rdamon Just saw this .... http://www.kcbd.com/story/29306927/union-pacific-plans-to-spend-23-million-on-new-mexico-work Union Pacific plans to spend $23 million on New Mexico work ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. (AP) - Union Pacific Corp. has announced it plans to spend $23 million in 2015 to maintain and improve its rail lines in New Mexico. UP said the work includes $21 million to maintain track, $120,000 to enhance signal systems and nearly $2 million to maintain or replace bridges. The track work includes projects in several areas of the state to replace rail and ties and install new ballast foundations for track. One project involves track between the Arizona-New Mexico line and Santa Teresa, where UP recently constructed a hub to handle cross-border freight traffic.
Just saw this ....
http://www.kcbd.com/story/29306927/union-pacific-plans-to-spend-23-million-on-new-mexico-work
ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. (AP) - Union Pacific Corp. has announced it plans to spend $23 million in 2015 to maintain and improve its rail lines in New Mexico.
UP said the work includes $21 million to maintain track, $120,000 to enhance signal systems and nearly $2 million to maintain or replace bridges.
The track work includes projects in several areas of the state to replace rail and ties and install new ballast foundations for track.
One project involves track between the Arizona-New Mexico line and Santa Teresa, where UP recently constructed a hub to handle cross-border freight traffic.
This news release is meat-and-potatoes stuff: maintaining current roadway and not letting deferred maintenance accumulate. It should not be confused with capacity enhancements such as second track, additional terminal facilities, etc. UP seems to have put out similar puff pieces for each state through which ita tracks pass.
KP: Suggestion -- If in your travels you notice when the commercial power supply is provided to new signals. That may give you an indication of when the new signals can get power or will go into service. Of course there may be bonney dock locations where solar panels are installed instead of commercial power.
A few of your pictures have shown commercial power hooked to old signals maybe to prevent repairing old power lines on the code lines.
K.P.:
I hate to add speculation on the question of the Yuma river crossing, but your comment on the replacement of the one-lane auto bridge got me thinking.
If a new, modern, multi-lane bridge for traffic was built, then what would become of the old one? Could the auto bridge be stiffened to handle rail traffic? It is tantilizingly in the right place, albeit less beefy than its neighbor and at a slightly different elevation.
While I do have an understanding of bridge construction and see how it MIGHT be done, I would appreciate someone in the forum with expertise chiming in. Again, that auto bridge sure is in the right place for a second main.
Thanks!
--John
The old single lane auto bridge at Yuma is a historic bridge (its 100 years old this year by the way). Its completion allowed, for the first time, an automobile to go from Ocean-To-Ocean by land, this it is commonly known as the Ocean-To-Ocean Highway Bridge. Because of this fact alone, I doubt it would ever been torn out and replaced (or converted into a rail bridge). With a modern, interstate bridge next to it, there is really no reason to build a new highway bridge. At some point, that bridge will need major repairs to keep its intact for highway use and it will probably become a pedestrian bridge only.
As far as conversion to a railroad bridge, there is no way. The maximum design load for the highway bridge isn't even close to what a modern railroad bridge would have to be. Just look at the current railroad bridge and see how much more beefer it is.
I would guess that Union Pacific will live with the single track span for years to come, with the crew change now further east, delays at the single track bridge are probably minor. In the future, if double track is required, a new alignment to the west will probably occur, with the railroad bridge joining the highway bridge as a historical landmark. By the way, the original railroad bridge was further west that the current span is today.
Is the Culprit the Great Holding Company Called …
… “Malfunctions and Screw-Ups, Inc.”?
K.P. posts use a combination of the trainsmag.com and photobucket.com websites. The TRAINS website problems are well documented at the forum. Periodically, photobucket.com seems to go totally malfunction-like. In a planned reply series, K.P. could not upload a photo this morning. He tried and tried. Later, after getting some groceries for the Mrs., K.P. tried again and the photo he had attempted this time uploaded successfully, but things still seemed a bit off and wacko-like. Then, the trainsmag.com website sign-in went berserk! The screen repeatedly said to try later. Will the delays, delays, and delays ever stop?
