Today was a major day on the Yuma Subdivision.
About 11 miles of 2MT-CTC was placed into service between Iris and new control point SP687 Acolita at milepost 687.2.
That said, on paper, new 2MT-CTC is in service between Iris and Mesquite (about 21 miles). The segment between Acolita and Mesquite is not yet complete on the No. 1 track. Until that happens (weeks from now), the current old main will be known as the No. 2 track between Acolita and Mesquite, same as it will be called in the future. The crossovers have been built at Mesquite SP697, but another turnout is needed to reconfigure the lead to the landfill. When first installed, the landfill spur was using half of the uncompleted east crossover at Mesquite. Hard to say when this will change as no work has been done directly east of Mesquite/Glamis. There doesn't appear to be any rush, but who knows?
Retired control points:
Regina SP681
Regina SP683
Acolita SP689
Acolita SP691
The sidings at Regina and Acolita are also history.
New control point:
Acolita SP687 (universal crossovers)For the ATCS users on the list, I should have a new layout published to the Yahoo group in the next 24 hours.
Update as of Friday, January 16, 2015
The Iris-Niland-Salton Sea, CA Area
Part “A” (of A-E)
Regrouping after the Iris area fiasco (impassable dirt roadway), the Niland area was visited. That area was two-tracked last year, but still, equipment was by a staging area, such as water trucks.
Track equipment was by CP SP668 NILAND.
Continued in Part B
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 “B” (of A-E)
K.P. just had to photograph this sign as he was leaving Niland to return home.
This trip it was about 175 miles one way, 350 miles round trip. The above sign was a stark reminder of that … and what the trip had intended to photograph (the wash area by Iris) wasn’t accessible!
Now, by the Hot Mineral Spa Road grade crossing (M.P. 652.90), a telephoto looking eastbound:
Above, the signals in the distance (facing towards the camera), specifically the left, Main 1 one, has been observed in the past with a yellow over green, and then it changed to yellow over flashing green. Heading east, there is another like signal set by the border patrol (upper right of the just above photo), and it only displays a yellow over sold green when the CP switch two blocks ahead is in reverse. K.P. has seen such signals (with the crossover TWO blocks ahead in reverse) displaying high green AND at other times yellow over flashing green. With the 50 M.P.H. crossover ahead in reverse, the yellow over flashing green seems to be a compensating signal (that slows following trains, trains that are also line through the crossover in reverse). The speed limit for freights is 65 M.P.H. in this territory, and crossing a train over at 50 M.P.H. can trigger a ripple effect for following trains, thus the yellow over flashing yellow seems to be to slow the following trains, but not to the extent they go 40 M.P.H. at a flashing yellow. Make sense?
Continued in Part C
Part “C” (of A-E)
Looking west from Hot Mineral Spa Road:
Passing Hot Mineral Spa Road must make old railroaders feel that regaining their youth is reachable!
A daytime view of just how high the ballast is on this ‘fountain of youth’ area curve.
Continued in Part D
Part “D” (of A-E)
CP SP648 BERTRAM is a universal crossover plus a south side (Main 2) siding connecting to the west. This view looks east, with the very nearby Salton Sea easily seen
Looking west, the south siding had an engineless string of ballast cars in it (background right). Note all the ballast on the lower photo right.
Main 2, the original Main in single-track days, still has a short section of wooden ties, a short section only through the dirt grade crossing. Concrete tied sections has been on site for a year or two now
Continued in Part E
Part “E” (of A-E)
Because CP SP548 BERTRAM has a siding associated with it, a second electrical box is on site. There is that Salton Sea again!
Looking east, the second panel section still waiting to be inserted:
Looking semi-the-same-way, by the grade crossing stop sign, the present wood tied section meets the concrete tied track.
Both eastbound to the Iris area, and westbound from Iris, the single-lane Highway 111 bridge near Ferrum was encountered, that is east of the old Ferrum siding and by the high bridge that was two-tracked a few years ago. That single-lane roadway is now routed over the new bridge, while bridging is being constructed for the second vehicle lane. The single-lane is protected by stop lights.
