Replies
BarstowRick (8-19):
This is just a little away from your informative post …
I don’t know if you know it or not, but when you copy part or all of someone else’s post, above your composition / editing screen is a link type word, “Quote.” Pressing that button inserts what they said (their post) into your text, and by reason of being boxed, it is easy to distinguish what they said and what you say. But, you have to “Reply” from their post that you want to quote.
About whoever doesn’t want change in Victorville (CA) … I think they are fast becoming outnumbered, and the MAJORITY want through roads to unscramble the massive log jammed, parking lot type throughways.
ccltrains (8-19):
Railroad managements are caught between a rock and a hard place. In the case of UP’s top management, they probably would love to two-track the Sunset Route as quickly as possible, and a few other places too, but pressure from stockholders that have other ideas may tug at them. Striking a happy balance takes skill, and nerves of steel!
SP657E44 (8-19):
You commented: “Metro[link]/UP don't need their own [additional] mainline when there are three [mainlines] available [already].”
I both agree and disagree agree with that. The three-track track layout has two weak points, one at Highhrove and the other at West Riverside. BNSF’s CP WEST COLTON could be considered a weak point also. A single train can tie up all mains! It is unknown what effect adding, I think, 8 additional commuter trains in the segment will have. But, I envision problems, and unless those problems are addressed, BNSF trains will be slowed.
In a many, many hours dispatch that K.P. was involved in yesterday, Friday, August 22, 2014, during a few hours of free time, BNSF CP PRADO DAM (M.P. 29.4) in the Corona area was photographed and studied at length. You may be very surprised at what is there, and what isn’t. Myself, I just couldn’t believe it!
It is hoped to touch briefly on the CP in an upcoming post concerning the Colton-Riverside stretch under discussion, as well as elaborating more on it in another thread.
eolensen (8-19):
You posted an exceptional post contribution. As outsiders we are dealing with the unknown. But what you conjectured sure made sense, herein quoted below:
eolesen I think UP's approach makes sense when you take it up a level from just the Sunset Route. Let's say they did a blitz and finished the double tracking by the end of 2015. The goal I've heard is to be up to 70 trains a day thru TUS, but the harsher reality is that UP doesn't have the yard space or the crews & equipment to handle that type of volume. The eastbound yard in Red Rock is still 24-48 months away from being operational. It wouldn't surprise me to see it going into operation about the same time they finish the double tracking.
I think UP's approach makes sense when you take it up a level from just the Sunset Route.
Let's say they did a blitz and finished the double tracking by the end of 2015. The goal I've heard is to be up to 70 trains a day thru TUS, but the harsher reality is that UP doesn't have the yard space or the crews & equipment to handle that type of volume. The eastbound yard in Red Rock is still 24-48 months away from being operational. It wouldn't surprise me to see it going into operation about the same time they finish the double tracking.
Pete-M3 (8-22):
West of Glamis, CA there is loosely about 10 miles of grading. Clyde Acolita somewhat recently posted that between Iris and somewhere east of there UP was trying to two-track this year. But, that area is almost inaccessible, so it is difficult to know what the situation actually is out that way. When I traveled through Arizona in June I saw no two-tracking of the Sunset Route in that State.
Focus Threads
A few have rightfully pointed out that this thread has gotten off track a bit. Occasionally, bringing in other related material broadens the forum’s perspective, IF those other things don’t become a focus in themselves. Hence, an effort is being made to bring up those matters in the threads they should be properly discussed in.
Nevertheless, a few loose ends remain, and some replies will be finished in this thread, and any that wish to discuss them further links will be provided TO those other threads
Enjoy the forum and the exchanging of focused ideas,
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.
KP
I stand corrected and well advised.
RickH
BarstowRick.com Model Railroading How To's
I agree with your assessment of CP West Colton but until a second bridge over the Santa Ana river is built it will be a bottleneck. A good DS can take care of Highgrove to West Rivercide without delaying either RR.
Waiting to see if you noticed all the things in the vicinity of Prado ...