Anyway, the replies and the Blaisdell posts are so behind schedule now, even if they can now be posted (it still is unknown if they can), will take so much time to make ready to post, everything has been put on hold indefinitely. But, then, the ‘stack’ keeps getting higher and higher, as there are a few more Sunset Route photos (important ones too!) from a grueling 14-hour dispatch Friday, plus the Perris Valley thread has significant material stacked up now too …
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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, thank you for hanging in there and keeping all of us across the fruited plain updated on this critical piece of national infrastructure. Like Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel, this is truly your Opus, and someday when it is completed it should be kept at the Union Pacific archives in Omaha for future rail historians to study. You are archiving the construction of the virtual seventh transcontinental rail line in the US over 100 years after construction of the last one, albeit about 20 feet away from one of the original six. It is a monumental undertaking and you are doing a monumental job archiving it! Thank you, thank you, thank you for sharing your fantastic compilation with us!
K.P.,
Sounds like your train is stalled on the hill at "Malfunction Junction". Time to call for helpers.
Norm
A Quick Reply to Norm48327 (6-15):
In an effort to get extra power to my disabled train at Malfunction Jct., the dispatcher kept calling and calling a helper set parked at Yuma until someone told him the units were only unmanned DPU units. But, Norm, my conductor got one of the two dead units restarted, so we are now going to try to limp everything over the hill …
Blaisdell, AZ and Mountains a Couple …
… of Miles to the Railroad East
Part “A” (of A-H)
From off I-10 we head north (eastbound) several miles and park in the M.P. 749 area of the Sunset Route’s eastward milepost count that starts from the San Francisco area. A north-like view of the cuts in the mountains:
A southward slant:
An eastbound auto-rack train comes:
Continued in Part B
Part “B” (of A-H)
And goes …
Then everything is quiet again … at least for a little while.
The above area just west of the Kinter siding should prove to be an interesting area to see two-tracked, with all the grading and cuts necessary to lay an additional track.
Continued in Part C
Part “C” (of A-H)
It was early in the new millennium that K.P. first passed by the Blaisdell, AZ area. Previously, he had always taken the short way via I-10. The siding arrangement back then suggests Blaisdell didn’t exist, except as an unincorporated small, geographical community. All that K.P. can remember on that trip years ago was that there were thunderstorms in the area, and in the Wellton area to the east trains were flagging all the CTC signals that had been knocked out by the thunderstorms. It was a mess operationally!
Today, as it was six years ago, CP SP747 BLAISDELL (M.P.746.8) is the east end of an about 3.8 mile section of two-tracks, the west end of which is at CP SP743 FORTUNA (M.P. 742.8). The Fortuna dual control switch is a 30 M.P.H. switch, suggesting the CP is on borrowed time. CP SP747 BLAISDELL has a 50 M.P.H. crossover, suggesting it will be permanent.
CP SP747 BLAISDELL is presently only half of a universal crossovers arrangement, just as it was nearly SIX years ago when K.P. first took photos of the partial CP. A present day view looking slightly off westbound (sort of south):
Looking eastbound and the lack of a second main or grading for it:
Continued in Part D
Part “D” (of A-H)
At Blaisdell, looking westbound, from this side of the crossover switch, Maintenance-of-Way still has jurisdiction of the future Main 2.
Just above on the left, it appears that Maintenance-of-Way (or is it track layers?) has a fenced small area.
Continued in Part E
Part “E” (of A-H)
The grade crossing in the middle of the CP: The photo is shown because of the two electrical boxes on the right, on the far side of the tracks.
Looking eastbound, kind of north here, at those white boxes:
They are the new type, traditional and contemporary for two-tracking, BUT, they are (and have been) painted white, and NOT left the standard very light gray.
Continued in Part F
Part “F” (of A-H)
Workers over six years ago didn’t even connect the rails of the future Main 2 at the grade crossing.
As K.P. approached the CP from the north, the east side westbound signal (for the presently single-track Main) displayed red over flashing yellow. On site, the switch position (in reverse) matched the signal display K.P. saw. The westbound train never came while K.P. was on site.
The grade crossing box has a CP label on it.
Continued in Part G
Part “G” (of A-H)
It is still hilly even a couple of miles westbound, at the two-track grade crossing of Avenue 11E, at M.P. 745.02.