By the Border Patrol inspection stop, Highway 111 is being repaved eastward for several miles.
So, in both cases, visitors should not expect to experience the fun of pacing fast trains for miles and miles until Highway 111 is back to normal.
This will conclude the series.
ATCS Monitor users, the new Yuma Sub layout has been posted to the Yahoo group. And if you care, you might also download the revised Cajon Sub layout to reflect the signal upgrades at Rana. Clyde
It is NOT recalled if this was brought up here at the forum previously, but the Mesquite Regional Landfill outfit near Glamis, CA has a great two-page website that shows building the track to the landfill, its testing, etc. Well worth a visit. Link below:
http://www.mrlf.org/index.php?page2=1&pid=167
In other nearby matters … A response to Clyde Acolita’s recent news post about the two-tracking between Iris and Glamis is in the works …
Analysis: Glamis, CA and the Future
Clyde Acolita kindly post-advised that the track between Iris (which is the new CP SP676 IRIS, M.P. 676.1) and the new CP SP687 ACOLITA (M.P. 687.2) was now in service. The second track between the new Acolita and Mesquite (Glamis) is laid, but technically not in service yet, even though the two tracks have officially taken on their two-tracking identities, Main 1 and Main 2, with Main 2 being the former single-track Main.
Below is a reshown westbound looking July 12, 2011 view from Highway 78 in Glamis. The CP in the view is the west switch of the old Glamis siding, which west switch in conjunction with the track to the landfill project is now called CP SP697 MESQUITE (M.P. 696.8). The foreground left track is the Glamis siding.
Both lit signals (at the west end of the Glamis siding) have lower heads, so likely those mast signals are permanent, and were put up in anticipation of the future universal crossovers arrangement then projected for the site.
Mr. Acolita mentioned that some or all of those universal crossover switches are now in place.
The left, siding track above reportedly will eventually stub-end at Highway 78 sometime in the future. Thus, in theory (“theory”), both west side eastbound intermediate mast signals A FEW MILES WEST OF CP SP697 MESQUITE should have, instead of the common lower single light lower heads, rather three lights, yellow over GREEN (for crossing over ahead), yellow over YELLOW (for the signaled landfill route), and yellow over LUNAR OR the more likely yellow over FLASHING RED (for the future stub-end Glamis siding).
Mr. Acolita also mentioned that there was nothing scheduled two-tracking wise EASTWARD from CP SP697 MESQUITE. The reason may (“may”) be because of the nightmare of laying a second main across Highway 78 in Glamis. There simply is NO alternate roadway route available, so a whole temporary vehicle detour ‘shoofly’ type roadway may have to be built, which would entail temporary highway grading, crossing gates, etc.
Such a temporary detour roadway was utilized in Maricopa, AZ a few years ago on the super busy Highway 347 grade crossing that needed to be modified for two-tracks.
Such a temporary arrangement was also necessary at the low trafficked Cox Rd. grade crossing in the eastern section of Casa Grande, AZ, because there were NO alternative routes available for vehicle traffic.
So, with the Highway 78 situation in Glamis, CA, will the eastward two-tracking progress stop until possible (“possible”) overpass matters are worked out? Or, is it just a convenient place to stop the eastward two-tracking progress? K.P. is inclined to pass on the overpass idea and suggests the latter. Interestingly, between CP SP620 THERMAL (M.P. 620.2) and CP SP637 SALTON (M.P. 637.1) there is a 16.9 mile single-track section. Between CP SP697 MESQUITE (M.P. 696.8) and CP SP715 CACTUS (M.P. 714.9) there is 18.1 miles. The similarity between the two (16.9 vs. 18.1) suggests the two-tracking will move elsewhere, like in Arizona. The slopes of the Mohawk area are known to have such activity already. Another sloping area is Estrella to Gila Bend. Time will reveal what area(s) will actually see two-tracking next.
I like the "Turtle Crossing". I am suprised there is not a sign there so the turtles can see it. ;)
I'm not aware of any plans to convert Glamis siding into a stub-ended track.
