Paul_D_North_Jr K. P. Harrier: [snip] While there are two signals at the CP's east side (background), apparently only one track as presently so will continue eastward. A mile or two to the east the line was field checked also, but no grading was found, but was as in the below previously showed photo of the abruptly mountainous area Continued in Part VI [snip] More likely, the delay in continuing the double-tracking further to the east are one or a combination of more than one of the following: Insufficient Right-Of-Way width someplace; permits needed from a government agency that owns the adjoining land; expensive structures needed to get over 'dry washes' for when they're not so dry, and/ or local roads; permits for any of the above, plus the various environmental, historic/ archeological, etc. reviews, etc. [snip]
K. P. Harrier: [snip] While there are two signals at the CP's east side (background), apparently only one track as presently so will continue eastward. A mile or two to the east the line was field checked also, but no grading was found, but was as in the below previously showed photo of the abruptly mountainous area Continued in Part VI
[snip] While there are two signals at the CP's east side (background), apparently only one track as presently so will continue eastward. A mile or two to the east the line was field checked also, but no grading was found, but was as in the below previously showed photo of the abruptly mountainous area
Continued in Part VI
[snip] More likely, the delay in continuing the double-tracking further to the east are one or a combination of more than one of the following: Insufficient Right-Of-Way width someplace; permits needed from a government agency that owns the adjoining land; expensive structures needed to get over 'dry washes' for when they're not so dry, and/ or local roads; permits for any of the above, plus the various environmental, historic/ archeological, etc. reviews, etc. [snip]
Forgot to add/ include another factor that's obvious - that pole line: If it's still active, then relocating/ replacing it with another line or method would have to be done before any grading on the near side of this photo.
- Paul North.
Paul D. North, Jr. (11-3):
Yes, Paul, those road names are on the strange side ... almost unbelievably so.
When on site, I documented the following intersection sign as proof ...
It was never thought that the above photo would ever be posted when shot, but neither was your response interest in the area anticipated either, Paul ...
About the Sidewinder Rd. layout, that is a weird one. Not only is it a north-south road, but, as you pointed out, also an east-west road!
In yesterday's post, I wondered if the future CP east of Sidewinder Road would be called CP SIDEWINDER. While that name is certainly distinctive enough, the fact that the road is both a north-south and an east-west road, and crosses (at least alignment-wise) the Sunset Route at TWO different locations, argues against that name being used as a CP name.
As noted previously in this thread, in Pomona, CA there use to be a CP (on the SP side) called [AL515] ANTONIO after the north-south San Antonio Ave. AL515 ANTONIO was back to back with AL516 RESERVOIR. The AL515 ANTONIO turnout route transitioned to the paralleling LA&SL line and connected at LA&SL's [CP] C033 WO TOWER. Since there was a north-south San Antonio Ave. also in Ontario, just five miles to the east, the Antonio name was abandoned and the two interlockings (AL515 ANTONIO and AL516 RESERVOIR) combined into the singular AL515 RESERVOIR.
So, the fact that the north-south Sidewinder Rd. crosses the Sunset Route at M.P. 723.4 and the east-west Sidewinder Rd. imaginatively line-crosses at M.P. 716.6. (Ogilby Rd.), argues against the Sidewinder name. Of course, someone could reason that since there is only one actual grade crossing, the SIDEWINDER name for the new CP east of Sidewinder Rd. might work.
The area is so sparse there are not many present names to choose from. To the west is the DUNES siding (M.P. 719.9 to 721.6), and to the east is the end of two-tracks at ARAZ (M.P. 725.8). Either of those names could theoretically be utilized for the future CP. Or, UP could come up with something totally off the wall.
Anyway, Paul, thanks for reminding me that there is ALSO an east-west alignment in addition to the north-south alignment for Sidewinder Rd.
A Note to All about the New Cutover Signals in the Pomona-City of Industry, CA Area ...
Recently, the following eastward looking photo from Grand Ave. was re-posted as a location theory-response to word that a new SP-side signal was put in service near the west end of the Diversion.
The area was briefly field checked yesterday, Wednesday, November 3, 2010, and the new signal is indeed in THAT theorized area!
A photo and a few related area photos will be forthcoming in a day or two.
Finally, to all that said thanks for the Imperial County two-tracking report and photos, I say back in a big way, "You are welcome!"
Take care all,
K.P.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- K.P.’s absolute “theorem” from early, early childhood that he has seen over and over and over again: Those that CAUSE a problem in the first place will act the most violently if questioned or exposed.
K.P., that's funny - Thanks for posting that one, too ! I couldn't help but notice them . . .
For fun, "Google-search" (or use any other 'search engine' of your choice) for "American Girl Mine", and browse through the results. You should find that it was/ is a gold mine, presently for sale for a cool $3 million or so, as well as some interesting history of it and the area.
MikeF90 - Love your maps and the quick 'marks' on them - thanks !