The grade crossing seems to be a rather dangerous one, as on BOTH sides the road has a high speed limit and curves towards the tracks. Matter of fact, there are signs with lights that flash yellow when a train comes, maybe a 1000 feet on each side of the grade crossing.
An eastbound view:
An eastbound came on Main 1 while K.P. was on site. Looking westbound:
Above, note the midway intermediate signals in the background.
Continued in Part H
Part “H” (of A-H)
Looking eastbound: The Main 2 has a buildup of sand on it:
Apparently this area has severe winds, and sand builds up by the tracks.
Lastly, another view of the grade crossing: It is unknown what happened here, but much dung is present on the track panels.
This will conclude the extra series on the Arizona trip.
Flood Control doesn't pay, UP does. Clay street I beams will be removed and used again (and again) elsewhere. Website is not posting replies with topics replied to.
A10
BNSF6400:
Thank you for the background info on the Yuma crossing of the Colorado. It would seem that the immediate area is of transcontenental importance on two fronts.
KP,
Thanks for a great photo series on your most recent trip to Yuma and the Arizona desert. Much appreciated. Bravo and cheers!!
A Quick Update as of Friday, June 12, 2015
While on Assignment to and from Near the …
… Perris Valley Line, a Few Sunset Route …
… Related Items of Interest Were Seen
By the BNSF portion of the LA&SL alternate Sunset Route, new track had partially been laid by the new junction switch for Metrolink’s Perris Valley Line, east of the new Iowa Ave. overpass (in the north end of Riverside, CA), from which overpass the below dusk photo was shot from.
(Many Sunset Route trains take this alternate route. Westbound (photo downward) BNSF and UP trains tend to be routed the third track from the left, eastbound trains tend to use the first track.)
Earlier in the day, at the Colton Signal Dept. in Colton, those crates with turnout related items in them now have RH (right hand) and LH (left hand) markings on them.
The markings ratio was 2 to 1 in favor of left handed assembly parts, with eight for left hand switches, and four boxes for right handed ones.
Exactly where those boxes will be transported to and used at in the future is still not clear, nor why the left hand variety is favored 2 to 1 over the right.
I saw in a Metrolink press release the other day that the Perris line is listed as a continuation of the 91 Line - and they're buying 20 new locos.
Replies:
SP657E44 (6-12):
The PE freight line crossed the Santa Fe at Riverside Junction (NOT to be confused with BNSF’s West Riverside where the junction with the LA&SL was relocated to circa 1976), went west over what is now the 91 Freeway. The LA&SL had a branch going over that bridge too. The PE trolley line, on the other hand, southwestwardly followed La Cadena Drive on what is now the I-215 Freeway from the Grand Terrace area, and as I recall, went west in Riverside on 3rd Street, not touching the tracks at Riverside Junction at all.
An excellent reference on this is the following LINK, and click on the map at Riverside.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/69/Relief_map_Pacific_Electric_Railway.jpg
Clicking on the map makes it bigger.
You can also clink on the map in the Bloomington area (West Colton Yard), and see a PE line that ran from Rialto to Bloomington to Riverside.
You can also slide the side and bottom slide strips.
Enjoy tinkering with the past …
Clyde Acoltia (6-12):
Evolving Visions with a Little Help
Your diagram was of great assistance in comprehending the new, future track arrangement at the east end of the present Colfred siding on the west slope of the Mohawk grade in Arizona.
Your post inspired a relook at a posted photo taken on the recent trip. Subsequently, a copy of the posted photo was greatly blown up, and that blown up photo suggests your diagram has the right idea.
The photo also shows the east switch of the Colfred siding is presently out of service, and the track thereat is being rearranged.
If that diagram of yours is re-diagrammed with the future (“future”) mains matching or lining up with a jog, the diagram seems to be easier to understand.
.
DIAGRAM OF EAST COLFRED SIDING AREA
> ---------------- / \ / \ S / > \ < M1------ -------------------------- / / \ / / \ M1 / / \ M2----------- ---------------------- / > < / M2 /---------------
The re-diagramming also shows the future signals DIFFERENTLY than your diagram, which diagram of yours shows the signals in safe positions. The actual onsite situation seems to me to be somewhat unsafe, and it wouldn’t surprise me if at least one erected but not activated signal was relocated to partially match your diagram.
