Paul_D_North_Jr CNW 6000: Paul,CN has a similar arrangement on the north end of Winnebago Siding in (aptly enough) Winnebago, WI. I was told it was necessary for switch alignment. Not being an engineer I can't quantify that with numbers. I'll see if I can get a picture of it if you'd like. Well, then that lends credence to my other theory - that it's to lengthen the tangent/ straight track from the turnout to the 'return curve' so as to prevent an 'S'-curve problem. With longer cars and higher speeds through a mainline turnout to/ from a siding, it can be hard to provide enough separation to accomplish that - even with a No. 20 turnout - which leads to extending and exaggerating the tangent as we see here. The siding appears to be at about 15 ft. C/L to C/L from the main track, but about 20 ft. at the apex of the 'kink' opposite the signals. So increasing the siding-to-main spacing to 20 or 25 ft. aids that effort, as well as being safer for maintenance crews on either track. Oddly enough, railroad standard plans for No. 8 or No. 10 turnouts to parallel sidings are OK with only 30 to 40 ft. of tangent track between the frog and the 'return curve', even though longer locomotives and cars will operate over them . . . Dan, a photo of that siding would be good. And consider this: Is the other end the same or similar ? How about other sidings in the vicinity ? Those comparisons may shed some more light on the rationale for this. Thanks again to K.P. for taking and sharing his photos. - Paul North.
CNW 6000: Paul,CN has a similar arrangement on the north end of Winnebago Siding in (aptly enough) Winnebago, WI. I was told it was necessary for switch alignment. Not being an engineer I can't quantify that with numbers. I'll see if I can get a picture of it if you'd like.
Well, then that lends credence to my other theory - that it's to lengthen the tangent/ straight track from the turnout to the 'return curve' so as to prevent an 'S'-curve problem. With longer cars and higher speeds through a mainline turnout to/ from a siding, it can be hard to provide enough separation to accomplish that - even with a No. 20 turnout - which leads to extending and exaggerating the tangent as we see here. The siding appears to be at about 15 ft. C/L to C/L from the main track, but about 20 ft. at the apex of the 'kink' opposite the signals. So increasing the siding-to-main spacing to 20 or 25 ft. aids that effort, as well as being safer for maintenance crews on either track.
Oddly enough, railroad standard plans for No. 8 or No. 10 turnouts to parallel sidings are OK with only 30 to 40 ft. of tangent track between the frog and the 'return curve', even though longer locomotives and cars will operate over them . . .
Dan, a photo of that siding would be good. And consider this: Is the other end the same or similar ? How about other sidings in the vicinity ? Those comparisons may shed some more light on the rationale for this.
Thanks again to K.P. for taking and sharing his photos.
- Paul North.
This has little to do with a reverse curve. First notice that in the photo the diverging siding has a slight reverse curve before going around where the signal used to be. It's hard to tell the length of tangent, but there is another reverse curve in front of the signal where the siding track widens out.
Even a #8 turnout should have an 83' tangent between the point of frog and and a comparable reverse curve to a parallel track on 15' centers, and coupled 89' cars with 62' truck centers would fit on a connecting tangent between a #15 turnout frog and a comparable reverse curve or crossover turnout frog on a parallel track. Some roads added a short spiral transition that would increase the angle of the diverging track and further reduce the length of tangent between tracks.
desertdog I have seen"swing outs" like this elsewhere. The original C&NW-CMO "Route of the 400's" between Milwaukee and the Twin Cities comes to mind. The purpose always seems to be to provide clearance around signals. John Timm
I have seen"swing outs" like this elsewhere. The original C&NW-CMO "Route of the 400's" between Milwaukee and the Twin Cities comes to mind. The purpose always seems to be to provide clearance around signals.
John Timm
Ironically, the CNW-CMO Twin Cities route was double tracked and the swing-outs came later with ctc. Conversely, the Soo, and predecessors, was a single track line with swing-outs.
The ACL and Monon put a mast-mounted signal outside sidings with no swing-out on the rh side of a single main track with a bracket and blue marker light to the outside of the mast.
HarveyK400 [snip] Even a #8 turnout should have an 83' tangent between the point of frog and and a comparable reverse curve to a parallel track on 15' centers, . . .