Some time ago I promised some photos of current survey equipment - here they are, of a Leica ''Robotic Total Station'' which is usually used to measure horizontal and vertical angles and distances to the prism, the data collector that controls it - it's really more of a 'remote control' unit, and the reflector prism that is used for most work (that's not me, but the actual licensed surveyor whom I was 'helping' to stake-out a new track in the background, approx. 14.5' this side of the closest existing track):
Maybe more later after I go donate some blood . . .
Paul D. North Jr. (11-4):
Ah, you posted photos of a surveyor's theodolite! Important, fascinating instruments they are!
Here in Southern California, in Cajon Pass during its triple-tracking, there were theodolites that were observed ... one was even photographed ...
... But, it seems that nowhere on the Sunset Route two-tracking have surveyors ever been seen by this poster. Maybe everything was surveyed years ago and plans drawn up then.
In a related matter, it is unknown if there was a miscommunication between surveyors and the actual planners, or the public wasn't thought of, but two places would seem to be incredibly trouble prone.
One is in Maricopa, AZ ...
... The other is new and in California east of Sidewinder Rd., near Yuma, AZ.
In both cases, the new CP's are perhaps a half of a mile or a little more past the grade crossing. So, to stop a train over the road crossing with a down the track red CP signal, especially for any length of time, would seem to be courting the wrath of political activist type motorists! Maybe it is not really a problem. I don't live in those areas, so don't know for sure what to believe.
What do you think of this, Paul?
Take care,
More Details on the Signal System Revamping
The West End of the Pomona Diversion to the City of Industry, CA
Part A (of A-B)
On Wednesday, November 3, 2010, this poster had opportunity to briefly visit in afternoon daylight hours the area of the new, now operative tri-light signals.
The following is a report on the findings ...
PHOTO #1:
The EAST switch of the WALNUT siding (M.P. 507.8):
In the above photo, a multi-model EMD lash-up consist was found parked in the siding, and as photos started to be taken, the train came out onto the mainline, lighting the approach lit signal. View looks west from the Brea Canyon Rd. grade crossing.
PHOTO #2:
The below view looks east from Brea Canyon Rd., and is shown for perspective purposes. The overpass in the distance is Grand Ave. The new, south side (right) intermediate signal mast at M.P. 508.7 is barely visible beyond the overpass.
PHOTO #3:
A telephoto eastward view now from that Grand Ave. overpass showing the new bi-directionally signaled single mast at M.P. 508.7:
In the just above PHOTO #3, there is a future signal problem looming. How so?
Continued in Part B
The West End of the Pomona Diversion to the
City of Industry, CA
Part B (of A-B)
In PHOTO #3 the new mast has a lower head facing AWAY from the camera. The next signal for westbound trains (that approach the camera) is the double-red signal shown in PHOTO #1. So far, everything is well and fine.
PHOTO #4:
For eastbound trains traveling away from the camera and approaching the mast in PHOTO 3, the signal does NOT have a lower head! A person may say that is conforming, as the next old, now interfaced target signal to the east is an intermediate (the pictured right signal below) and does not involve a turnout route.
That too is well and fine ... fine NOW!
PHOTO #5
HOWEVER, when the Diversion is in effect and operational, and the line in PHOTO #3 is background rerouted and connected to the four-track Diversion trackage, then what?
In the above photo, the background signal for that future rerouted track is the heads between the two right foreground signal heads.
The eastbound signal identified in PHOTO #3 will need a lower head for a turnout route lineup on the background "C" signal in PHOTO #5, but the head (in PHOTO 3) is NOT there! Matter of fact, it doesn't even seem to have a support stem for a future head!
Is the NEW mast signal in PHOTO #3 only a temporary one? Will the Diversion's Main "D" be extended westward through the view in PHOTO #3 (toward the camera)? Significant questions at this time that unfortunately are without answers, at least for most of us that don't have access to the blue prints.
Interestingly, the MapQuest aerial (of unknown date but linked this date) seems to show slanted grading for a north side track that would turn into the present main. (If you go to that link, be sure to return to this page with the 'back' arrow button.)
http://mapq.st/h/6-VPJ5NolH
PHOTO #6:
The field check (below) of November 3 did NOT show that angled grading as does the MapQuest link view above. (The MapQuest angled grading was at the photo middle, just LEFT of the track.)
A turnout route as the normal route would be rather inconsistent with standard mainline operating practices, so the concept suggested by the MapQuest view is questionable. And, too, our Main "C" designated track has wood ties, whereas the northernmost Main "D" has concrete ties, at least on the in place track. The future Diversion track laying for Main D is expected to be concrete ties. Odd, too, is that the new Diversion transition track of concrete ties (PHOTO #5, background right) will connect to Main "C" that presently has (and will continue to have) wood ties! Figure that one out!
There are just too many odd quirks that have arisen (also like a wood tied turnout being inserted into a concrete tied track -- See PHOTO #5) to make definitive statements at this time about the final, future track layout design.