A10
A Reply
SP657E44 (8-24):
You say UNTIL a second BNSF Bridge is built over the Santa Ana River (in the Colton, CA area) things will be a bottleneck. I think you meant a THIRD bridge, as there are already two bridges there! (Below photo, lower left)
I lived in the Inland Empire in 1976 when the single-track ATSF B-5 Bridge had a second bridge added alongside it, but the appearance of it was incredibly deceptive, giving one the impression there was two-tracks over one two-track bridge. I was fooled for years.
The present Main 1 bridge is a mix of old and new spans, so BNSF may be just band-aiding it until something replaces all of it. The next time I’m out that way I’ll try to get photos of the different spans, but getting those photos might be challenging.
My gut tells me someday BNSF will build a three or four track concrete B-5 Bridge like it did west of Prado Dam.
As a side note, that bridged river west of Prado Dam is the same Santa Ana River that goes under the B-5 Bridge in Colton.
About BNSF’s CP PRADO DAM, some photos were posted in the “Cajon Pass Triple-Tracking Updates” thread. After linking below, scroll down to posts for August 24, 2014.
LINK: http://cs.trains.com/trn/f/111/t/102777.aspx?sort=ASC&pi332=35
While in the CP PRADP DAM area, I noticed a lot of freeway construction. Is that what you were referring to that was in the Prado Dam area?
In the last photo above, that surprising, unbelievable thing mentioned in the last reply to you is partially seen in the far background. As diagramed in the above linked ‘Cajon Pass’ thread, the signal bridge for three tracks is positioned so a crossover cannot be put in for a third track. Likely, then, it is only temporary (that is proving to be years and years in place). A little bit more information and diagrams are in the above link.
As far as the BNSF Highgrove to West Riverside triple-track section (that Sunset Route trains use as an alternate route) being free flowing, it is not quite as free flowing as you might think. I see trains being blocked all the time. The trains that blocked them are rather quick to pass, though, so blocked trains soon get moving again. There are so many trains even Metrolink’s get blocked and patiently wait their turn!
Continued …
Reply to SP657E44 Continued …
About the new LA&SL bridge over the 91 Freeway in Riverside …
Let me share a tidbit with you … A few months ago a construction worker that was flagging vehicle equipment in and out of the construction area by Panorama Rd. came over to me and volunteered that in a couple of years a second LA&SL bridge would be put in over the 91 Freeway! It was uncertain how truthful and knowledgeable he was, so I didn’t pass it along to the forum. I don’t think UP has a need for a second bridge, but taxpayer funded Metrolink may pay for chipping all the rock away for a second-track just a half a mile away to the west through the Pachappa Cut area.
That might explain why the LA&SL signals have NOT been completely upgraded in the area. Or, it could be just a coincidence. But, again, I am not sure if I should believe the source or not.
Best,
An indicator will be if they build a wall(ing) where the old abutments are or not. Yes concrete is easy to remove and replace but ...
No, the freeway widening isn't it (at least at this location, more east though .... signal bridges are easy to move as well - when the time comes.
K. P. HarrierI don’t think UP has a need for a second bridge, but taxpayer funded Metrolink may pay for chipping all the rock away for a second-track just a half a mile away to the west through the Pachappa Cut area.
If anyone works on that cut I hope that the homeowners at the top of the hill are warned.
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! ***
Tuesday First, Monday Second
Tuesday …
Overnighting deep in Riverside County, CA on assignment, by 3:00 A.M. K.P. was on the road to Los Angeles, and by 5:30 A.M. everything was completed. He thus afterwards checked out the Sunset Route San Gabriel Trench construction (very near Los Angeles), and found the long shoofly was well along. That mysterious creek on aerials between San Gabriel Blvd. and Walnut Grove Ave. was found to be a deep, concrete lined flood control waterway and NOT just a mere small creek. THAT flood control area will need a radical treatment of some sort to allow a railroad TRENCH to go OVER it! As viewed from the south side, the waterway has what looks like a building going over it (note the top vertical blue stripes), thus blocking a view of where the channel goes under the tracks.