No - 83' is the approx. subtotal C/L distance along the diverging route from the Point of Frog to the Point of Intersection of the tangents of the diverging route's C/L with the 15' parallel offset siding C/L.* From that, you need to deduct the 'Tangent' distance function of the 'return curve'/ "comparable reverse curve of around 30' or so, to get about 50 - 55' from the PF to the Point of Curvature of that curve.
[*15.00' C-T-C spacing - 4.75' at PF = 10.25' x No. 8 = 82.00', plus a little for the skewed angle of the diverging route's hypotenuse = 83.32' 82.32'. - PDN]
HarveyK400 . . . and coupled 89' cars with 62' truck centers would fit on a connecting tangent between a #15 turnout frog and a comparable reverse curve or crossover turnout frog on a parallel track. [snip]
Just barely they will fit - with similar math**, I get that tangent distance to be about 82.50'.
[** 15.00' - 4.75' - 4.75' = 5.50' x No. 15 = 82.50', say 83' - PDN.]
As it happens, this one is a No. 15, as near as I can tell (scaling the spread/ distance) - it's at the following Lat./ Long. coords., per the ACME Mapper 2.0 application: N 34.06057, W 117.68513
But is that short of a tangent distance really acceptable, or good practice ? UP Std. Dwg. 0018 (Dec. 31, 1996) "MINIMUM TANGENT DISTANCE" requires 150 ft. for all speeds up to 39 MPH on main tracks and connnecting sidings. For a No. 15 turnout, which usually has an allowable speed of 25 - 30 MPH through it, and since this is a siding to a main line, the main line standards of 150' min. might be applicable to it. And as I noted above, it's about 20' centers at the apex, which would add 5' x No. 15 = 75' to the 83' tangent, for a total tangent length between those reverse curves of 158' provided > 150' required, so OK. [Q.E.D.]
To corroborate my correction above - for 15' track centers, how can a No. 8 and a No. 15 both have tangent distances between the reverse curves of around 83' as you stated ?
Actually, this kind of jog may be there for both reasons. - signal location and clearance, and S-curve minimum tangent. Even in yard ladder track designs, the first parallel track to the main with a standard spacing can have an S-curve problem between its turnout and the ladder track's turnout off the main. That's why the first parallel track is often spaced farther away - which also provides room for signals, poles, platforms, standpipes, and other facilities to serve the main track, etc. in that otherwise problematic space and location, so it doesn't go completely to waste.
Interesting little exercise . . .
MikeF90 (12-10):
Deep Pockets
MikeF90 Not sure how they will fit a new track under the 60 Fwy ....
Not sure how they will fit a new track under the 60 Fwy ....
Looking at aerials of the vicinity of the Puente Hills Intermodal Facility (PHIMF) in the City of Industry, I too wondered about fitting three tracks through a two-track opening under the 60 Freeway.
After wading through many of the pages at the PHIMF website, it was discovered that the two-track opening under the 60 Freeway will be widened to three-tracks! Being part of the Sanitation District of Los Angeles County, a taxpayer owned entity with deep pockets, it became clear how such a costly project could be pulled off.
It appears also that an overpass will be constructed for a key surface street so the Intermodal cars can be switched in and out of the actual PHIMF site itself without blocking any public street.
Around 1992-93, that LA&SL line was semi-two-tracked. It is believed Main 1 (the 1992-93 northern second track) will be the PHIMF switching lead, with Main 2 becoming Main 1, and a yet to be built new southern track will be Main 2.
The expression "semi-" was used above because it wasn't until just a few years ago that the final gap in the LA&SL two-tracking of the Los Angeles-Pomona segment was finally completed, and entailed costly new bridging in a couple of spots.
The above old and new (right) Pico Rivera, CA bridging is only about a mile or two westbound of the new PHIMF site.
It is hoped, MikeF90, that in the next couple of months the PHIMF area can be visited and photo documented by this forumist. It sounds like it will be quite a sight to see.
According to indications from UP itself, two-tracking of the Sunset Route through Glamis (near the end landfill site of the trash trains), CA should be completed in the next two to three years. That should allow those trash trains to keep rolling along ... in case they have an odor coming from them! I don't know about you, MikeF90, but I have no experience with trash trains, so have no idea what to expect fresh air-wise when they are a reality.
