Sunset Route Two-Tracking Updates

[CShaveRR]

About the missing CP sign at East Maricopa (just a hypothesis, mind you!):

These bungalows are usually assembled at a signal facility that makes them up for all online locations. Each one would have to be specifically identified for delivery to its proper location--the wrong bungalow probably wouldn't do too much good. The sign is an important part of the bungalow.

So now the bungalow is delivered, and permanently mounted. But...there is no East Maricopa interlocking yet--no mention in the timetable, no switches, no working signals. So, rather than identify a location that has no status in the rules or the timetable, the sign is removed. I'll bet it's locked up inside the bungalow, ready for reinstallation when everyone else catches up with the Signal Department.

K.P., I'm anxiously awaiting the installment about the unorthodox West Colton signals. Somebody must know what is going on--the rest of us either have to guess, or wait until the Special Instructions come out.

[K. P. Harrier]

As of Saturday, September 12, 2009:

Colton and Pomona, CA

Again, nothing appears to be happening construction-wise in the Pomona area.  However, in the Colton signal department area, the stack of old signals and parts for such appears to have been cleared away, and a shiny mast was left over or has been brought to the Colton site.

It is unknown if the shiny mast is for the future new signaling at Pomona.

The TWO new CP SP514 HAMILTON control boxes for Pomona are still at the fenced Colton site.

The above photo clearly shows the grade slope the Sunset Route is on as it approaches the BNSF crossing a few blocks to the west, or photo left.

CShaveRR (9-9):

CShaveRR

Looking at the System Special Instructions, the only things I see that are possible are Approach Clear Sixty (yellow over flashing green) or Approach Clear Fifty (yellow over solid green), which convey only speed limits for the next signal, and no information about routes. When the signal isn't needed to convey a more conventional indication, it probably goes out.

Concerning a SECOND advance signal before a crossover (or turnout), you could very well be right about some kind of yellow over green indication being displayed.

And, your thought about "conveying only speed limits" probably is generally correct, too, when applied to a high speed crossover or turnout that a train may be approaching.

However, in the West Colton Yard area in Southern California, a new arrangement seemingly with a very radical departure from UP's current orthodox signaling has been put in, and it almost defies logic.  Hopefully, in the next few weeks a photo post on the matter can be put together for the Forum's awareness of the weird arrangement.

K.P.

 

[K. P. Harrier]

Arizona Report II, Section C

A photo loaded with detail!  The Maricopa Amtrak platform is on the lower left.  This view shows how the grading for the future second track alignment shifts from the south (forefront bottom right) to the north (the background upper left).    The unlade future double-crossover's erected but not-in-service-yet signals are in the distance.

A number of blocks EAST of Highway 347, this westward facing view shows the future new control point's west facing signals, as was seen just above.  They are now no longer lying on the ground as they were back in May.  A SUPER IMPORTANT NOTE:  The new CP box NO LONGER HAS A CP NAMEPLATE ON IT!  More on this will be in Arizona Report III.

Compare the above view to the below photo taken at the end of May.  Back then a plate on the box read "CP SP899 EAST MARICOPA"

Arizona Report III is scheduled to be posted the morning of Sunday, September 13

 

[K. P. Harrier]

Arizona Report II, Section B

Two-tracks now extend eastward all the way to the heart of the City of Maricopa.  Main 2 now ends where the east-end of the Maricopa Siding use to end, at the west side of Highway 347.  The signals are new, but the turnout is the same old one.

The crossing gate devices at Highway 347 are shiny and new.  This is at M.P. 897.80.

The east facing westbound signal on the right is now operational.  The dome car on display in the background is the 60-year old ex-California Zephyr CB&Q Silver Horizon.

The new electrical box for the crossing gates is safely away from the road, on the eastern south side

Continued at Section C

 

[K. P. Harrier]

Arizona Report II, Section A

From the Ralston Road grade crossing (M.P. 893.38), looking west, on a big, swooping curve.  Note Main 1 on the right has wooden ties even through the grade crossing.

Looking east:  The intermediate signal masts have NO lower signal heads

In the vicinity of M.P. 895 there are the next and last intermediate signals before the main part of the community of Maricopa.  Note the left lower signal head is turned away and not in service.

