The Gray Zone -- Texas-New Mexico-Arizona-California
w/ Text and Photos by Kevin Gray
Part 811 (of 800-813)
I drove on Interstate 8 toward Yuma; observed NO new trackwork ... until I decided NOT to get off at the Mohawk Valley exit to drive on old US80, where there are NO exits for 12 miles. From a quarter mile away on I-8, I could see stacks of corrugated drain pipe, backhoes, etc. on the OTHER side of the track, by the old highway... (Sigh!) Thank goodness we have K.P. to go capture the scene!
Took Highway 111 and visited downtown Niland (Main St. crossing). At this time, the signals have not been swapped out.
Continued in Part 812
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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.
Part 812 (of 800-813)
The previous Niland views were eastward at Main St. Now the lit but not yet in service eastbound signals at CP SP668:
A westward and one more eastward view at Main St.:
Continued in Part 813
Part 813 (of 800-813)
There are still some loads of ties in the Niland "yard."
A view of the westbound east side replacement signals at CP SP665 east of English Rd.
Now at English Rd.; an eastbound stack is waiting on new #1 main to pass through CP SP665.
There was a flurry of trackwork activity (on #2 main, apparently) at the rear end of the parked train.
K.P. comment: Thanks Kevin for sharing your trip photos. It is unfortunate that the new, revised TRAINS Magazine website has been so troublesome to post with and delayed this valuable presentation. While the Niland area photos may have been kind of old hat for regular viewers of this thread, the Santa Teresa shots were exceptionally valuable, and gave us a better idea of what is out that way.
Note to KP and Kevin Gray: Thanks for a most informative series of posts.
Priority Reply
BarstowRick (11-27):
As you probably know, Rick, K.P. was involved in a rare Sunday dispatch yesterday, and even rarer was that it was to the San Diego area. On the way south to the San Diego area, that construction for a future second LA&SL bridge over the 91 Freeway in Riverside, CA that you mentioned was seen and photographed, which at this point in time construction consisted mainly of forming abutments and pier-work.
While in that area (as well as for the whole day) only 17 photos were taken, but they convey sufficiently what is transpiring and some possibilities (“possibilities”).
In a few days it is hoped a selection of those photos can be posted, including presenting some unofficial conjecturing about ANOTHER track being laid in the future. Note: That was “another track” and NOT a second-main.
It should be kept in mind that the area is presently in a period of great flux, where new (“new”) UP signals are utilizing OLD operating practices. So, in other words, something more permanent is in the future!
Other Replies
desertdog (11-19):
About El Paso, TX … The old fuel racks may have been the greatest factor in trains moving slowly through town. I don’t know how much Santa Teresa will affect El Paso operations, but with entrance signals and NO fuel racks to worry about, it would seem trains should be able to run at least 40 M.P.H. instead of the current 20 M.P.H.
Interestingly, west of the old fuel racks to Lizard (hence, over the big river on the two long and high up bridges), sources advise that the timetable speed limit is 40 M.P.H.
A consideration, too, may be something other than the through-way. The two mainline tracks through the yard at Yermo, CA on the LA&SL also have a 20 M.P.H. speed limit. That trackage has a number of non-electrically locked switches, so the 20 M.P.H. speed limit obviously is in place for safety considerations. El Paso, TX may have the 20 M.P.H. speed limit for the same reason.
About Sierra Blanca … When I visited a few years ago, NO trains whatsoever were seen. It must have been simply the time of day of the visit, or the situation at the time.
mvs (11-22):
It took a few years, but the Hunts Lane overpass is open. One photo I neglected to take was a telephoto looking north, towards the I-10 Freeway just down the street. That would have given perspective to the location, with Barton Rd. to the south, and I-10 to the north.
Hey, while we are on grade separations, the Palm Ave. overpass on the BNSF, railroad west of Devore, has roadway pavement over it now and looks close to opening!
denveroutlaw06 (11-26):
I have no idea how many cars are humped daily at West Colton Yard.
Whatever the number is, it will be cut in have when Red Rock Yard in Arizona opens, IF it ever does.
Take care all,
K.P.
K.P. and of course everyone tuned in here.
Can't wait for the visual update. I think, I'm thinking like you but only if you are thinking like me, so I will be curious to see if I'm thinking what you are thinking and no I won't start this all over again. Grin!