Take care,
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. Harrier [from Page 78 of this thread] Status Overview as of Saturday, November 6, 2010: City of Industry to Pomona, CA Part I, Section B (of A-D) The Industry Up and Over [snip] The following is a daytime view from Saturday, November 6. [snip] 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
City of Industry to Pomona, CA
Part I, Section B (of A-D)
The Industry Up and Over
[snip]
The following is a daytime view from Saturday, November 6.
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
I've seen lots of cantilevered grade crossing flashers, where the post or mast or columns are typically at the right side (only). But I've never seen a 'signal bridge' for grade crossing flashers such as this. Undoubtedly that's because of the number of lanes - more than a cantilever can economically span. And 'sign bridges' like this are common on highways - there are standard drawings for them, even. So it looks like the design concept was to take a sign bridge and adapt it for crossing flashers instead. In the southward view (top photo), note that there are 5 pairs of flashers on the signal bridge - 1 above each of the 3 through lanes and 2 left turn lanes.
But there is no further extension of the signal bridge or flashers further to the left, above and for the northbound lanes - which makes sense, because the bridge for the tracks completely hides it anyway from the south, as it can't be seen in the northward view (bottom photo). That traffic must rate only 2 pairs of the standard flashers on "crossbuck" posts plus a single gate for those 2 or 3 lanes, as K. P. posted photos of that a couple pages further on here (Page 80, I think it is). More likely, the grade crossing signals are tied into the pending traffic signal installation at the intersection with Valley Blvd. (photo above). So perhaps the highway traffic designers thought that combination of intersection traffic signals + 2 crossbuck flashers and 1 gate for that likely lower-speed traffic is as effective or a functional equivalent for the big crossing flasher signal bridge for the possibly faster southbound traffic - since the northbound traffic first has to pass through this controlled intersection anyway before reaching the grade crossing crossbuck flashers and gate.
To be continued.
K. P. Harrier [from Page 80 of this thread] Sunset Ave. is Now Open! The 'Up and Over' The City of Industry, CA Part VI (of I-VI) [snip] An out from underneath view of the south side looking northeastward: The stoplight pole gives a feel for just how close Valley Blvd. is to the 'Up and Over.' The Sunset Ave. Bridge is impressive in photographs; but in person, right by it or actually underneath it, the structure is absolutely awesome and almost overwhelming! If you visit the site and experience its awesomeness first hand, you will never forget the experience and the feelings it gave you! It is that impressive! [snip]
The 'Up and Over'
The City of Industry, CA
Part VI (of I-VI)
An out from underneath view of the south side looking northeastward: The stoplight pole gives a feel for just how close Valley Blvd. is to the 'Up and Over.'
The Sunset Ave. Bridge is impressive in photographs; but in person, right by it or actually underneath it, the structure is absolutely awesome and almost overwhelming! If you visit the site and experience its awesomeness first hand, you will never forget the experience and the feelings it gave you! It is that impressive!
Note - for northbound traffic on the far side of the median and this photo, still only 1 gate on that pair of crossbuck flashers - on the near gate, which would be on the left for the traffic approaching it from right-to-left in this photo, which is an unusual location - the FHWA's Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices specifies the right-side in most if not all instances. I wonder why not here ? Maybe to avoid obstructing the passage of foot traffic using the sidewalk on the far side with the gate's mechanism, whereas in the median there wouldn't be any such foot traffic to obstruct ?
Looking at all the framing of the bridge above the roadway in the photo above - mostly floor beams connecting the 2 main girders, but some cross-bracing too, of course - and the 1st thought that comes to my mind is: Pigeon Condo ! Are they not a problem in Southern California ? As a designer, i would have added something to prevent that, from fine mesh chain-link fencing to maybe thin steel plates set up inside and on the bottom flanges of those floor beams for a nearly flush bottom surface, so they'd have no place to easily roost and nest there . . .
(to be continued)
P.S. - Note also from the upper left of this photo that none of the flashers on that signal bridge are 'back-to-back', so that there would be some lenses facing the towards the camera for northbound traffic, which is sometimes seen with the cantilever-mounted flashes as well as on the mast-mounted flashers. - PDN.