The drawings clearly show all three tracks crossing Highway 78 at grade. Earlier construction drawings had a notation that Glamis siding would be converted to hand throw turnouts for non-revenue use. The more recent versions do not have this comment, and there is no indication of removal or conversion to a stub track.
No idea how the intermediates to the west are configured. The display of an Approach Restricting indication is not mandatory and is only UP's preference. The same warning to slow down can be achieved by displaying a regular old Approach aspect like BNSF is known to use. Eastbound from either main track onto the landfill lead (over the future No. 24 switch) the most favorable EB aspect at SP697 Mesquite is a Red over Flashing Yellow because of the short distance to the landfill. Coming west from the landfill and onto the mainline, the signals have been designed for 50 MPH running.
It could be that the sand and drifting sand east of 78 complicates construction and increases the cost. Highway 78 sure appears to be a good candidate for a grade seperation. Both a busy road and a busy railroad.
An Unorthodox Reply to Clyde Acolita (1-21):
Oh, Clyde, I think you and I are losing our minds. But, there is really good news! I’ve been visiting and receiving therapy from this spa place along the Sunset Route, by Salton Sea:
All my gray hair is gone and now all brown and full, my mind is back 100%, and I think I’m pulling your leg!
Seriously, your reply-post above this one said, with the key part in red:
Clyde Acolita I'm not aware of any plans to convert Glamis siding into a stub-ended track. The drawings clearly show all three tracks crossing Highway 78 at grade. Earlier construction drawings had a notation that Glamis siding would be converted to hand throw turnouts for non-revenue use. The more recent versions do not have this comment, and there is no indication of removal or conversion to a stub track. No idea how the intermediates to the west are configured. The display of an Approach Restricting indication is not mandatory and is only UP's preference. The same warning to slow down can be achieved by displaying a regular old Approach aspect like BNSF is known to use. Eastbound from either main track onto the landfill lead (over the future No. 24 switch) the most favorable EB aspect at SP697 Mesquite is a Red over Flashing Yellow because of the short distance to the landfill. Coming west from the landfill and onto the mainline, the signals have been designed for 50 MPH running.
No idea how the intermediates to the west are configured. The display of an Approach Restricting indication is not mandatory and is only UP's preference. The same warning to slow down can be achieved by displaying a regular old Approach aspect like BNSF is known to use.
Eastbound from either main track onto the landfill lead (over the future No. 24 switch) the most favorable EB aspect at SP697 Mesquite is a Red over Flashing Yellow because of the short distance to the landfill. Coming west from the landfill and onto the mainline, the signals have been designed for 50 MPH running.
But yet, back nearly two years ago you said on thread page 121:
Clyde Acolita Glamis siding is listed as being converted to hand throw switches for "non-revenue service". They also show the siding severed at the grade-crossing with 246 feet of track removed. That's fine except that UP already upgraded the signal software at Mesquite SP697 to include the not yet built crossovers and two main tracks. The south siding with its power turnout was incorporated into the signal design. Whether this was done because the power turnout is still being used, or because UP intends to preserve it as a controlled siding remains to be seen. Severing the siding at the grade crossing leaves 5800' of siding accessible from the west end only, which doesn't make a whole lot of sense in my opinion, even for non-revenue purposes. I also don't think UP would allow a hand-throw turnout to be inside the OS at SP697. New culverts are indicated between Mesquite and Glamis to accomodate three tracks.
Glamis siding is listed as being converted to hand throw switches for "non-revenue service". They also show the siding severed at the grade-crossing with 246 feet of track removed.
That's fine except that UP already upgraded the signal software at Mesquite SP697 to include the not yet built crossovers and two main tracks. The south siding with its power turnout was incorporated into the signal design. Whether this was done because the power turnout is still being used, or because UP intends to preserve it as a controlled siding remains to be seen.
Severing the siding at the grade crossing leaves 5800' of siding accessible from the west end only, which doesn't make a whole lot of sense in my opinion, even for non-revenue purposes. I also don't think UP would allow a hand-throw turnout to be inside the OS at SP697.
New culverts are indicated between Mesquite and Glamis to accomodate three tracks.