K.P., I'm not sure if I missed this in your thorough analysis of the new MP 508.7 signals, but couldn't the single lower head just be a 'temporary' signal to protect the 'probably temporary' diversion switch to the east (~ MP 509.3)? EDIT - removed due to major brain cramp.
Also, the close spacing of the above signals surely shows that double tracking there is Not imminent :-(.
As far as the grading to the west, I speculate that might have been to correct some (rain?) damage last fall (?).
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 K.P., thanks for the update and hope it wasn't too hot out there . Due to the low grades in the area, I wouldn't have expected a new control point near Sidewinder Rd. The next crossover east about five miles is Winterhaven (see Yuma sub map link in sig). Perhaps the latter CP's status can be checked on the next trip .... Looks like UP is placing signals near crossroads for quicker on-demand maintenance. [snip]
Due to the low grades in the area, I wouldn't have expected a new control point near Sidewinder Rd. The next crossover east about five miles is Winterhaven (see Yuma sub map link in sig). Perhaps the latter CP's status can be checked on the next trip .... Looks like UP is placing signals near crossroads for quicker on-demand maintenance.
[snip]
After some examnation of the aerial photo views from the various on-line mapping applications, consider the following:
The 8,400' long "DUNES" siding is on the northern side of the existing single Main Track - at least, the curved sides of both of the end turnouts at CP SP720 / western end and CP SP722 / eastern end - go that way, which is most typical;
Accordingly, it would not be too difficult to install a new right-hand turnout in the place of the 'return curve' in the northern/ siding track at its eastern end at CP SP722 to make that into a RH cross-over. Then, extend the 2nd track further east towards Sidewinder Rd., as is apparently being done per K.P.'s photos on the previous page (Page 76);
I'll speculate that at Sidewinder Road, the extended 2nd track on the northern side will again merge into the existing single Main Track with another RH turnout = 1/2 of a possible future cross-over;
A little further east at CP SP 726 "ARAZ", it again appears that the northern track is the one that has the more curved route, and merges into the southern track = current single Main Track with a left-hand turnout. Although, because that location is in a short tangent between the 2 halves of an 'S'-curve, it's hard to tell for sure - but that's my best guess;
With that configuration there, it's highly unlikely that a new turnout would be installed in the existing southern Main Track, because it would be to the inside of that curve. Instead, I believe it is more likely that a new left-hand turnout - to make a full left-hand cross-over here - would be installed at the western end of the existing northern track, just where and as that long curve ends. Again, that would be consistent with extending the northern track further west as the new/ 2nd Main Track in this area;
At the new CP just east of Sidewinder Rd., when the track extension from CP ARAZ gets that far, install the other RH turnout in the northern track to then make it a full cross-over there as well.
Such an installation would then have the following progression, from west to east:
CP SP720 - LH turnout to DUNES
CP SP722 - RH cross-over from DUNES
CP SP723.4 - RH crossover just east of Sidewinder Rd.
CP SP726 ARAZ - LH cross-over
Note that this configuration would provide '1-way' cross-overs at about 1.5 - 2 mile intervals. Although none of these by themselves would be a ''universal cross-over'', the outer pairs of them could be - only the adjacent RH X-overs at 722 and 723,4 would lack that flexibility. Also, another pair of turnouts might be installed nearby to some of them to provide that flexibility, except for between CP ARAZ and Sidewinder Rd. - there are so many curves in there it might be hard to find a decent place to do that, except for at MP 723.4 where it appears a CP is about to be established. Besides, anyplace else much further east would be so close to CP ARAZ that it might not add any useful capability. And further west would be clsoer to CP SP722 at DUNES-East that might not be worthwhile, either.
Finally, K.P. asked about the placement of a couple of the new CP's about 1/2 mile from some grade crossings, and how that might be problematic if a train had to stop for a RED signal. That's true enough, but again those locations might have been the best - or only - acceptable places to install a CP /X-over from the standpoint of track geometry, operating needs there, and useful flexibility towards that end. I would expect that Special Instructions in the Employee Time Table will address and preclude that contingency. Also, UP may be hoping that those signals are no worse than Yellow/ Approach - and preferably Green/ Clear - most of the time, so that situation doesn't occur.
Thanks again, K.P., for the photos and commentary. It's another interesting exercise, as viewed from about 3,000 miles way . . . Thank God for the Internet !
First, I can't speak on any authority on what the UP is doing out West. I can however, speak about conditions around Iowa.
There are many places at control points where the majority of trains have to stop before, sometimes way before, the control point. Just yesterday I was on an eastbound 136 car coal train and was advised by the dispatcher that the Amtrack detour was going around us at CP A061 (Koch, pronounched Cook). To stay off of crossings I had to stop on a clear cab signal at MP 66.25, about 5 miles from Koch. This allowed me to A. get to the top of Mt. Vernon hill (0.8% grade) and B. see the Advance Approach for the CP. Any spot closer and I would've been blocking crossings. Part of this is just knowing your territory and keeping an ear to radio traffic as to who is where and what's going on. The dispatchers don't always give a head's up.