K. P. Harrier [From near the bottom of Page 80 of this thread] [snip] CShaveRR (11-28): Based on photo files this poster possesses, Sunset Ave. (M.P. 499.20) appears to have three southbound lanes with a fourth as a left turn center lane under the 'Up and Over,' whereas northbound only has two lanes, with a third lane for a left turn center lane that complements the southbound left turn center lane. The above reshown photo was shot back on August 14 of this year, before the northbound lanes (left) were completely paved. The overhead flasher bridge had not yet been installed and was laying on roadway pavement on the photo right. [snip]
CShaveRR (11-28):
Based on photo files this poster possesses, Sunset Ave. (M.P. 499.20) appears to have three southbound lanes with a fourth as a left turn center lane under the 'Up and Over,' whereas northbound only has two lanes, with a third lane for a left turn center lane that complements the southbound left turn center lane.
The above reshown photo was shot back on August 14 of this year, before the northbound lanes (left) were completely paved. The overhead flasher bridge had not yet been installed and was laying on roadway pavement on the photo right.
both K.P. and Carl have commented on the massive appearance of this bridge. Using some 'sophisticated' photo-analysis techniques, the ratio of the span-to-depth or length/ height of the girders and this bridge appears to be about 9:1. That's pretty close to the usual range of 10 to 12 - perhaps because there are potentially 2 tracks on it instead of just 1, so it's a little deeper and hence stiffer and stronger. In comparison, that ratio for similar highway bridges can be 12 to 15, and sometimes as high as 20 if there are a lot of floor beams underneath.
Another reason it seems so massive is that there are only the 2 main girders. A more preferable design from the standpoint of redundancy for the load path might use 3 or 4, so they would be somewhat shallower. But that would necessitate 1 or 2 of those girders being under the bridge instead of comprising its sides, and we can see already that overhead clearance is limited and at a premium here, and that arrangement would make the "Up & Over" have to be even higher, which is not desirable, of course. Note also how the tops of the retaining walls on the approaches - and roughly the tops of the rails of the track, too - are about halfway up the sides/ ends of the girders. That's to allow sufficient depth for the height of the rails and ties, and the thickness of the "ballast deck" underneath - altogether, probably close to 30" or so - which are then supported by a floor surface of some kind, which in turn rests on the many floor beams as pointed out above.
Finally, this bridge is really close to an observer on the ground under it, and 2+ tracks wide right right overhead. Normally a bridge like this would be spanning a deeper opening, on the order of 25' deep or so, instead the 15' or so clearance above the roadway that it has, so it would be that much higher and farther away, and more in proportion to the opening that it is spanning - here, that surface below is nearly flat, not 'V'-shaped as it would be if crossing a stream, etc.
Is a Traffic Increase Coming to the Sunset Route?
Part I (of I-II)
Word has come to K.P. through the grapevine that a significant increase in traffic is coming to the Golden State and Sunset Routes starting sometime in January, 2011, just a few weeks away. Details are sketchy at best, but traffic obviously does not just materialize out of thin air, so it is believed a system traffic shift is involved.
Currently, much Chicago-Los Angeles traffic is routed via the Central Corridor and over the triple-track main in Nebraska ...
Looking eastbound at CP B182 HWY 10 east of Kearney, NE
... and over the Los Angeles & Salt Lake (LA&SL) between Ogden, UT and Los Angeles ...
A westbound view as the LA&SL (foreground) junctions into the BNSF (background) at Daggett, CA
However, a traffic shift is believed to be in the works, and that would account for an increase in traffic over the Golden State and Sunset Routes. Chicago-Los Angeles Intermodals likely would be rerouted out of Chicago utilizing haulage rights over the BNSF line (possibly the CB&Q) to Kansas City, then the Golden State Route to El Paso, and finally over the Sunset Route to Los Angeles.