Anyway, Clyde, does that diagram above look like things might end up that way eventually?
BNSF6400 (6-13):
Brilliant information! Now, everything makes sense.
The old and new canaling on aerials was reviewed, and an odd situation was seen. North of the Sunset Route a wash encounters the canal. The concrete lined canal you mentioned actually goes under that wash which wash is on a bridge!
LINK:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Iris,+CA+92233/@33.193275,-115.3935678,804m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x80d0b335485299d7:0xa89b665b4ab2d6b2
Anyway, your post puts a measure of smartness on UP’s part in putting in a culvert arrangement instead of a full bridging.
kgbw49 (6-14):
Thanks for your kind words.
We are near to entering a new chapter in the two-tracking, the very long stretches alongside Interstates 8 in Arizona. Unfortunately, one cannot stop on the Interstate to take photos, so I don’t know how that two-tracking will be able to be documented for the forum.
It would be cool if UP hired K.P. to add to their historical archives, but I’m pretty sure that is not going to happen. The next best thing would be a drone. I could equip the car with a launch pad, and while 75 M.P.H. on the Interstate it would take off and take picture of the two-tracking. Then I could slow down, and it would safely land – hopefully, anyway. Does that sound possible? That too I don’t think will happen … But dreaming is fun!
Best,
K.P.
Yes, your diagram is pretty much what the drawings show at Colfred when the second main is added west of Colfred. The offset in track alignments won't be drastic and might be nearly invisible when they're finished. I photoshopped my drawing from the other day. This is how the plans are set up for the initial phase of second main track between Colfred and Mohawk. Colfred could remain in this configuration for months or years:Once they get serious about adding the second main west of Colfred, this is how it should look immediately before the cutover and track realignment:And once they're finished with the realignment, your diagram should be the final arrangement. Not sure which signals you spotted as looking different, but the searchlights will be gone. In the photo you posted, it appears they have eastbound signals erected for both mains and the siding at 785.
A map may show it but aerial photos don't, nor do topo maps.
Yesterday the grinding wheel that smoothes the poured-in-place walls was working on the north side of Riverside avenue, cleaning up so the facing walls can be poured. Caltrans superintendent confirms (while we were parked on UP's "new" (original) r-o-w that the south bridge is still scheduled to come down and the line restored to the new, new bridge.
A10 - it's very smooth, waiting for sub-ballast.
Yuma, AZ … and Bad News about Photobucket
On K.P.’s recent trip to Yuma (May 30-31, 2015), there was some focus on the possibilities for two-tracking over the Colorado River. Reportedly, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is tackling the issue. But, from K.P.’s onsite brief review of that area, only one viable possibility seems to exist, and it may surprise some here at the forum.
In very recent times a major degrading of the use of photobucket.com has occurred, making it difficult to nearly impossible to retrieve past photos (at least quickly). Posting new photos has its own weird peculiarities too. So, when those Photobucket degrading issues are resolved (hopefully), the idea is to make a case (with photos) of WHAT the solution to the thorny issue of two-tracking over the Colorado River MIGHT be.
A Reply
SP657E44 (6-18):
SP657E44 A [PE] map may show it [the PE trolley line through Riverside] but aerial photos don't, nor do topo maps.
A [PE] map may show it [the PE trolley line through Riverside] but aerial photos don't, nor do topo maps.
Trolley service from Los Angeles to San Bernardino, CA was suspended in 1941. The line through Riverside (from San Bernardino through Colton and unto Riverside) was suspended years before that. Historically, the trolley line through Riverside (that crossed the LA&SL at Magnolia Ave.) was a southern effort (like the AT&SF route was) to link Riverside with Los Angeles. Hard times precluded finishing of that southern PE route. Thus, the trolley line through Riverside never reached its full potential, and was eventually regulated to freight only, probably in the 1920’s, maybe even before that.
Thus, aerials and topos would show very little of what started to demise almost a hundred years ago.
rdamonNow is it worthy of spending $$ from both UP and the taxpayers side, is a different question.