Continued at Section B

 

[CShaveRR]

K. P. Harrier

Two such masts in a row with lower signal heads facing the same direction is reminiscent of recent posts about suchlike signals in the Indio, CA area.  To date, no one at the forum here seems to know what the first type mast's lower right head displays when lit.  In some ways, that is not surprising.  All UP engineers and conductors that this forumist has talked to don't seem to know either!

Well, now, let's approach (and this word may have been used advisedly) this logically.

If these signals are appearing on single track, and there is no facing-point switch at the next signal, the bottom light will not be red--a red light below the top head would be unnecessary.

You wouldn't need more than one signal in advance of a signal showing a diverging route, so yellow wouldn't be necessary at the second signal away from a switch.

Looking at the System Special Instructions, the only things I see that are possible are Approach Clear Sixty (yellow over flashing green) or Approach Clear Fifty (yellow over solid green), which convey only speed limits for the next signal, and no information about routes. When the signal isn't needed to convey a more conventional indication, it probably goes out.

There may be other possibilities here, and it's possible that they are (or will be) covered in general orders for the specific subdivision, when the signals are placed in service.

[K. P. Harrier]

Arizona Report I, Section C

There is the MOBILE CTC siding for Main 1 only.  Then there comes CP SP887 ENID (below), a double-crossover.  Please make a mental note of the large, cleared land area surrounding such control points.

The Rio Bravo Rd. grade crossing (M.P. 891.34):  Looking west.  The new track, Main 2, is on the south side, or photo left.  Note, Main 1 (right) still has wooden ties, except through the grade crossing.

Looking east:  The railroad tends to install signals at public grade crossing for the railroad's own easy access.

Arizona Report II is scheduled to be posted the morning of Friday, September 11

 

[K. P. Harrier]

Arizona Report I, Section B

The beginning of two-tracks (sort of).  There are no signals, just track.  Bruce Kelly in his September 7 post correctly identified this as the west end of the now not normally used "old" ESTRELLA siding.  The old switch machine is dirty, rusted, and obviously has no electrical juice connected to it.  The former siding is now used only by work trains and maintenance equipment, etc., until such a time as two-tracking proceeds westward again ...

The west end of the new CP SP876* ESTRELLA:  Officially, this is the beginning of two-tracks eastward.

Continued at Section C

* For the uninitiated, such designations generally follow milepost numbers, such M.P. 876.

 

[K. P. Harrier]

Arizona Report I, Section A

The "old" westbound signal at the east end of [CP] SHAWMUT (in the vicinity of M.P. 871) stands guard in a very treacherous area.  The access road to the CP is halfway washed out from flash floods.  The next signal to the east begins new signaling.

Amid cactus, the first new tri-light signal.  Note the lower, right facing signal head.

The next signal eastward ALSO has a lower signal head facing rightward, or west.

Two such masts in a row with lower signal heads facing the same direction is reminiscent of recent posts about suchlike signals in the Indio, CA area.  To date, no one at the forum here seems to know what the first type mast's lower right head displays when lit.  In some ways, that is not surprising.  All UP engineers and conductors that this forumist has talked to don't seem to know either!

Continued at Section B

 

[cabcar]

 Anyone know what's going on about ten miles East of Tucson?

I just heard there has been a work window out there since 0700 this morning, and is still going on.

Thanks,

--Robert

[Bruce Kelly]

The switch motor with no signals in view is the west end of Estrella siding, at the summit of SP's (now UP's) climb over the Maricopa Mountains. In this view of yours, looking east toward the distant Sierra Estrella, it looks like we're in flat, open desert, but the railroad falls away eastward from here on a gentle grade (mostly 0.3 percent or less, with one short stretch of 0.7 percent) down to Maricopa. But from Estrella west, it's 20 miles of mostly 1 percent down to Gila Bend (Gila on the SP), with quite a bit of curvature in the vicinity of Shawmut.

In the mid 1990s, while it was still SP, this view would have shown a dwarf searchlight signal at left governing WBs in the siding and a single-head searchlight standing between both tracks governing WBs on the main. When I last visited here in August of 2001, well after UP took over, the WB main line signal had been moved outside, to the right.