So, MY post idea of a stub ended siding came from YOU! Are you ready to visit that spa with me now?
Personally, I think leaving the siding pretty much intact would be a good idea, but its use with hand-throw switches should only be for Maintenance-of-Way. Even as now, stopping a train in the siding generally blocks Highway 78, which if for any length of time is a no-no, especially if lights and sirens types need to pass (with NO alternative route available).
The present color lights for the siding may (“may”) only be until Mesquite-Cactus is two-tracked, which doesn’t seem to be anytime soon.
Readers Digest has long said that laughter is the best medicine. In lieu of the spa, maybe we can laugh about all this …and how the more official things keep evolving and changing …
Take care,
K.P.
Did you read the second paragraph of my post? That's where I wrote this:
I thought I posted the change to this thread a couple years ago, but maybe not. In any event, the last sentence (above) clears that up. The original construction plans for the Yuma Sub were finalized back in 2007. Enough time has elapsed for UP to reconsider some of their previous ideas and change the drawings accordingly. Hell, they could change their mind again and reinstate their stub track. There's just no way to know.
All I can tell you is the most recent plans, including those dated August and September 2014 show THREE tracks crossing Highway 78.
Clyde Acolita (1-22):
Yes, the second paragraph of your post WAS read. But, your first paragraph was interpreted as if there NEVER was a plan to stub-end at the grade crossing. In hindsight I think you were saying CURRENTLY there is no stub-end plan, and any plans of the past have been superseded.
All I was thinking about was some of your past statements. A search was made and on February 28, 2013 you listed ‘Mesquite / Glamis … Siding preserved off No. 2 track.’ Then on March 1, 2013, the next day, you posted, ‘They also show the siding severed at the Highway 78 grade-crossing.’ Those were somewhat contradictory, but I guess the stub-ending made an impression on my mind.
Anyway, I will now go with your latest postings that three tracks will go over Highway 78 in the two-tracking eastward some unknown time in the future.
You had seemingly disappeared and have been gone for a while. It is great to read your posting contributions again!
Best,
Archaeologists in San Gabriel have uncovered an important piece of Southern California’s history: the foundation to an ancient water distribution system that has laid buried a few feet beneath the surface of the old Union Pacific Railroad tracks for more than century.
[snip]
http://www.sgvtribune.com/science/20150123/ancient-water-distribution-system-found-under-union-pacific-railroad-tracks
This could slow things down ....
Yep.
A10
When the archiologists get in the pcture, the project manager sees the schedule go to hell.
This is a question about the portion of this very interesting series about the constuction and changes in the rail scene in Southern California concerning the landfill East of LA. Earlier, you mentioned that the switch to the Mesquite Landfill needs to be changed. Looking on Google Maps, it doesn't appear to be operational so that is one of my questions. What is its status? The next one is where are they getting water to clean out the containers as their website states they will do?
Thanks
[/quote]
K. P. Harrier It is NOT recalled if this was brought up here at the forum previously, but the Mesquite Regional Landfill outfit near Glamis, CA has a great two-page website that shows building the track to the landfill, its testing, etc. Well worth a visit. Link below: http://www.mrlf.org/index.php?page2=1&pid=167 In other nearby matters … A response to Clyde Acolita’s recent news post about the two-tracking between Iris and Glamis is in the works …
hbchrist
A follower of your forum who has long appreciated the infomration provided by KP and other forum contributers regarding the Sunset Rt two-tracking. For those interested in the new UP yard in Hearne TX, the following website presentation by UP Engineering gives a brief look at the proposed classification yard in Hearne TX: http://www.nrcma.org/download.cfm?ID=28413 Looks to be a massive project.
The Red Rock Yard project in AZ is conspicuous by its absence.
John Timm
desertdog The Red Rock Yard project in AZ is conspicuous by its absence. John Timm
hbchrist A follower of your forum who has long appreciated the infomration provided by KP and other forum contributers regarding the Sunset Rt two-tracking. For those interested in the new UP yard in Hearne TX, the following website presentation by UP Engineering gives a brief look at the proposed classification yard in Hearne TX: http://www.nrcma.org/download.cfm?ID=28413 Looks to be a massive project.