But, the railroad trench construction is now extending A FEW BLOCKS south (towards the camera, above) of the Sunset Route track, involving that waterway! Above, note the construction worker and new dirt, slanted embankment on the lower photo right.
It may take several days to make up a complete San Gabriel Trench report presentation for posting.
Monday …
On the way to Riverside County the day before, the Hunts Lane (M.P. 541.1) overpass construction site (on the north-south borderline between Colton and San Bernardino) was stopped at. There is much left to do, but stunning advances have been made on the construction since the last visit.
Above, the Sunset Route goes through the dark opening in the photo center.
Up until 1976 the Sunset Route through here consisted of a south side Main, and a north side siding, split in the middle by CP SP542 LOMA LINDA. In 1976 this area was two-tracks by Southern Pacific. Hunts Lane in those days just had wigwags protecting the grade crossing. Many a motorist here was blocked by trains stopped to have helpers put on (or taken off), which was a lengthy process, especially since those helpers customarily involved mid-train ones.
This will end this update for now.
That white and blue building is the former Huy Fong Foods Inc facility where Sriracha was made prior to their move to Azusa and it does indeed extend over the flood control channel. For a chuckle, look at the end of Santa Fe Ave on the north side of the building on Google Earth.
At least he was awake .. :)
Google Map Link
KP well it is now happening in Texas. A short 6 mile segment set to be double tracked just west of Houston.in the Sugar land area. Wonder if this a indication of things to come ? Yes well east of your posts.
http://www.progressiverailroading.com/union_pacific/news/UP-launches-doubletrack-project-in-Texas-trackwork-project-in-Kansas--41651
Update as of Tuesday, August 26, 2014
The San Gabriel Trench
San Gabriel, CA
Part “A” (of A-F)
The long shoofly has been basically laid from west to east, though still unconnected at each end.
Looking west from Ramona St.:
Above, the shoofly track angles off a bit by the not in service yet mast signal.
The north side crossing gates at Ramona St. are up and operational, but difficult to see for vehicles coming eastward towards the camera and desiring to make a right turn and cross the tracks.
Maybe the grade crossing is obvious when the flashers are on, but this RAILFAN had difficulty noticing them when he made that turn. If a railfan DIDN’T notice them, it is questionable whether a non-rail oriented person would!
Looking east:
That burial stand is still a mystery.
The Mission Rd grade crossing just to the east was not stopped at due to its close proximity to Ramona St..
Continued in Part B
Part “B” (of A-F)
At Del Mar Ave., looking westbound:
A track machine was sitting idle to the west.
Looking east from Del Mar Ave.:
The Del Mar Ave. grade crossing, looking south:
Above, note the future crossing game base between the tracks on the right.
Continued in Part C
Part “C” (of A-F)
The shoofly approaches San Gabriel Blvd from the west.
The shoofly becomes un-ballasted and warpish at the new bridge that goes over a flood control channel.
Continued in Part D
Part “D” (of A-F)
Another eastward view: There is NO grading east of that new bridge, so it is unclear if the shoofly will reattach to the mainline in that bridge area, or change sides.
Back at San Gabriel Blvd., where the above photo was shot from, traffic is still extremely heavy, as the four lane roadway is still down to only two-lanes
The shoofly eastward is heavily ballasted, but still needs much more ballast as a kind of landfill for the track.
K.P. leaves San Gabriel Blvd. and heads over to Walnut Grove Ave., but sees something that stops him for an investigation!
Continued in Part E
Part “E” (of A-F)
K.P. takes the east-west Grand Ave. east, but sees that creek which is found not to be a creek, but a concrete lined flood control channel.
It is have much excavation by it, almost as if the flood control channel will be relocated or somehow modified.
Continued in Part F
Part “F” (of A-F)
From Walnut Grove Ave., that shoofly angles over the new flood control bridge and stops, on what looks like a hot top paved pad for it!