Your picture shows no evidence that the siding is just hours away from being extended westward, so unless there was a new bidirectional signal standing right next to you, I wonder if the siding had been taken out of service. Looking forward to your explanation.

[K. P. Harrier]

For those that ...

... have been following this topic ... A five part "Arizona Report" series with photos has been put together to visually benefit the Forum.

Two examples ...

There is a switch motor, but where are the signals? (The answer is in Part I.)

Is a Code-3 fatality just waiting to happen on account of SOMETHING right by this grade crossing?  (Details are in Part III.)

The first installment is scheduled for the morning of Wednesday, September 9.  And again, it will be presented in multiple posts each day to try to alleviate the delays in the system bringing up the photos.

Desertdog (9-3):

Your recent thorough report inspired this forumist to visit Arizona and see for himself what is going on there.  The findings are as noted above.  Thanks.

K.P.

 

[desertdog]

billio

For those of us who are unfamiliar with White and Parker roads, what does this portend?  A construction effort from Tucson west, from Maricopa east, or what? Help! 

Thanks in advance.

Billio, I wish I had the answer. Since the crossing is just east of Maricopa, it would imply that a construction effort is forthcoming from the east end of the present Maricopa siding. However, there has been no obvious rhyme or reason to much of the construction to date. My best guess is that the railroad wants to complete whatever infrastructure has been formally permitted by the local authorities. For instance, Eloy approved the additional track at their crossings. Casa Grande has not--at least not to my knowledge to date--so there is a sizable gap in crossing reconstruction. Likewise, the White and Parker Road crossing (that's is the name of the road, singular) may lie outside of Maricopa and not be under its jurisdiction. In any event, at some point, about all that will need to be done on the entire stretch is set down ties and lay rail because everything else is slowing being put into place. John Timm

[billio]

For those of us who are unfamiliar with White and Parker roads, what does this portend?  A construction effort from Tucson west, from Maricopa east, or what? Help! 

Thanks in advance.

[desertdog]

Here are some brief observations from a visit to Tucson and the Sunset Gila Sub this week.

At Maricopa I noted that there were more MOW and signal department vehicles, as well as construction materials, in the material yard next to the Amtrak depot.  The yard was virtually empty on my last visit. 

There are several new stacks of wooden cross ties at Bon.  It is my understanding that when they renew the rail on the existing main, they will not replace the wooden ties with concrete ties. 

Concrete grade crossing components are stacked up west of the SR 347 crossing in Maricopa. The crossing signal relay shack east of the highway is safely out of the way of the eventual eastward track extension.  There were traffic cones alongside the existing single track crossing which looks to have been replaced. I did not get close enough to verify.

Heavy cable for the relocation of the four crossing signals is now in place at the White and Parker Rd. crossing east of town. 

The former depot site at Casa Grande has been leveled and graded.

A private contractor was preparing a crossing near Toltec for the installation of the second track.  The crossings in Eloy are now double-tracked and have advance warning signs that state "two tracks." 

Most if not all signals, radio towers and relay shacks have been relocated, as needed, all the way to Tucson.  Many are temporarily sitting up on railroad ties. 

The railroad has erected "no trespassing" signs at both ends of the concrete deck bridges along the new ROW.  In places where the roadbed is wider than the bridge deck, they have erected barricades, as well. While this must have cost the railroad several thousands of dollars, hopefully it will be worth it so that nobody can sue because their ATV went down into a dry wash.

 John Timm

 

[K. P. Harrier]

Section E (of A-E)

Problem Obstacles

PHOTO #12:

It seems that a bridging would be needed over a lowered Sunset Route for the NORTH TO WEST transition track between the BNSF and UP.  This previously shown photo shows the present transition track.  The Sunset Route is in the background. Los Angeles is to the background right

PHOTO #13:

The present EAST TO SOUTH transition track:  El Paso is to the left, Los Angeles is to the right.   The transition track turns to follow the BNSF, and goes past the BNSF signal bridge, but not under it.