It looks like Trains is now powered by Word Press, and my speelchick isn't working here. Wondering what's up with that? And KP I don't expect either one of us will be able to fic dhat.
RickH
BarstowRick.com Model Railroading How To's
Update as of Sunday, November 30, 2014
A Second LA&SL Bridge over the 91 Freeway
Riverside, CA
Part I (of I-III)
On the alternative Sunset Route via Riverside, westbound after coming off the BNSF, the LA&SL goes over the 91 Freeway. The bridge over the 91 Freeway was recently replaced because of the freeway widening. There was some word (which K.P. called rumor) of a second bridge being built in the future. Forum contributor BarstowRick went under that bridge Thanksgiving Day, and saw what looked like the beginnings of a second bridge.
On Sunday, November 30, 2014 K.P. visited the site, and can confirm what BarstowRick saw.
Some northeastward views from Panorama Rd., showing abutments and center piers being formed:
That just above last photo shows a strange, east side walling! The design pattern is UNEVEN, as if (“as if”) the two bridges (one new one and the future one) were NOT related!
Continued in Part II
Part II (of I-III)
Near the Panorama Rd. grade crossing, looking northeast:
The grade crossing area, looking northeast: The north sidewalk crossing gate, with the roadway north curbing (lower right corner).
A southwestward view from Panorama Rd. of the single-track going into Pachappa Cut:
Continued in Part III
Part III (of I-III)
What K.P. Perceives
That uneven walling (decorative-wise) on the east side of the 91 Freeway (last photo Part I) suggests to K.P. that the second bridge being built will be used by Metrolink commuter trains, and NOT by UP.
Note the following conjectured diagram:
R A F > I V < R----- V E ----- \ E / E \ R / E \ S / W---------------------------------------- > I < A D Y E
On the above diagram’s left is the present CP C055 STREETER (partial), west of the Riverside Ave., which grade crossing is presently having an underpass built.
Conjecturally, mentally picture the west side eastbound signals at CP C055 STREETER as the WEST side of a new CP, possibly called CP C055 PACHAPPA. The EAST side westbound signals could be by Panorama Rd. (last photo in Part II). Because it is kind of on a curve, line of sight-wise, maybe a cantilever structure could be erected, especially to keep Panorama Rd. monkey-like locals off the signals …
THAT would be in line with UP’s current craze of consolidating CP’s.
Metrolink eastbound trains could go onto their track (and over the future 91 Freeway bridge) on a red over green or maybe red over flashing yellow that way, speeding up there operations. Currently, Metrolink trains get a red over flashing red at CP C056 SCRRA JCT, and crawl to their station stop.
If the conjectured track layout surfaces a few three-headed monsters (signals) …
… might be in the works for the CP, if it is indeed one big consolidated CP. The above reshown three headed signal picture was shot in the twilight evening of March 21, 2012 by CP SP938 PICACHO in Arizona, and when the grade crossing was closed the next day at the CP Hey, Pachappa and Picacho have a certain similarity already, both starting with P’s with weird pronunciations …
This will end the three-part series.
" The design pattern is UNEVEN, as if (“as if”) the two bridges (one new one and the future one) were NOT related"
Step-brothers?
Johnny
KP, great capture and those pictures are precisely what I saw. I would agree with your conjecture. It's very possible the second bridge will be used primarily by Metro-Link. They've been wanting a faster way out of Riverside west to L.A.U.P.T. There's been talk about double tracking the U.P. main all the way into Riverside. Looks like they are going to get their wish.
Thanks for the comeback K.P.
BarstowRick (12-2)
If (“if”) Metrolink will fund cutting away a path through all the rock related to Pachappa Hill (Riverside, CA) for a second track they will pay a pretty penny for it!
August 5, 2009 view
When BNSF cut through all the rock (upper center right) at Blue Cut in Cajon Pass back in 2008 for their triple-tracking …
July 7, 2008 photo, cut above center right
September 29, 2008 photo, upper right
… they paid an average of $5 million a mile for that then nearly 16 mile effort. It will be very interesting to see if the ‘deep pockets’ of Metrolink are deep enough to cut a second track path through Pachappa Hill. Very, very interesting! Or, they might just grin and bear it and leave that short section single-track. I think we are all eyes on that one.