Not all distant/approach signals to a diverging route have two heads. If the new turnouts will only be good for 40 mph, they may only give a flashing yellow/advance approach on the signal before the control point.
Most of the new crossovers have been 50mph and the distant signal will have a single light head below the tri-light head. What their doing out there is anyone's guess. Heck, there is a crossover on the main line at Omaha where we crossover on a single solid yellow (approach). Sometimes truth is stranger than fiction.
Jeff
Paul, that was quite an elaborate analysis! I should have been clearer in my last post - the new CP 'Sidewinder' seems to blow up my 'theory' that mostly existing CPs would be candidates for universal x-overs. Since much of the Yuma sub is the ultimate in 'flat and straight', new universal x-overs could be placed farther apart than the usual eight-ish miles in 70 mph territory. Recent examples: CP Estrella to CP Enid (Gila sub) ~13 miles, CP Coachella to CP Myoma (Yuma sub) ~ 10 miles.
Another factor that might apply is safe access for maintenance and DOL crew changes - the sandy roads adjacent to the ROW are often treacherous! Perhaps some hoggers can comment on the Yuma 'crew base' bottleneck.
I'm also wondering out loud if CP Winterhaven will be upgraded to a universal since it is the last CP before the single track bridge bottleneck. Even with directional running, why hamstring the DS?
After 2MT, long underpowered trains won't have to dive into sidings for Z trains passing at track speed (70 mph between Dunes and Mecca). That will be exciting to see!
Here is an update about three grade separations here in Southern California. One has been covered by K.P. quite well.
First, the up-and-over in the City of Industry where the UP Alhambra Subdivision is ready to partially open. This Pasadena Star-News article talks about the public dedication and impending opening of the Sunset Avenue railroad overpass. The second bridge, over Orange Avenue, will open later this year.
Second, there is a key railroad underpass hopefully about to begin work in the city of Pico Rivera. This underpass will go under the busy BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision, part of the Transcon and also part of Amtrak's Pacific Surfliner route It is covered in this Whittier Daily News article. Passons Boulevard is the second at-grade crossing on the busy BNSF/Amtrak/Metrolink line out of Los Angeles, so completing this underpass is important.
Finally, in the Inland Empire, the road bridge carrying Auto Center Drive over the BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision is seeking funds, as described in this Riverside Press-Enterprise article.
Here in busy Southern California, it's good for trains and cars when any grade crossing is being eliminated!
MikeF90 (11-5 and Edit):
"Brain cramp"? I thought I was the only one that suffered that from time to time ...
Joking aside ... I'm more and more inclined to believe that the new signals (M.P. 408.7) on that one mast east of Grand Ave. (which road is east of the WALNUT siding) is only temporary.
I was back out in that area Saturday, and came to some odd conclusions on the Diversion and related track. A multi-post, multi day series about the whole Industry-Pomona area is hoped to be put together in the near future.
jeffhergert (11-5):
I have much to touch bases with you on, and will post a separate reply in a day or two.
Paul D. North Jr. (11-5):
Regarding the Sidewinder Rd. area (west of Yuma, AZ) and your ponderings about what may or may not come about track layout-wise there ... A review of what UP has done up to now in two-tracking the Sunset Route is quite suggestive of what we can expect in the future around Sidewinder Rd.
The above photo looks westbound at [CP] MYOMA (M.P. 604.5, also mention by MikeF90 in his second 11-5 post), and was shot from the Washington Ave. overpass west of Indio, CA. It is the standard arrangement repeated over and over again in the two-tracking, where tracks at the CENTER of the CP on Main 1 (photo right) crossover to the ENDS of the CP on Main 2.
Occasionally, and it occurs far and few between, there is a siding, such as the Main 1 SALVIA siding (in the M.P. 591 area) near Palm Springs, CA. The west end of the siding is reposted below.
The SALVIA siding is the ONLY siding between the present end of two-tracks at THERMAL (M.P. 620.2) and LOMA LINDA (M.P. 541.3). (West of GARNET there is a siding for Main 2, but I don't consider that significant as it is under 4500 feet long and basically used only by Amtrak to gain access to the Palm Springs station stop.)
Between Tucson, AZ and El Paso, TX, where the two-tracking has been completed, there are only six controlled sidings! West of (and at) Lordsburg, NM all three sidings are on the Main 1 side, while east of Lordsburg all the sidings are on the Main 2 side. West of Tucson, there is the ESTRELLA to MARICOPA section that now has two-tracks, and the MOBILE siding therein is on the Main 1 side. The east end of that siding is re-shown below, looking east. The mast on the left is the siding east exit signal; the signal on the right is for Main 1 (which the siding turns into); and the bidirectional signal in the center is Main 2's intermediate.