PHOTO #14:

With a new transition track (for the above) the difference in elevation would be quite steep.  But, it should be remembered that another severely steep situation already exists at West Colton Yard between the Sunset Route and the Palmdale Cutoff.  See the following photo's top left.

PHOTO #15:

Comparing the above photo with the very top of the below photo helps one discern just how steep of a climb can be in a very short distance, and on a curve at that!  The track just below that steep track is the Balloon, and curves around to the curved track on the far left.  The photo was taken back in April, 2009 in a transition period when things were ‘torn up.'

All the above perspectives are strictly personal opinions that may or may not come about ... But, this poster believes the concepts presented are the least expensive in a very big way (an important factor if one railroad ends up paying more account of previous pre-merger agreements), the most environmentally friendly choice (read reduced community noise), and accords with national security the best.

We should know (hopefully) which published alternative is actually selected somewhere within the first quarter of 2010, after the Environmental Impact Report is released.  But, the fact that there are already new, uninstalled diamonds present at Colton Crossing suggests to this poster that BNSF and UP already know exactly what they will do.

 

[K. P. Harrier]

SECTION D (of A-E)

PHOTO #10:

By the tracks:  Looking west toward the old Colton Depot.  The tracks here would still be lowering, but very slightly now.  Water drainage would be eastward (left), toward the Santa Ana River a few thousand feet behind the camera.

PHOTO #11:

An eastbound on the present BNSF-UP transition track heads east toward [CP] MT. VERNON and the Santa Ana River, where the Colton Crossing project would end

Continue at post Section E

 

[K. P. Harrier]

SECTION C (of A-E)

PHOTO #7:

After going underneath the BNSF, in heading east, the line would encounter this underpass. (Los Angeles is to the west, left.)  This is the big present obstacle.  But, simply redoing the situation in reverse would be no problem.  The UP line would then go under La Cadena Drive which would then be at ground-level. 

PHOTO #8:

The railings for the present La Cadena Drive underpass (above) are on the below photo's upper left, immediately before the building.  The above pictured structure, as well as a few related structures, are basically the only near obstacles that may or may not be in the way.

PHOTO #9:

That building structure area includes the old SP Colton Depot, presently a non-railroad private business.

Continued at Section D

 

[K. P. Harrier]

Section B (of A-E)

PHOTO #4:

There would be no elevation problem if Main 1 (the track on the right), instead of elevating toward the camera (from the distant overpass) as in this photo, went downward.

PHOTO #5:

Both tracks would meet and go under the Rancho Ave overpass at a significantly reduce elevation.  There likely would then be no crossovers here.

PHOTO #6:

Because of an alleyway and housing on the left, a retaining wall probably would be needed here for the greatly lowered track.  Or, the railroad could just buy the old houses, bulldoze them, and slope the embankment.  Basically, most of the sides throughout the project could slope as in PHOTO #1 (of Section A).

Continued at post SECTION C

 

[K. P. Harrier]

K.P.'s Inexpensive Colton Crossing

(This theme is divided into five separate, same day posts with limited photos in each to speed up the TRAINS.COM photo retrieval process and reduce lag time.)

SECTION A (of A-E)

PHOTO #1:

Notice the simplicity of this rail elevation shift on the UP Palmdale Cutoff, only a few miles northwest of the Colton Crossing.  There is an overpass out of view in the background (behind the right upper trees), and an underpass that the camera is positioned on top of.  There are NO retaining walls or support structuring of any sort holding up embankments.

Now, that we have the premise of simplicity ... On to that which is directly related to the Colton Crossing:

This poster believes that UP going under the BNSF is the most prudent (and lowest cost) choice.  The following photographically examines that possibility.

PHOTO #2:

This view is about a mile and a quarter- to a half west from Colton Crossing, looking EAST from Pepper Ave.  Past the distant signal, Main 2 could start lowering.  Main 1 is way out of view on the left.

PHOTO #3:

A Rancho Ave. view, look west.  Main 2 is the track with the whitish concrete ties and ballast on the left.  That track could be lowering as it approaches the camera.  Main 1 is on the far right.

Continued at post SECTION B

 

[mvs]

K. P. Harrier

It seems that the general consensus is to keep the Colton Crossing within this thread.  Thanks to all repliers for the input.