Cacti and mast signals west of Estrella, AZ
Continued in Part II
Part II (of I-II)
Some believe such a projected routing pattern shift was inspired by Union Pacific being in an awkward default-like position reference a previous agreement between the railroad and the State of New Mexico, which was expecting a facility to be built therein in exchange for new, now-in-force taxation policy changes. By rerouting some Central Corridor trains via New Mexico (thus, increasing employment in the State), the State may be pacified. Interestingly, the new block-swop yard at Santa Teresa (Strauss), NM is supposedly again in the build status.
Unfortunately, unless things have been totally misinterpreted and new traffic is miraculously coming out of the woodwork, it would seem that while employment would increase on the Golden State and Sunset Routes, employment would simultaneously decrease on the Central Corridor and the LA&SL.
An associate of K.P., after some analysis, believes this is only a temporary measure to immediately pacify New Mexico. The associate's reasoning is that, while the Golden State Route is a marvel with all high-speed curves (like in the mountainous areas of New Mexico) and long, long straightaways (like in Kansas), the route is severely handicapped in its numerous bridging structures.
Unless the line has been massively upgraded in the last few years, the far majority of the bridging over creeks and washes are very old wooden structures with NO handrail walkways. The slanted ballast just drops off the bridge, and the wash is sometimes twenty-feet straight below! So, in this day and age of long trains with no cabooses nor crews on the rear end, the associate's reasoning is that when air hoses disconnect and a train goes into emergency, a trainman cannot walk the train (at lease for very far) so as to find and reattach the disconnected hoses. The associate also does not believe the railroad would ever permit a conductor or brakeman to crawl on hands and knees underneath stopped railcars to get to the far side of a wooden bridge in order to continue walking a train! For a train's crew to finally get help and rectified the problem would likely take a few hours at best, probably more! Thus, by adding trains to the Golden State Route, the associate envisions congestion as more and more 'surprises' invariably popup.
A new, safe culvert bridge with handrails for the future Sunset Route second main between Maricopa and Casa Grande, AZ ... The photo was shot on August 4, 2008. Reports from Arizona indicate two-tracking is now taking place there, and may include over the culvert bridge shown above.
Adding more trains to the Sunset Route (from off the Golden State Route) at this time would also be an irony, as two-tracking has resumed. Additional trains and laying new track is not exactly a perfect match! But doing so may make more sense to the railroad corporate chiefs and New Mexico politicians than the logic of observers would otherwise dictate!
KP and others, if intermodal to Chicago over the Sunset is envisioned, other possibilities may likely involve the new Joliet logistics center which would not be accessible from BNSF routes through Kansas City.
Illinois and Missouri are pouring money into the KC-STL-CHI route for passenger service with offsetting (perhaps more than) capacity upgrades. The STL-CHI route wouldn't need 136# cwr if freight traffic were to be little changed. Beside the Sunset Route, Texas/Gulf-Chicago traffic is a possibility with widening of the Panama Canal.
Similarly, the former TP is being upgraded significantly between El Paso and Fort Worth that ties into the former MP to Saint Louis. The TP upgrade also may anticipate expanded service in the lane from Long Beach over the Sunset into the Mid-South.
jc_avq The existing track crosses I-10 twice; once going over I-10 with a low clearance bridge near Marsh Station Rd, and then going under I-10 a few miles east of there. The realignment will eliminate both crossings. The road is being redone to parallel both I-10 and the new track. Access to I-10 will be via a new overpass that spans both the new track and I-10. A series of aerial photos are available here: ?action=view¤t=marsh station old.jpg ?action=view¤t=new Marsh station rd.jpg ?action=view¤t=marsh station rd new overpass.jpg ?action=view¤t=UP track realignment 10112010.jpg ?action=view¤t=UP realignment 10112010.jpg
The existing track crosses I-10 twice; once going over I-10 with a low clearance bridge near Marsh Station Rd, and then going under I-10 a few miles east of there. The realignment will eliminate both crossings.
The road is being redone to parallel both I-10 and the new track. Access to I-10 will be via a new overpass that spans both the new track and I-10.