Walnut Grove Ave. is by the present high and wide detector that will be replaced by a similar structure to the east.
Above, as can be seen, NO shoofly track has been laid here, so it is un-discernible what is in store for the future shoofly-wise, or even if there will be one here.
Looking eastbound:
A shoofly in theory could be laid on the right (above photo). Reports indicate the track will be lowered 4 feet through here, at Walnut Grove Ave., so exactly how that will be accomplished is still unclear.
Things are become more exciting now construction-wise. K.P. hopes to return to the area now for an update report at least once a month.
While artist’s conceptions of the trench show only a single-track laid in it, since rail and ties will be present for two-tracks, maybe the trench will end up with two-tracks in it. That would solve a lot of dismantling of the CWR track problem! But, where to put it during the transition time may be more of a headache than it is worth …The exciting drama continues …
This will conclude the series.
-------
On Wednesday, August 27, 2014 K.P. was by the BNSF and Barton Rd. in the Grand Terrace, CA area, and got a few photos of the I-215 bridging preparation. One could not see much, but an additional section of track has shown up. A presentation is pending.
There has been some historic questioning about BNSF’s B-5 Bridge over the Santa Ana River in Colton. Some photos of that bridge were also taken.
The rendering here appears to show two tracks in the trench.
http://sangabrielcity.com/index.aspx?NID=795
http://www.theaceproject.org/san_gabriel_trench.php
Hi K.P., thank you for the great photo updates spanning SoCal! Two points of note (well one question) from me:1. Amazing progress made on Hunts Lane overpass, although yes there is still lots of work to be done. Hunts Lane has been on the SANBAG website for years now and has been "lapped" by so many grade separations in the area.2. When all is "said and done" with regards to the UP Los Angeles Sub (old LA&SL) in the City of Industry, do you expect there to be another Metrolink platform added? The best laid plans of "directional running" are hampered by Metrolink having to travel on the current northerly main track just to serve the City of Industry station.A similar, although more serious, situation currently exists at the Van Nuys Amtrak/Metrolink station, where way more passenger trains have to "fight" for the one long platform.
EDIT: Here is an article saying that the Sunset Avenue grade separation in Banning is "ahead of schedule and on budget":
http://www.recordgazette.net/community/article_eda842d2-2977-11e4-9c30-001a4bcf887a.html
Update as of Wednesday, August 27, 2014
The I-215 Bridging by Grand Terrace, CA
As seen southward from Barton Rd.:
Across from the new trusses (left) is the under construction supports and abutments for a third truss bridge plus the relocation of the new ones on the left.
In both the above and below views, across from the left trusses is where the I-215 Freeways passes in a cut. It is difficult to make out at this angle exactly where the abutments will be, but vertical rebar is barely seen in that area.
On this BNSF trackage (that the alternate Sunset Route uses via Riverside and the LA&SL) an eastbound UP approaches. It will take the Mt. Vernon Connector route to the Sunset Route in Colton, change crew, and head to Arizona and New Mexico, and who knows where.
An inordinate amount of Sunset Route trains seem (“seem”) to be traversing the LA&SL these days instead of the Colton Flyover.
----------
Some replies are pending.
Replies:
MikeF90 (8-26):
Metrolink on the Riverside Line (over the alternate Sunset Route, the LA&SL) as well as the rest of their system may not be as broke as you think! Just look at the nearly quarter of a billion bucks they are spending on the Perris Valley Line (Riverside-Perris), which in essence will be an extension of the 91-Line (Los Angeles-Riverside over the BNSF).