Take care,
KP, Right there with you on that assessment. I've looked at the cut and if memory serves me correctly the rock to the left can be removed and there would be enough room for a second track. I don't think the residents will be to happy with the noise. However, most of the issues can be worked out and a second main put through.
The next obstacle will be the single track bridge that crosses over the Santa Ana River. I don't think it's wide enough to handle a second track.
So, taking a wait and see attitude.
BarstowRick (12-2A):
Part “A”:
Ah, yes, the big multi-arched bridge on the LA&SL over the Santa Ana River in Riverside, CA!
That bridge I believe is dated 1904, and may (“may”) have been started in 1903. The LA&SL began operations in 1905. So, “The Viaduct,” as I call it, is 110 years old!
Continued in Part B
Part “B”:
BNSF finally replaced the 101 years old Main 1 original 1913 bridge in Cajon Pass several months ago, first with the pre-stressed pieces on site …
… then actually replacing the bridge.
I wonder how structurally sound that LA&SL viaduct in Riverside actually is. Is it ripe to be replaced with a two-track bridge? My gut tells me it has many more years before it is retired, and will remain single-track. But, we are looking at Metrolink that can magically come up with money. So, as you said, BarstowRick, we will have to ‘wait and see’ what develops.
I’ve seen both Santa Fe’s B-5 and Southern Pacific’s Sunset Route Santa Ana River bridges in Colton under flood stage conditions, and they are some spectacular to see in that state. Fast moving water rushing by just a foot or two below the bottoms of the spans! What a sight! That water going downstream soon passed that Riverside LA&SL viaduct too in that flood stage, but I never saw that.
Kind of a strange subject to post about in this severe Southern California drought!
Best,
KP What drought ? Last heard tioday is a prediction of 1 - 3 inches of rain ?
blue streak 1 (12-2):
The whole State of California IS in a severe drought! And, has been in such for months and months.
Ironically, today it has been raining in Southern California. It hasn’t rained for so long that I almost forgot what rain was, but it is here!
If (“if”) it rains hard down by Iris in Imperial County on the Sunset Route, maybe a large amount of rainfall will prove if the new drainage instead of a bridge …
… was a good idea or not.
So much of California has burned with wildfires that the great fear is flooding will result from the rain. I think overall the Sunset Route is relatively safe, but who knows …
Stay safe,
The UP Santa Ana river bridge may be good now and hold up to flood stage water. The question is will it survive a big quake. Being over a hundred years old makes one think that it would not. UP most likely has a plan to replace it in the next X amount of years.
K.P.:
Regarding the LA&SL viaduct over the Santa Ana, is the bridge a historic landmark? The bridge does show its age in your photos, but retains its handsome, sturdy appearance. I have seen photos of the bridge from 50 years ago, and the area has changed much since then. Certainly, 110 years is quite a lot in Southern California time; could the structure be considered historicaly significant? Would that effect any plans for a double-track crossing?
Thanks, K.P.! It is great to have your reports again
--John
usmc1401 The UP Santa Ana river bridge may be good now and hold up to flood stage water. The question is will it survive a big quake. Being over a hundred years old makes one think that it would not. UP most likely has a plan to replace it in the next X amount of years.
I have seen the argument that "good concrete" (however one defines that, I'm not sure) actually gets stronger over time. We may just have that amazing bridge around for another century or two.
John Timm
Replies
usmc1401 (12-2):
Southern California has had many earthquakes over the decades, many of which K.P. experienced firsthand. And many bridges have collapsed in those earthquakes. But, the UP viaduct over the Santa Ana River continues to endure.
It is strange now that Los Angeles-Salt Lake City (LA&SL) trains so often take the Sunset Route between Colton and Pomona, and so many Sunset Route trains take the long way around via the LA&SL through Riverside between Colton and Pomona, and go over that viaduct.
Undoubtedly UP in the back offices has some kind of contingency if the bridge was suddenly lost for whatever reason. In recent times a train derailment in Iowa wiped out a truss bridge, and immediately the railroad built a shoofly and got trains moving again, and had a replacement truss bridge in place within just a couple of weeks. So, bridges are somewhat like Tinkertoys, and can be put together fast. Really fast! But, the viaduct in Riverside may be a different story. Nevertheless, some kind of replacement bridge could be put together relatively fast if the railroad put its mind to it. The thing is UP has the Colton-Pomona actual Sunset Route that trains could use. The pressure, though, undoubtedly would be from Metrolink that uses the viaduct, and may be the one put in an awkward position. If contingencies are in place, we are obviously not privy to them.