@hbchrist, thanks for the informative link. I direct your attention to page 12; capital improvements in the five year plan cover the usual suspects but they seem to be shifting their focus to the midwest - a whole lot of projects shown from south Texas to Minnesota. IMO this is more reason for continuing to defer upgrading of some 'Sunset Corridor' single track sections (as we have seen already). A few areas to keep an eye on:
- El Paso to Sierra Blanca (Valentine sub, speculated that already)
- Tehachapi (Mojave sub, taking credit for BNSF/Caltrans $$ ?)
- Eagle Pass (and Del Rio?) sub double track / sidings - for ??
Great fodder for new railfan rumors!
EDIT - removed reference to Sierra Vista.
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! ***
MikeF90 - El Paso to Sierra Vista (Valentine sub, speculated that already)
- El Paso to Sierra Vista (Valentine sub, speculated that already)
Per chance you mean Sierra Blanca?
I suppose the state is waiting for the economy to improve so they can get top dollar for the property.
Replies:
rdamon (1-24):
An old archaeological find under UP tracks in the digging of the San Gabriel Trench (San Gabriel, CA)! I’ve always wonder how such things get buried in the first place. Was it convenient at the time to just move dirt onto it and start a new construction? Did blowing sand eventually totally cover it? Too bad we don’t have a time machine to find out!
Electroliner 1935 (1-25):
An extensive reply to your two questions with photos and a diagram was prepared for you, but this website seems technically to be incompatible with increasing your awareness now. Matter of fact, off and on for the better part of the day those efforts were made, but to no avail. Sorry. Maybe sometime in the future …
On a dispatch a year or two ago, I and the person that was with me rejoiced that a rather historic restaurant (for the area) had opened in Colton (CA)! We went there for lunch. They asked us to fill out a questionnaire, which we were happy to do. But the questions asked were none of their business. We were so turned off by the experience we never went there again. The business soon closed its doors. Companies that turn off their customers or would-be customers apparently haven’t learned that the customer is ALWAYS right. Always! Why am I rambling on like this? Nobody HERE wants to hear this, right?
hbchrist (1-25):
Wow! What a massive classification yard planned on a UP north-south (east too) corridor near Hearn, TX. I guess Texas has all the land in the world to build such a complex.
The over 40 years old West Colton Yard in the Colton-Fontana, CA area on the Sunset Route, on the other hand, is basically landlocked now. Hence, the effort towards building Red Rock Yard in Arizona, which yard’s future seems to be lingering on in mystery.
A big difference between Sunset Route’s traffic and the traffic on the route of the future facility near Hearn, TX is that one is on an Intermodal lane whereas the other is likely mostly of a boxcar route. Boxcar traffic is more lucrative for railroads, so the predominance of current UP investments in the Midwest may be where they can get the best return on their investment.
desertdog (1-26):
The report that hbchrist linked for us sure got your observations going, that it made no mention of the planned Red Rock Yard in Red Rock, AZ on the Sunset Route. Unexpected circumstances brought me to San Bernardino (CA) yesterday evening, and a visit was made to Colton and West Colton Yard’s eastern end, where a few handheld night photos were taken under the complex’s floodlights. Because of your above post I was pondering the possible destiny of Red Rock Yard in taking those photos. What if UP now forewent Red Rock Yard altogether and pulled some expansion tricks at West Colton Yard instead? Should be interesting to see what develops.
To All:
A few of those photos mentioned in the post to desertdog will be shared with the forum tomorrow or sooner. One view shows a bunch of ballast piled up by Pepper Ave. for unknown reasons.