The thing about Metrolink is that it is federally funded, with additional contributions from the State and involved cities. Thus, it is NOT going broke. The City of San Bernardino is in bankruptcy (literally), so the reduction in service on the San Bernardino Line likely is related to that
As far as the cut through the Pachappa Hill area on the LA&SL in Riverside, cities love to get federal funds and grants into their cities. A $100 million grant, for example, through a banking recirculating system, can become $200 million or $300 million. What city wouldn’t want that type of money floating around in their city? UP has no need to cut through Pachappa Hill, but if Metrolink wants to insure speedy service and expand the Riverside Line’s capacity by modifying Pachappa Cut, and PAY FOR IT, surely UP would welcome it.
blue streak 1 (8-28): The Missouri’s Have It
A most intriguing two-tracking development west of Houston, TX! Since that is on the Sunset Route, that most certainly qualifies for insertion into this thread.
In reviewing aerials it appears the six additional miles of two-tracks (between Sugar Land and Stafford / Missouri City) will be an extension westward of the present two-tracks out of Houston.
It is unknown if commuter interests are funding this, or UP just wants to make its system more free-flowing in the Houston area, but that is a noteworthy development. If you, blue streak 1, or anyone else, hears anything further on this, please let us know.
Aerials of the news area, west to east:
LINK: Sugar Land Area West End of Siding
LINK: Sugar Land Area East End of Siding
Between the above two linked areas on the west and the below two linked areas below apparently is the area of the two-tracking in the Houston area.
LINK: West End of Two-Tracks in Stafford Area
LINK: Nearby (to Above Link) Universal Crossover to the East
Interestingly, Missouri City is involved, a city on the Sunset Route in Texas. Missouri Jct., IA, on the Central Corridor, also is related to two-tracking out that way. Two different two-tracking efforts each with a Missouri named location … Quite a coincidence!
mvs (8-29):
No, I do NOT expect another Metrolink platform to be “added” (as with a second, additional one) at the City of Industry stop by Brea Canyon Rd.
What I do expect is a third track to be put in, necessitating a new bridge being put up over Brea Canyon Rd., where there are already supports for such.
That would necessitate tearing out the current platform and cement-laying another. Such would benefit UP because then their trains could pass without worry of striking a waiting passenger. They could also use that third-track at non-commuter hours, like late at night and the wee hours of the morning.
Metrolink has something like that at its Pedley stop by Mission Blvd. and Limonite Ave.
For all practical purposes two-tracks from the west currently ends at LA&SL CP C049 PEDLEY (M.P. 48.8). But two-tracks continues east 1.1 miles to CP C050 (M.P. 49.9) for the Metrolink stop, which stop is only passenger accessible from Main 1, with a fence separating Main 1 from Main 2.
Reply to mvs continued …
Reply to mvs Continued …
We are approaching an interesting time because the Clay Street underpass will get finished in the western part of Riverside, and two-tracks could (“could”) be extended to the Santa Ana River Viaduct. That viaduct will probably remain single-track, but just to its east two-tracks resumes eastward (at CP C053 ARLINGTON / M.P. 52.6) to CP C055 STREETER (M.P. 55.5), where perhaps 1000 feet east of there Pachappa Cut begins. That cut may be (“may be”) a place to watch in the next three to five years …
Getting back to your original question about an extra Metrolink station track being put in at the City of Industry stop, it would seem Pomona would be more appropriate than Industry for a side track for the laying over of commuter trains.
BNSF on its Riverside to Los Angeles line allowed overhead bridges and platforms on each side of their two-main, such as the La Sierra stop in the far southwest end of Riverside.
BNSF and UP seem to have very different perspectives on boarding and alighting, as is discerned in comparing the BNSF La Sierra station stop above with to the UP station stop at Industry and elsewhere, but that is both railroads’ prerogatives. Of course, density of commuter trains may have been a factor in designing those stops.
About the Sunset Ave. grade separation in Banning, that was quite a news clipping update. It sounds like those interested in getting photos of the construction can’t. Oh, well. It will be open soon enough …
Continued next with “Thoughts on BNSF’s B-5 Bridge in Colton, CA”
Thoughts on BNSF’s B-5 Bridge in Colton, CA
BNSF’s B-5 Bridge crossing of the Santa Ana River in the southern part of Colton was recently brought up here at the forum. For years and years that B-5 plate girder bridge extended all the way across the river width. K.P. personally saw in 1969 that river flowing almost as high as the bottom of that bridge. It had rained for nearly a month straight. UP’s westbound City of Los Angeles (Train #103) even detoured west on the Sunset Route at Colton Tower, corresponding to the BNSF Connector today. The Southern California rail scene was in major disarray! But even after things dried out, the plate girder bridge remained. So, why part of the B-5 Bridge has new sections in it is unknown to K.P., or even how long they have been present.