We should discern more real quick with the Clay Street underpass that is under construction just a mile or so to the west. Will the bridging for it be for two-tracks or one? If for two-tracks, will a second-track be laid soon after? Would a second viaduct bridge be built for that second track? Yes, soon we should have a better picture of how things may be in the future.
John Simpkins-Camp (12-2):
The best that I can determine is that the Viaduct is NOT a historical landmark, though it is often listed as a significant place. Years ago the viaduct could actually be gotten to from the southeast side. As a young adult years and years ago I actually went up to it a number of times, and took black and white photos of it. But, UP bought the property on the southeast side and put in some type of facility therein, so it is off limits now. Being so access secluded, few know of its existence anymore, thus it is unlikely a movement will arise to make it a historical landmark.
In theory (“theory”) some heavy concrete bases could be built within the Santa Ana River, on the northeast side of the present structure, and no one would realize what was occurring. Then once the cement was fully dried, a simple steel bridge could be put up, and only railfans, if even them, would know of it. Then, of course, track would be laid, and radio chatter about two-tracks would confuse railfans that know there is only one track there, so they would think …
As mentioned to usmc1401 above, the Clay Street underpass construction has started, so we might (“might”) have some big operating changes in the next year or two. The signals for the area are the more modern color light type, but have been in place for over 20 years, and they all use flashing yellow in advance of the proliferation of 40 M.P.H. turnouts and crossovers. Since they haven’t been upgraded yet, there must be a reason for that. Two-tracking or some other track modifications may be what UP is waiting for, and then yellow over yellow in advance a CP 40 M.P.H. turnout or crossover will become the norm.
desertdog (12-3):
That would be something if in the year 2114 the viaduct was still standing and going strong, and a second-track steel bridge to its northeast was sort of falling apart and the railroads were scratching their heads trying to figure out some logistics to replace the steel structure!
If only we had a time machine …
Stay safe everyone,
Thank you, K.P. A steel trestle alongside the original bridge would seem to make the most economical sense for the railroad. As seen in your photos along the Salton Sea at CP SP641 FERRUM, UP has been doing just as you suggested. A new steel bridge would provide a track should the aging viaduct ever be replaced and would ride out a quake with greater flexibility.
Additionally, I guess UP has to figure the cost of every demolishing the 1904 structure. The mass and volume of the concrete rubble would be very expensive to remove.
UP has done this before with the Kate Shelley High Bridge in Iowa.
It's gratifying to see that grading for new MT construction is continuing into AZ and following the pattern of skipping some single track. IMO it is likely to continue east to CP Stanwix over the next two years.
What is still mysterious is the status of the single track sections between Yuma (East Yard) and Dome, hopefully more scouting reports will come in.
Plans to grade separate the SR 347 crossing in Maricopa are progressing at ADOT: https://www.azdot.gov/projects/south-central/sr-347-at-union-pacific-railroad/overview although construction may not start for a few years. The Amtrak station will be relocated, but not to Gila Bend which has more motels than Maricopa.
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! ***
Given the strong similarity between the UP's Santa Ana River bridge and the DL&W's Tunkhannock and Martin's Creek viaducts that both date to about the same time as the UP bridge, I will venture to guess that there is a massive amount of rebar embedded in all that concrete. Construction photo of the DL&W structures show rebar used in the structures in far more quantities that rebar is used in current construction.
I doubt that there is little chance of an earthquake damaging the structure, unless there is an unknown fault directly underneath the bridge that goes. To that end, I suspect that in future years we will see a modern concrete bridge carrying traffic next to the existing structure if UP decides they need additional capacity across the river.
And when the new bridge is being replaced in decades to come, the original structure will still be in use and railfans will be remarking about how "They certainly don't build them like they used to".