(Because Main 1 goes over Main 2 at Cienega Creek, AZ, Main 1 in the vicinity of, as well as the MOBILE siding, should eventually be left hand running EASTBOUND biased.)
So, the new two-tracking by Sidewinder Rd. and westward through Ogilby Rd. in California is not likely to have any exotic track arrangements, but simply be part of more of the same, i.e., just two-tracks with double-crossovers here and there.
mvs (11-6):
As mentioned to MikeF90 above, I was back in the City of Industry / Pomona area Saturday. The below plaque on the "Up and Over" was photographed, and I guess the day before the structure was presumably involved in a dedication ceremony.
In another matter, the Alameda Corridor East Construction Authority's website caught my fancy by indicating that in 2011 construction will begin on the San Gabriel Trench Grade Separation Project. The 2.3 mile project (from M.P. 489.5 to M.P. 491.8) is projected to cost nearly half a billion dollars, with completion in 2014. It will have a single-track and an access road, with room for a future second track. While you probably already knew that, mvs, the time nearness of the construction was what caught my eye.
So, Southern California will have that trench project near Los Angeles, the finishing touches on the "Up and Over" in the City of Industry, new track for the Diversion in Pomona, the Milliken Ave. "Up and Over" in the eastern part of Ontario, and of course, Colton Crossing's Flyover. Also, the Hunts Lane overpass in the vicinity of M.P. 541 near [CP] LOMA LINDA is projected to start construction in 2011. Hopefully, the Sunset Route between Pomona and West Colton Yard will begin to be two-tracked as well.
K. P. Harriermvs (11-6): As mentioned to MikeF90 above, I was back in the City of Industry / Pomona area Saturday. The below plaque on the "Up and Over" was photographed, and I guess the day before the structure was presumably involved in a dedication ceremony. ...snip... In another matter, the Alameda Corridor East Construction Authority's website caught my fancy by indicating that in 2011 construction will begin on the San Gabriel Trench Grade Separation Project. The 2.3 mile project (from M.P. 489.5 to M.P. 491.8) is projected to cost nearly half a billion dollars, with completion in 2014. It will have a single-track and an access road, with room for a future second track. While you probably already knew that, mvs, the time nearness of the construction was what caught my eye. So, Southern California will have that trench project near Los Angeles, the finishing touches on the "Up and Over" in the City of Industry, new track for the Diversion in Pomona, the Milliken Ave. "Up and Over" in the eastern part of Ontario, and of course, Colton Crossing's Flyover. Also, the Hunts Lane overpass in the vicinity of M.P. 541 near [CP] LOMA LINDA is projected to start construction in 2011. Hopefully, the Sunset Route between Pomona and West Colton Yard will begin to be two-tracked as well.
...snip...
The San Gabriel Trench is interesting. I don't remember, but I believe they earlier unearthed some Native American stuff in groundbreaking or surveying. I'm guessing they will find more artifacts with this project. Get your pictures of an eastbound train in the morning, with the Mission in the background, before it's too late.
It will be exciting to see the grade separations you mentioned take place, along with Passons Boulevard in Pico Rivera and Auto Center Drive in Pico Rivera.
Potential grade separation projects also include the Nogales Street grade separation under the UP Los Angeles Sub in the City of Industry, Sand Canyon Avenue in the city of Irvine near the old Kings Cannery (and maybe Jeffrey Road in Irvine too), and Magnolia Avenue in Riverside.
MikeF90 Paul, that was quite an elaborate analysis! I should have been clearer in my last post - the new CP 'Sidewinder' seems to blow up my 'theory' that mostly existing CPs would be candidates for universal x-overs. Since much of the Yuma sub is the ultimate in 'flat and straight', new universal x-overs could be placed farther apart than the usual eight-ish miles in 70 mph territory. Recent examples: CP Estrella to CP Enid (Gila sub) ~13 miles, CP Coachella to CP Myoma (Yuma sub) ~ 10 miles. Another factor that might apply is safe access for maintenance and DOL crew changes - the sandy roads adjacent to the ROW are often treacherous! Perhaps some hoggers can comment on the Yuma 'crew base' bottleneck.
Hey, you're quite welcome, Mike, and everyone else, too.
I'm not so sure that your theory is ''blown up, real good''. Yes, 8 to 10 miles is indeed a good spacing for cross-overs in 70 MPH territory. But as you mention, Yuma is a crew change point and something of a bottleneck, so speeds there are likely to be slower. Also, for the same reasons there may be more of a need there for places to 'hold' or 'stage' trains to wait their turn for recrews, to cross the Colorado River bridge, etc. For those needs, sidings or cross-overs spaced in the 2-mile range as these apparently will be might be more useful to 'pack' the trains in closer together - and at more accessible locations - than further away in the desert out to the west with 6 or so miles of empty track between one train and the next, and thereby tying up many more miles of the 2nd Main Track.