That B-5 Bridge is in the background of the below photo, with stored cars in the foreground on the Riverside Industrial Lead:
For those stored cars to be there, 9th Street street-running is still in use!
UP’s (SP’s) crossing of the Santa Ana River was once a wood structure, but it burned, likely from vandals, and was replaced. It too has different new sections, though on the frailer side.
A last view of that BNSF B-5 Bridge with La Cadena Drive paralleling it:
While the B-5 Bridge (for the general milepost area) is BNSF, many Sunset Route trains use it if routed over the LA&SL via Riverside.
This will conclude the replies and tidbit information.
Thank you K.P. for the reply! I think it would behoove all parties involved for the City of Industry station to have the flexibility of Montebello, Pedley, East Ontario, and Pomona (both stations) as opposed to the bottleneck that currently is Van Nuys. Not my decision though!
A Holiday Roundup
Do You See Anything Weird …
… about This Picture?
At the Workman Mill Road grade crossing a UP westbound (rightward) double-stack intermodal passes …
… and the crossing gates are up, inactive, and turned off, because the grade crossing is closed and all tore up, and new track has been laid!
Monday, September 1, 2014 was the Labor Day holiday, and K.P. took advantage of the day to check out some loose ends towards the western end of the Sunset Route, as well as elsewhere for other threads. Other Sunset Route areas visited were the truss bridges in the Grand Terrace area, and the Vineyard Ave. underpass construction site in Ontario where he caught TWO fast (“fast”) trains on the shoofly, and with very, very low auto traffic volumes was also able to get some revealing photos previously not practical to take …
An update report is in the works …
Grand Terrace 9-6 215 overnight closure for bridge shiftiness.
KP-- As a retired person and investor in Union Pacific I like my dividends. Management has to march to different bands -Wall Street, operating department needs, etc. It is a great juggling act to need the demands of everyone who is pulling strings. Fortunately UP is going after the bottle necks first and doing a great job of it. Matt Rose has a much easier job as he does not directly report to the demands of Wall Street. Warren does this and if money is diverted to improving the transcontinental it is lost is the overall picture of Berkshire Hathaway.
Good to see that a few miles of the Sunset is being double tracked near Houston. But there is still a LARGE gap between Houston and El Paso.
Update as of Monday, September 1, 2014
Checking Out Three Areas …
… on the Western End of the Sunset Route
Part I (of I-VI, Overall I-X)
FIRST Area
The BNSF Truss Bridges Situation
Grand Terrace, CA Area
Traveling southbound on the I-215 Freeway in the Grand Terrace area, a sole shot from the moving vehicle was attempted with mixed results.
Above, underneath the current positions of the trusses, their pears are seen, as well as the piers for the future positions of the trusses.
The north side abutments are incomplete with rebar exposed
The center piers:
A clear, comprehendible shot of the south abutments could not be had.
Track equipment is idle and still on site.
Continued in Part II
Part II (of I-VI, Overall I-X)
SECOND Area
The Workman Mill Road Grade Crossing
City of Industry, CA
A photo that tells so much! The sidewalk and entire roadway over the tracks are all gone. Note the crossing gate in the background.
Why the grade crossing is closed.
The lower cleared area (lower right) was where Main 1 used to be.
Continued in Part III
Update as of Monday, September 1, 201Checking Out Three Areas …
Part III (of I-VI, Overall I-X)
Looking westbound:
Note the crossing gate units in the background upper left. All the forefront crossing gates have been removed and are gone, and roadway barricaded.
Continued in Part IV
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.