MikeF90 It's gratifying to see that grading for new MT construction is continuing into AZ and following the pattern of skipping some single track. IMO it is likely to continue east to CP Stanwix over the next two years. What is still mysterious is the status of the single track sections between Yuma (East Yard) and Dome, hopefully more scouting reports will come in. Plans to grade separate the SR 347 crossing in Maricopa are progressing at ADOT: https://www.azdot.gov/projects/south-central/sr-347-at-union-pacific-railroad/overview although construction may not start for a few years. The Amtrak station will be relocated, but not to Gila Bend which has more motels than Maricopa.
One small issue with the report: the Amtrak station is located east, rather than west of SR 347. In any case, it is good to see some movement on this after so many years.
The Great LA&SL Viaduct
Some Never Before Posted Views
Part I (of I-II)
In recent days the LA&SL viaduct has arisen in forum discussions. K.P. reviewed the photos taken back on July 21, 2011 and thought the seven never before posted photos below in these two Parts would broaden the forum’s perspective about the viaduct.
A south side heavy westbound telephoto:
A more normal, wider angled south side westbound view:
A north side westbound look: If a second bridge for two-tracking over the Santa Ana River was pursued and built, it probably would be on a north side alignment as below (lower right).
The way K.P. sees matters, the believed keys right now are: (1) the railroad bridging over the underpass construction at Clay Street just a mile or so to the west, and (2) the older color light signals in the area have not been ungraded. As far as two-tracking this stretch, the most likely scenario is the viaduct itself, just a short section, will remain single-track.
Part II (of I-II)
The east side of the river has some incredibly large boulders present.
The publically accessible, paved Santa Ana River Trail for hikers and bicyclists follows the east bank.
One of the large boulders is cracked. It is unknown if the crack resulted over a century ago in an attempt to move the boulder out of the way for viaduct construct, or if the crack happened millenniums ago, but the builders of the bridge built the bridge ON the rock! Note the concrete sealing to the bridge itself.
Lastly a mood-type shot that is historically enlightening for the forum! In early 1969, like maybe February, way before the Santa Ana River Trail came along, massive rains struck Southern California. The water flow was probably five to ten feet ABOVE the camera position!
Everything on the river bed was wiped out! Greenery, bushes, and trees were ALL gone afterward. At the time K.P. saw a like situation in Colton, up-steam several miles. It was a very eerie sight to see. Whether the Santa Ana River Trail of concrete and the fencing that follows the trail would survive another flood is unknown. But such a flood again is inevitable, sometime down the road, if California can ever get out of the drought it is in.
Back in 1969 both the Santa Fe and Union Pacific (LA&SL) lines in Riverside County were closed, and UP’s City of Los Angeles passenger train (No. 103, led by E-8 No. 926) detoured over the Sunset Route between Colton and at least Pomona, possibly all the way to Los Angeles.
On what is now UP’s Yuma Subdivision, K.P. personally heard radio chatter in 1969, the Southern Pacific dispatcher talking to onsite flooded track inspectors in San Timoteo Canyon on the western slope of Beaumont Hill discussing about all the washouts on the line. The dispatcher was trying to find out if, by the use of crossovers, a pathway for ONE of two-tracks was possible to get trains through. The route was in a shambles, but inspectors thought the line was passible if trains kept crossing over back and forth in San Timoteo Canyon until a train was out of the canyon.
That was exciting times. As mentioned earlier, at the peak of the flooding, the LA&SL route (“route”) of the viaduct was closed, as well as Santa Fe’s line to the south. Trains undoubted could have safely passed over the viaduct, but other areas of the line were a mess. Limonite Ave., a few miles to the west of the viaduct, had always been troublesome, and often had rushing high water over the track. An underpass is there now, so that is probably solved.
So, from these photos and historic background accounts, it is hoped the forum has gotten a broader perspective about the viaduct and its area.
rdamon UP has done this before with the Kate Shelley High Bridge in Iowa.
Indeed, I have a picture of the new bridge - it's quite an interesting design.
Once UP gets the Ontario work restarted/finished/engineered all of this will leave Metrolink with a grade-seperated line with little opposing traffic.
In other news UP has awarded a 4.5 million dollar contract to Granite for double-tracking in the Winterhaven area.
A10
Since A10 had business in Colton this afternoon he took a swing by and talked to the foreman from Sema. Yes they are building a new bridge in the location of the original bridge and both UP and Metrolink will be using it. It will Not be double track.
"Are you going to slide that one onto the new abutments ?"
"No, we're building an completely new bridge and then we'll demo that one"
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.