I hadn't considered the possibility that K.P. raises or implies - that perhaps some of the extended or new 2nd tracks around Sidewinder Rd. will just be long sidings associated with the existing Main Track 1 as a 'westward' track, with yet another entire track to be added on the southern side as a new 'eastward' Main Track 2.
But after considering the apparent 'standard' arrangement of the universal crossovers in K.P.'s photo above, then the apparent RH siding ends or X-overs - such as at CP SP722 - DUNES (eastern end) and the new CP SP723.4 just east of Sidewinder Rd. - would indicate that the existing Main Track 1 will remain as such. Unless, that is, another LH cross-over is added just to the west of each of them, which would then be consistent with making the new track designated as Main Track 1. But that won't work at CP SP726 ARAZ, because the existing LH turnout there and comparatively sharp and long curve before the bridge preclude installing any other turnouts or crossovers further to the east. So the likely move there is to install a RH cross-over just to its west from a new Main Track 2 on the northern side of the existing track, and make the existing LH turnout into a LH cross-over - and that would be consistent with K.P.'s photo of the 'standard' universal cross-over above.
Looking forward to seeing how all this progresses and actually 'turns out'. Thanks to all for the info, photos, links, insights, etc.
Just noticed, all four turnouts at CP Myoma have movable point frogs - serious $$ for reliability!
More brain food for K.P... just wondered if the PTC boondoggle mandate has caused UP to revisit the design of new infrastructure like the Pomona 'diversion' ... Elsewhere the discussion of the Alameda Corridors financial difficulties noted that domestic / regional traffic growth was outpacing international traffic bound for the midwest & east; somehow this would increase the outbound traffic from LATC and COI yards, thereby partially explaining the priority of recent Alhambra sub improvements. Or not.
Status Overview as of Saturday, November 6, 2010:
City of Industry to Pomona, CA
Part I (of I-III), Section A (of A-D)
The Industry Up and Over
There did not appear to be any discernable progress as to laying a second track on the 'Up and Over.' For weeks now it has been known that wood ties had been stacked throughout the future second track's alignment. Finally, K.P. was in a position to photograph those bundled ties from Puente Ave. on the west side. The following view looks east; the lower foreground turnout is the east end of the BASSETT siding at M.P. 498.2.
K.P. found a way to photograph the Orange Ave. bridging from the north side, near the highest point of the 'Up and Over.'
It is unknown if the crossing gate is a temporary construction arrangement or not. The grade crossing site is presently very difficult to photo document.
Continued in Section B
Part I, Section B (of A-D)
You may recall this recent nighttime north side view looking southward on Sunset Ave.
The following is a daytime view from Saturday, November 6.
Apparently, in the nighttime view the new railroad flasher bridge had been taken down beforehand, and whatever was wrong with the structure was fixed and then put back up.
The south side view below looks northward up Sunset Ave. Valley Blvd. that parallels the Sunset Route here on the south side is a mess. Popular businesses must be anxious for things to get back to normal.
Continued in Section C
Part I, Section C (of A-D)
Back on the north side of the 'Up and Over' again at Sunset Ave.:
This is an eastward view of the industrial track that is on the north side.
The flashers and crossing gates are all in place. Note, there is no crossing gate motor or arm on the background right grade crossing mast, right next to the far end of the bridge walling.
All the concrete appears to be laid for Sunset Ave. And, there is that Burger King again ...
Continued in Section D
Part I, Section D (of A-D)
At the eastern end of the 'Up and Over,' on the south side that was previously blocked by the shoefly, the walling is all in place now, but attaching the south railing is in progress ...
... has not reached the east end yet. (See photo lower left.)
Perhaps laying the second track is dependent on the protective railing's completion.
On the Wednesday prior to passing through on Saturday, it was noted that the concrete south walling on the east end had protecting plastic over the new cement-work, but that wrapping was all gone by Saturday's visit.
It is unknown how the Industry 'Up and Over" will affect routing options and switching moves in and surrounding the Industry Yard ...
In the above view that looks westbound from the Valley Blvd. overpass just west of the Industry Yard, the CP in the view is the eastern end of NEW SIDING, which is an old siding now after many years of use. The CP at the west end of NEW SIDING will be eliminated, and the track made to continue westward over the 'Up and Over' and connect onto the east end of the BASSETT siding.
Part II (of III) will be posted Friday morning, November 12, 2010. It will look at the physical plant in the old-new signal transitioning MARNE area and eastward TOWARDS, but NOT including, the WEST switch of the WALNUT siding.
Thanks for your 'in the know' Iowa input as a Central Corridor train crewmember. From your description, I take it you are an engineer with the UP.