About 90 years ago the road bridge was floated (!!) into position and erected with cranes. If need be, it could easily be lifted using modern cranes and moved onto new piers (say 100 feet) downstream to make room for a new RR bridge. This straightforward technical challenge is nothing compared to negotiating with local politicians, so I confidently predict that this project will be deferred until well after I'm gone.
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! ***
This series was composed and posted under very trying conditions, with photobucket.com, which hosts the photos used herein, now very, very difficult to use. It is now very similar to the TRAINS Magazine website and its forums. At both sites, K.P. wonders if the game plan is to chase people away … OK, about that river crossing …
An Analysis of Two-Tracking the …
… Colorado River Crossing
The Yuma, AZ Area
Part I (of I-II)
There has been some speculation as to what the powers that be will do about two-tracking the physically north-south (east-west) Colorado River crossing, most commonly associated with Yuma, AZ, but spans between Arizona and California. The present truss bridge spanning the river is only single-track.
Building another bridge of some sort to the west, or build a second bridge just to the east, seems to have insurmountable problems that would escalate the cost beyond practicality. Of course, if Uncle Sam foots the bill, to spend a billion dollars on some exotic Colorado River crossing would be a drop in the bucket to him. But, after analysis, K.P. now is of the opinion (“opinion”) that the cheapest approach will prevail, and that is to build a two-track truss bridge, take the present one down, and put the new truss bridge in its place. The actual replacement operation could probably be done, in K.P.’s humble opinion, within a 12-hour window.
The terrain seems to preclude a long reroute of the tracks involved to the east (left).
Rerouting to the west in a big way is also not an option, as either the city or mountains are in the way.
The above photo is highly blown up below, and seems to suggest a new TWO-TRACK bridging is the most practical answer.
An overview from the north side, looking south, with Yuma, AZ across the river (far side):
A two-track single truss bridge design (future left) might inspire designers to replace the single-lane highway bridge too (right).
As above, K.P. has no idea what happens when there is some sort of emergency and lights and sirens approach the present roadway vehicle bridge. That alone might inspire designers to think of another paralleling bridge.
Continued in Part II
Part II (of I-II)
Looking westbound, a train on the north (west) side of the present bridge rolls away from the camera. A speculated route WEST of the current bridge seems like it would have conflict problems, as the road and tracks are not that far apart elevation-wise, and raising or lowering one or the other for a safe clearance would have its own complications.
Obviously, a heavy duty vertical wall would be necessary in Yuma, AZ for the second main if a two-track truss bridge was employed. Interestingly, in Riverside, CA, a vertical wall (south east side) was used on the LA&SL crossing of the 91 Freeway.
In only eight years that Colorado River railroad truss bridge will be 100 years old.
That alone suggests it might be time to replace it anyway.
BNSF in Cajon Pass recently replace an over 100-years old railings-less bridge, where the support steel-work was underneath the train, not around the train as a truss bridge.
Above, the lead BNSF unit of an eastbound is starting to go over the pre-stressed concrete bridge that has railings with the old steel bridge parts near the camera.
So, there we have it. All this is just K.P.’s opinion. From all this, did you form one on the Colorado River crossing?
Interesting thoughts on the bridge KP. A big problem with the double track truss bridge would be how to build the foundation under the existing bridge while still in service. I have always thought that the method would be to build retaining walls on the east side along both sides of the river, replace the small vehicle bridge on the west side then put in a deck plate girder bridge right next to the old bridge with a center support in the river channel. Time will tell..
Super Hunky (6-20):
About possibly replacing the old 1923 dated truss bridge over the Colorado River in the Yuma, AZ area …
… it probably would NOT be a problem at all, as new supports could be positioned so they would not interfere with the old bridge’s support structure.
The trusses in the Grand Terrace area in California used four stands for each section, and the 550 ton weight of the section rested on them.
So, it would probably be easier than one might think for a bridge replacement over the Colorado River.
If that old bridge over the Colorado River ever does get replaced, I hope there is an observation place set aside to watch the event, even at night, like early in the morning. That definitely would be an unforgettable historic event to witness with one’s own eyes!
Take care,
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.