K.P., I am way late to this, but I agree with you and everyone else.  Some of us bookmark this thread (for your excellent updates), and it is good to have the various SoCal projects "under one roof".

 

I was reading the board agenda for a recent Alameda Corridor East meeting... can you believe that the Temple Avenue train diversion project in Pomona is supposed to be completed in a few months?

[K. P. Harrier]

Consensus

It seems that the general consensus is to keep the Colton Crossing within this thread.  Thanks to all repliers for the input.

A special note to CShaveRR (8-31):

I don't anticipate moving to Illinois and photo documenting CREATE activity, however ... A married daughter recently moved to Illinois, and absolutely loves it!  She has a six-month old daughter ... Maybe the misses could fly while I drive to visit our daughter.  On the way I could see and photograph some of the rail sites, including any CREATE activity ... and post such.

Regarding the long delays in bringing up posted photos at the forum ... It is well understood about the frustration you have had.  Perhaps posting multiple short photographic posts in rapid succession instead of one long one would solve the problem.  I'll have to try that soon!

Thursday, September 3 ...

On the above date, some thoughts and photos will be posted on an el cheapo way the tricky BNSF / UP Colton grade separation could be pulled off.  I'll bet my boots UP will probably go that route ... Of course, I don't have any boots, so I guess I'm safe if I have to eat crow ...

K.P.

[MikeF90]

K. P. Harrier

Should news updates about Colton Crossing continue as it has been herein, or should it have a separate topic all of its own? 

Until some serious progress is made on the project, I don't think it needs a separate topic. When something new comes up onsite by all means shoot it and report back :-). Otherwise we can monitor the 'progress' here.

Hmmm, nothing new going on back at the diversion track; that's a little surprising. My guesstimates for the next steps are to rip out CP Roselawn and its signals, likewise the old approach signals (LA sub) just west of the diversion and adding a new turnout where the 'old' Alhambra sub will turn into an industrial lead. Just for starters.

TIA for any new pics in this area - personal business has postponed my Pomona visit. Stay cool (heh).

[billio]

K. P. Harrier

A How to Proceed Question

This thread is about Sunset Route two-tracking updates.  The Colton Crossing situation has been included herein, but it technically isn't two-tracking, especially now that both east and west of the crossing are two-tracked.  How do those at the forum feel about this?  Should news updates about Colton Crossing continue as it has been herein, or should it have a separate topic all of its own?  Is anyone even interested in photos of the Colton Crossing matter?

Thanks.

K.P.

 

K.P., the Colton Crossing per se is not part of Sunset Route double tracking.  HOWEVER, aside from being one of the two most congested rail grade crossings west of the Mississippi (might the other be Tower 55 in Ft. Worth?), Colton Crossing most assuredly constitutes a part of Sunset Route improvement (for that portion of the route between Los Angeles and El Paso), and its completion has to be worth 25 to 50 miles of added double track, maybe more.

Other bits and pieces of this thread (small ones, to be sure) don't deal all that much with the second main, but are nonetheless informative and interesting -- and much appreciated, especially by those of us who don't live in or near the Inland Empire.  So my advice, for what it's worth, is to please keep us posted on things that catch your eye.

 

[CShaveRR]

My opinion: We love and value your coverage of the entire southwestern scene--nobody does it like this for any other part of the country, and it's their loss. Would you consider moving to the Midwest when CREATE really gets going?

My suggestion: Start new threads with the new month, linking the old one to them when necessary. It will load up more quickly for the people who would need it to (I have a fairly powerful new computer, and it still stammers at times). Yes, make them separate threads.

And, to others: when quoting prior posts, please don't include the pictures. See above for the reason.

[desertdog]

K.P.,

You are asking for opinions, so here's mine, be it right or wrong: 

It's hard to separate out all the parts of the equation, so let's not try.  The Colton Crossing situation is integral to any discussion of improving the infrastructure of the Sunset Route in order to move more tonnage faster.  Two-tracking is a part of the process, just as is the construction of a new yard at Red Rock, Arizona, improved signalling, etc., and therefore so, too, is the Colton Crossing. 