I was in Iowa the latter part of September, and overnighted in Cedar Rapids. It is unknown if your territory goes that far or not, but east of Cedar Rapids it was noted that the two-track line there has what looked like relatively new tri-light signals, which I kick myself for not taking a few minutes to photograph. My recollect of one stretch was that the highway was so close to the two-track line that seemingly an eastbound engineer on Main 2 and a westbound passenger in an eighteen wheeler could make contact with a high five as they passed!
It is great when a DS and engineers work together and lookout for each other. Cab signals can be a big help too.
On the Central Corridor in Utah, Wyoming, and Nebraska, 40 M.P.H. crossovers are standard. The advance signal for them is a flashing yellow as you said. It is unknown if you get west of Omaha or not, but, so those at the forum that haven't seen the Central Corridor may know, the following photo of the triple-track line in Nebraska at the Highway 10 grade crossing along the famous tracks that follow Highway 30 is shown.
It was noted that even there, as on the Sunset Route, movable point frogs are used. UP seems to be moving away from movable point frogs, as the future CP AL514 HAMILTON in Pomona, CA on the Sunset Route is having 50 M.P.H. spring frog turnouts installed.
At the snail-pace rate they are going, though, it seems it will take a couple of more years to get all the new switches put together, installed, and operational.
What, Jeff, is the standard frog on the newer 50 M.P.H. turnouts in Iowa?
Continued in Second Section.
Second Section to jeffhergert (11-5):
Also, Jeff, do you have any of the TWO advance signals in a row like we occasionally have here in California (and also in Arizona)? The following re-posted photo shot from Cook St. near Indio illustrates the situation:
About five miles further ahead from where the above photo was taken from is the RIMLON* double crossovers.
The westbound intermediates about two miles in advance (the far background signals two photos above) have a yellow over yellow when RIMLON* is in crossover mode with a red over green signal. But, no one here at the forum seems to know what one of the forefront signals (two photos above) in an advance of the background advance signal would display. I personally suspect it displays a second yellow over yellow.
Such a yellow over yellow was seen a few times in Pomona, CA a few years ago at CP ROSELAWN, when a few Sunset Route trains transitioned over to the LA&SL line. The signal was the prominent right mast of the two in the photo below. The next signal is NOT a CP signal, but an intermediate, which likely duplicated the yellow over yellow seen at CP ROSELAW.
So, Jeff, if you have any thoughts on this, I would love to hear of them.
Regarding the single-headed yellow signal in Omaha, NE, that you brought up, that must be an old arrangement. Forty years ago here in California, all the signals under the jurisdiction of Santa Fe's now gone West Yard Tower in San Bernardino were like that Omaha signal. The advance signal would be yellow, and the crossover signal would be yellow also.
About that time four decades ago a towerman at that West Yard Tower told me he was terrified of UP trains! UP hogheads then seemed to know no fear, and curved by the tower like a speedy low flying aircraft! He admitted finally wising up, and started crossing over all eastbound UP trains right by the tower. So, those eastbound UP train engineers would get an advance yellow, and because they did not know what the aspect was around the curve and by the tower, would slow down in preparation of stopping at a red absolute signal by the tower. They were going too slow to go by the tower fast when they finally saw the yellow signal color, and by the time the hoghead was able to get the train back up to the wild speed, the caboose had gone past the tower!
Speaking about truth being 'stranger than fiction,' Jeff, a few years ago east of SHAWMUT, AZ, on the Sunset Route, new signals were being installed in conjunction with two-tracking westward from Maricopa. One of the signals was a strange beast with two-bulb vertical heads and circular back disks that were to face each direction in the future.
No one then at the forum seemed to have been able to explain it. Perhaps you might have some insight on that strange arrangement. You should know, though, that it was for some unknown reason soon replaced by a new, standard tri-light before all the new signals were turned on.
It was great to read your post input ...
* Initially posted incorrectly herein as "MYOMA," which is in the other direction. As MikeF90 talked about, I guess I had a 'brain cramp' too, as I know the territory all too well.
Let's start with the frogs. I think they are #24 frogs from some of our special instructions. In reality, I just go thru the turnouts at the speed they tell me too. Others here have a lot more expertise in this area.
I get to see about 40 or so miles of the original UP. Mostly on eastbound trains, westbounds usually going over the Blair Sub to Fremont. Out there for the x-overs that are 40 you get either one or two flashing yellows when lined up for a crossover. The UP cab signal goes from clear to advance approach, so you can't really be sure if you're crossing over or just following someone. One x-over where there is only one advance approach signal had a 25 temporary restriction for quite a while. Since you didn't know if you were crossing over or not (unless the DS told you) you had to be at 25. The signal governing the CP was just enough around a corner and with foliage blocking the view in recent years, you just didn't know until it was too late. Hence, 25mph even when you didn't need to.
On the 40 mph x-overs in exCNW ATC/cab signal territory, all have two flashing yellows. Also, the cab signal stays at clear when lined to crossover. If you weren't line up, the cab signal would go to restricting going by the flashing yellow. On rare occurances, you could be following someone and the signals clear up just right. (Remember, when the wayside signal and cab signal conflict, the more restrictive indication applies. So the 40 restriction applies in this case.)
