolutely deserted. Not for a minute, but for many minutes. What an impression that made on me! Now, on that same stretch at 5 A.M., the now four lanes on each side on the freeway is jammed packed with commuters and speeding like crazy. Might the Marsh Station Road area of Arizona become like that someday?
Just something to ponder,
Fred M Cain K. P. Harrier I doubt the ‘horseshoe curve’ had anything to do with inspiring the reroute in the Cienega Creek area of Arizona. What did, though, was the LOW railroad bridge over the I-10 Freeway in the old (not the new) Marsh Station Road area, that caused high trucks to detour for miles and miles. THAT was the inspiration for the reroute. K.P. I dunno. Somehow I can't help feel that this can't be the complete explanation for the bypass. After all, most trucks had no problem negotiating the underpass and for the few that did, it would seem like an easy fix to simply lower the roadbed of the highway by a couple of feet. Since it was a divided highway, one side could've been done at a time. So, I agree that it is a partial explanation but I'm not sure it is the complete story. I first read about this a few years ago in Railroads Illustrated back when it was still a monthly publication and I thought they mentioned the curve. It would be interesting to hear the UP's explanation for why they did this. By the way, it really was quite a curve. I rode over the line for the first time in December of 1965 when we rode from Tucson to Houston and back. Regards, Fred M. Cain
K. P. Harrier I doubt the ‘horseshoe curve’ had anything to do with inspiring the reroute in the Cienega Creek area of Arizona. What did, though, was the LOW railroad bridge over the I-10 Freeway in the old (not the new) Marsh Station Road area, that caused high trucks to detour for miles and miles. THAT was the inspiration for the reroute. K.P.
I doubt the ‘horseshoe curve’ had anything to do with inspiring the reroute in the Cienega Creek area of Arizona. What did, though, was the LOW railroad bridge over the I-10 Freeway in the old (not the new) Marsh Station Road area, that caused high trucks to detour for miles and miles. THAT was the inspiration for the reroute.
I dunno. Somehow I can't help feel that this can't be the complete explanation for the bypass. After all, most trucks had no problem negotiating the underpass and for the few that did, it would seem like an easy fix to simply lower the roadbed of the highway by a couple of feet. Since it was a divided highway, one side could've been done at a time.
So, I agree that it is a partial explanation but I'm not sure it is the complete story. I first read about this a few years ago in Railroads Illustrated back when it was still a monthly publication and I thought they mentioned the curve. It would be interesting to hear the UP's explanation for why they did this.
By the way, it really was quite a curve. I rode over the line for the first time in December of 1965 when we rode from Tucson to Houston and back.
Regards,
Fred M. Cain
I'm sure ADOT looked at the option of lowering the highway, but there may have been drainage considerations. Although rain is sparse most of the year in that area, when it rains, it comes all at once.
John Timm
Hi guys... I love it when we talk Tucson.... especially on a freezing day in Chicago. ;) KP's right that the removal of the Marsh Station Road bridge was predicated on the low clearances, but it was also part of a much larger project involving that two mile stretch of road and the Cienega Creek bridges. This was a project that ADOT funded and was completed in 2014. The UP bridge over I-10 was demolished in March 2013.https://azdot.gov/docs/projects/i-10-marsh-station-area-improvement-fact-sheet.pdf?sfvrsn=0
From the 2011 AZ State Rail Plan:
"Marsh Station Project (ADOT): The Marsh Station project will include a realignment of the UPRR Sunset Route, which traverses an I-10 overpass, and the realignment of Marsh Station Road. The existing railroad overpass on I-10 does not have adequate clearance, resulting in frequent truck accidents that can shut down train traffic during an incident. The realignment of the UPRR line would allow removal of the overpass and increase speed along the rail line. The realigned Marsh Station Road will need to cross over the railroad line in order to interchange with I-10 east of the existing location. A grade-separated railroad crossing will be constructed on the new Marsh Station Road."
M.P. 947,
Thanks !
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.