John Timm 

K. P. Harrier

As of Monday, August 31, 2009:

The Colton and Pomona, CA areas both were visited recently, and nothing obvious news-wise needed to be reported.

Pomona, CA

As previously indicated, in downtown Pomona, EAST of the new five-track width signal bridge (with signals for four-tracks), a "mystery track," even with the Metrolink platforms torn out, cannot go east past the Towne Ave. underpass because the current rail bridging is insufficient for such.  The following two new photos document the situation.  The far, two-track line is the north side SP; the single-track is the south side LA&SL.  Los Angeles is to the left, Colton and El Paso are to the right.

A How to Proceed Question

This thread is about Sunset Route two-tracking updates.  The Colton Crossing situation has been included herein, but it technically isn't two-tracking, especially now that both east and west of the crossing are two-tracked.  How do those at the forum feel about this?  Should news updates about Colton Crossing continue as it has been herein, or should it have a separate topic all of its own?  Is anyone even interested in photos of the Colton Crossing matter?

Thanks.

K.P.

 

 

 

[K. P. Harrier]

As of Monday, August 31, 2009:

The Colton and Pomona, CA areas both were visited recently, and nothing obvious news-wise needed to be reported.

Pomona, CA

As previously indicated, in downtown Pomona, EAST of the new five-track width signal bridge (with signals for four-tracks), a "mystery track," even with the Metrolink platforms torn out, cannot go east past the Towne Ave. underpass because the current rail bridging is insufficient for such.  The following two new photos document the situation.  The far, two-track line is the north side SP; the single-track is the south side LA&SL.  Los Angeles is to the left, Colton and El Paso are to the right.

A How to Proceed Question

This thread is about Sunset Route two-tracking updates.  The Colton Crossing situation has been included herein, but it technically isn't two-tracking, especially now that both east and west of the crossing are two-tracked.  How do those at the forum feel about this?  Should news updates about Colton Crossing continue as it has been herein, or should it have a separate topic all of its own?  Is anyone even interested in photos of the Colton Crossing matter?

Thanks.

K.P.

 

[K. P. Harrier]

Clarifying Antonio

There has been an inconsistency about a Control Point (CP) identity in Pomona, CA that involves the Antonio name.  Here is the lowdown on the matter:

On the northern Southern Pacific (SP) side, about a mile and a half east of the present (CP) HAMILTON (AL514) is (CP) RESERVOIR (AL515) that encompasses both sides of San Antonio Ave.  There is NO (CP) ANTONIO.  On the south Los Angeles & Salt Lake (LA&SL) side is (CP) WO TOWER.  Presently, there is a transition track between the SP and LA&SL sides.

Years ago Reservoir St. crossed both rail lines at grade.  Today, there is an underpass there.  In the below telephoto, the underpass's guard railings are visible midway up on the left.

Ironically, [CP] RESERVOIR does NOT bisect Reservoir St. at all, but does cross San Antonio Ave.

Research has unearthed that there was once a [CP] ANTONIO (AL 515) (for the transition track to [CP] WO TOWER located on the LA&SL side), with [CP] RESERVOIR (AL516) right next to it to the east.  Apparently, UP, at some point in the past, decided to combine the two adjacent CP's.  The surviving name and designation proved to be (CP) RESERVOIR (AL515).

The Reservoir designation undoubtedly was used en-lieu-of Antonio to avoid confusion.  There is another north-south San Antonio Ave. just over four miles to the east, in Ontario!  Both the SP and LA&SL tracks cross it as well.

The seemingly out of place [CP] RESERVOIR will likely be eliminated all together when the Sunset Route is finally two-tracked further eastward to [CP] SIERRA in Fontana.

[mvs]

diningcar

Thanks MikeF90, what you have furnished is sufficient.

However I do not know the background and motivations for the ACE project. Can someone summarize that please.

The ACE project is just a way to spend our tax dollars   (just kidding)

Actually, The ACE Project is a way to eliminate some dangerous road/railroad grade crossings, and to upgrade many other crossings.

[diningcar]

Thanks MikeF90, what you have furnished is sufficient.

However I do not know the background and motivations for the ACE project. Can someone summarize that please.