On the 50 mph x-overs we get both one and two advance signals that have a single (green/flashing green when lit) head beneath the regular head. With two you usually get a yellow over flashing green (Approach Clear 60) then a yellow over green (approach Clear 50). Where there is only one advance signal, it's the AC50. A couple places you get two AC50. It depends what permanent track speeds and signal distances are on how they set up the signalling.
I've got to go for now, a bit more later.
Part II (of I-III), Section A (of A-D)
The MARNE to Nogales St. Areas
A westward view of the new signals by the east end of the old MARNE siding, M.P. 503.9, at the Fullerton Rd. grade crossing.
In the above photo the new signals are in operation and the old ones have been removed. If you focus on the far distance, the new, not yet activated signals on the east cantilever signal bridge is visible by the Azusa Ave. overpass.
And eastward view:
As a reminder, this is how the east side arrangement previously looked ...
Part II, Section B (of A-D)
In a never before posted photo ... The old signal box and the designation CP AL504 MARNE:
Then came an additional box (that had appeared used) with the new, then headless masts.
Now, with the new tri-lights in operation and old signals carted away, both boxes remain, but with what appears to be a fresh coat of gray paint on each, and the CP name changed to 'E. MARNE'
Part II, Section C (of A-D)
Less than a mile eastward, the now single-track traditional Sunset Route goes over the Nogales St. underpass, which technically is not in the City of Industry (which is a block south), but in the community of West Covina. View looks northward.
In a cursory look, a person could say the structure was built with a future second main in mind.
But, further examination shows that the spacing of the vertical supports is not equal.
Part II, Section D (of A-D)
An even closer examination reveals the bridge was structurally designed for only single-track, as there is no opening in the concrete side walling to lay another bridge in (photo far left).
By comparison, other Alameda East Corridor bridges (which the Nogales St. Bridge is part of) are known to have openings for a second track. The previously shown north side view of the Ramona Ave. underpass in El Monte is just such a bridge, which is about ten miles to the west of Nogales St.
However, that El Monte railroad bridge has the El Monte siding just to its west. The underpass concrete support openings could be in preparation for, NOT a second main, but rather, an extension eastward of the El Monte siding.
So, how does single-track (at Nogales St.) fit in with the four-track Diversion in Pomona? And, how does that inconsistent new signal at M.P. 508.7 (that lacks a west side eastbound lower head) mesh with the final, overall master plan?
K.P. will photographically conjecture an opinion on a possible outcome in Part III, scheduled for posting Sunday morning, November 14, 2010.
K.P., thanks as always for the update. I drove by the area yesterday, and everything looked as you have shown.
I am surprised with the "East Marne" control point. Perhaps the current "Marne X-Over" will become "Marne".
I'm disappointed that the Nogales Street underpass is not built for a second bridge. They might be able to fit another bridge, although they would have to "glue" it to the concrete. I'm no structural engineer, but that likely cannot happen.
Interesting find on:
http://www.napolitano.house.gov/Districtprojects.shtml
The entity to receive funding for this project is the Alameda Corridor-East Construction Authority located at 4900 Rivergrade Road, Suite 120A, Irwindale, CA, 91706.
The Nogales Street Grade Separation Project involves constructing a six-lane roadway underpass and double-track railway bridge to completely grade separate Nogales Street with the railroad (Los Angeles Subdivision) between San Jose Avenue and Gale Avenue/Walnut Drive North. Gale Avenue and Walnut Drive will be widened in the vicinity of Nogales Street to two lanes in each direction to ease a traffic chokepoint prior to use as a temporary detour route during construction. Environmental approvals have been received and acquisition of right of way has commenced. Project design is being updated. A construction contract is anticipated to be awarded in Fall 2010. The majority of the project has been funded by state and local sources. The overall cost is estimated at $83.8 million.
It looks like the Nogales St. / Valley Blvd Project was done in 2006. The Google Map views do no show any abutments for a second track.
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=South+Nogales+Street,+West+Covina,+CA&sll=34.02958,-117.954154&sspn=0.029875,0.055747&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=S+Nogales+St,+West+Covina,+Los+Angeles,+California+91792&ll=34.002748,-117.887665&spn=0.000938,0.001742&t=h&z=20
Robert
Robert,
Interestingly enough, the earmark you found is for the railroad crossing just south of the one K.P. has photographed. The crossing that money is intended for, is just above this intersection.
mvs (11-12):
The CP that I'm dying to find out about is CP AL501 NEW SIDING. When the 'Up and Over' is two-tracked, there will no longer technically be a siding. Will the CP be renamed to CP AL501 WEST MARNE?
rdamon (11-13):
Just north of the LA&SL two-track line at Nogales St. is Railroad St. With the new underpass, I wonder if they will dig it down also for a lowered "T" intersection, or close it
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.