Take care all,
MikeF90 hbchrist A follower of your forum who has long appreciated the infomration provided by KP and other forum contributers regarding the Sunset Rt two-tracking. For those interested in the new UP yard in Hearne TX, the following website presentation by UP Engineering gives a brief look at the proposed classification yard in Hearne TX: http://www.nrcma.org/download.cfm?ID=28413 Looks to be a massive project. @hbchrist, thanks for the informative link. I direct your attention to page 12; capital improvements in the five year plan cover the usual suspects but they seem to be shifting their focus to the Midwest - a whole lot of projects shown from south Texas to Minnesota. IMO this is more reason for continuing to defer upgrading of some 'Sunset Corridor' single track sections (as we have seen already). A few areas to keep an eye on: - El Paso to Sierra Blanca (Valentine sub, speculated that already) - Tehachapi (Mojave sub, taking credit for BNSF/Caltrans $$ ?) - Eagle Pass (and Del Rio?) sub double track / sidings - for ?? Great fodder for new railfan rumors!
@hbchrist, thanks for the informative link. I direct your attention to page 12; capital improvements in the five year plan cover the usual suspects but they seem to be shifting their focus to the Midwest - a whole lot of projects shown from south Texas to Minnesota. IMO this is more reason for continuing to defer upgrading of some 'Sunset Corridor' single track sections (as we have seen already). A few areas to keep an eye on:
Mike, from looking over Page 12, I don't see any sign of UP deferring their double-tracking of the Sunset Route. UP highlights those areas that are single-tracked, and if I were to guess, they plan to complete the double-tracking during the next five years -- if the economy behaves. Not only that, the chart shows significant capacity work earmarked for the line from Sierra Blanca east clear to Shreveport, LA where they connect with KCS; from San Antonio to Houston, which sees some Sunset Route traffic, too; and, finally, at the north end of the Golden State Route around Topeka.
Personally, I believe the one factor which has slowed work on the Sunset Route proper (excluding a down economy) is the federal mandate to install PTC, which constrains the capital UP would like to have plowed into the Sunset (and other) capacity upgrades. One hopes that the big bucks required for PTC have been spent, and that the railroad can return to more important things.
My two bits...
@billio, I agree that the PTC boondoggle has diverted capital that could have been used for network expansion. I will clarify my context of 'deferral' to mean 'the end of the five year outlook'. UP should get more 'velocity' by reducing the length of the remaining long Gila sub single track sections first. As usual, more wait and see.
In more Alhambra sub news, the completion of the Cherry St overpass widening will be marked by a ceremony this Friday: http://www.sanbag.ca.gov/projects/I-10_CitrusCherry/20150112__CherryDedicationInvitation_POSTCARD_FINAL.pdf It is unknown if this project potentially interfered with nearby 2MT work or if the latter remains a lower priority.
Thanks for the attempt. Any thing on:
1 When will Mesquite Landfill open; and
2 Where will they get their water from?
Thanks.
On a related topic to both the Sunset Route in general and the Red Rock Yard in particular, some may recall the UP's purchase of what's left of the San Pedro Southwestern in Southern Arizona. Today, NPR aired a feature on a plan to develop the Douglas, AZ-Agua Prieta, Sonora border crossing. The text is attached here
http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2015/01/28/arizona-border-crossing
While no mention is made of the railroad, the writer does cite heavy truck traffic from Mexico and an attempt to create warehousing and manufacturing in the area. I can't help but wonder if this is linked to the purchase of the SPSW right-of-way.
Red Rock, of course, would be the nearest major yard to the west to handle any cross border traffic.
Just food for thought. Perhaps cacole, who lives in that part of the state, can supply additional info.
UP purchased the former San Pedro Southwestern right-of-way between St David and Naco, Arizona, which runs basically north-south from the Sunset Route connection in Benson, Arizona, along the San Pedro River for approximately 2/3 of the distance to Naco. This line was originally constructed by the El Paso & Southwestern Railroad, owned by the Copper Queen Mining Company of Bisbee, later to become Phelps-Dodge.
Douglas, Arizona is another 30 miles east of Naco. The roadbed is dormant between Bisbee and Douglas, but I haven't heard anything about the UP being interested in purchasing that segment.
U.S. Highway 191 (2 lane) runs north from Douglas to a connection with Interstate 10 west of Willcox, Arizona, a distance of approximately 60 miles.
People who have observed trains running along the U.S. / Mexico border in the vicinity of Naco, on the Mexican side, report that the line seems to be in a rather dismal condition with trains running at very slow speeds, powered by early EMD GP locomotives.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.