A series of aerial photos are available here:
?action=view¤t=marsh station rd new overpass.jpg
?action=view¤t=UP track realignment 10112010.jpg
?action=view¤t=UP realignment 10112010.jpg
billio Anent the above: Arizona DOT (a/k/a the state highway department) website announces that as of Monday, Dec 20, 2010, the new Marsh Station Road HIGHWAY Interchange with I-10 was completed. No status, though, on whether the new railway line\ paralleling the Interstate is open. Anyone know whether it's up and running yet? Thanks in advance. --billio
Anent the above: Arizona DOT (a/k/a the state highway department) website announces that as of Monday, Dec 20, 2010, the new Marsh Station Road HIGHWAY Interchange with I-10 was completed. No status, though, on whether the new railway line\ paralleling the Interstate is open. Anyone know whether it's up and running yet?
The new Marsh Station Road interchange was opened to traffic on December 20th, but railroad construction has not even started other than grading and filling.
The latest project news in today's paper (22 December) says that I-10 will be totally closed on a yet-to-be-determined weekend in January so the old highway bridge can be demolished by ADOT.
Union Pacific has not even started laying track because the old Marsh Station Road is higher than the proposed new rail line, so the old highway must now be dug out and that dirt used to complete the upper end (Empirita Road) of the new rail line fill.
The old railroad bridge will not be removed until the new line is in place, which is projected for late 2011.
The west end of this project is at I-10 MP/ Interchange 289 for Marsh Station Rd., at about the following Lat./ Long. coords. per the ACME Mapper 2.0 application: N 31.98533 W 110.56448
The east end of this project is at I-10 MP/ Interchange 292 for Empirita Rd., at about the following Lat./ Long. coords.: N 31.97754 W 110.51388
The 5 photos that are linked a couple of posts above by jc_avq - thanks for sharing those, too, by the way - were taken looking north.
It's all about 30 miles southeast of Tucson. A small chance I might get out that way in early January - but less than 10 %, I'd say . . .
I agree that this probably has more to do with Global IV than anything else. UP recently ran an intermodal up the ex-Alton Route, something that has not occurred regularly in recent times except for detours.
See: http://peoriastation.blogpeoria.com/
John
I;ve heard rumors that after the first of the year intermodal traffic is supposed to be increasing over the Central Corridor as well. Plus some coal trains (Pleasant Prairie trains maybe?) are supposedly returning to UP rails.
The local management has been told to expect to hire about 50 people sometime next year, even though there are still people cut off. They had brought back some in the fall, worked them a few weeks, then started cutting them off again.
Jeff
cacole The new Marsh Station Road interchange was opened to traffic on December 20th, but railroad construction has not even started other than grading and filling. The latest project news in today's paper (22 December) says that I-10 will be totally closed on a yet-to-be-determined weekend in January so the old highway bridge can be demolished by ADOT. Union Pacific has not even started laying track because the old Marsh Station Road is higher than the proposed new rail line, so the old highway must now be dug out and that dirt used to complete the upper end (Empirita Road) of the new rail line fill. The old railroad bridge will not be removed until the new line is in place, which is projected for late 2011.
cacole (12-22):
K.P. will second billio's comment to you: "Thanks, cacole, for the update."
Most significant, I thought, was your Cienega Creek area statement, "The old railroad bridge [over I-10] will not be removed until the new [rail] line [between Marsh Station Rd. and Empirita Rd.] is in place, which is projected for late 2011."
Perhaps the railroad has discovered that by scheduling projects way, way in advance, a small workforce can always be utilized efficiently (read 'cost effectively') even at times when they would otherwise have nothing to do ...
jeffhergert (12-22):
With reports and inputs such as yours, it appears unofficially that new business has been won by UP, which is great for UP employees! While other railroads' employees sadly may have lost ground, I guess competitively 'the best price' is the American way and reality! I guess, too, while more trains on the Sunset Route will slow the Sunset Route's two-tracking process slightly, undoubtedly few will mind as everyone's job at UP is being made more secure by the influx of new business.
The "few" that do mind, however, MAY be workers on the LA&SL between Salt Lake City and Los Angeles, since reportedly the at least 100 miles shorter combined Golden State and Sunset Routes will be the key route between Chicago and Los Angeles. A shorter route may be dazzling on paper to the top brass, but in practice the money needed to circumvent 'surprises' as outlined previously in a very recent K.P. post may prove to be too great to keep trains on the Golden State Route and away from the LA&SL. Time will tell on that one, though ...
Take care all,
Covering Some Loose Ends
Part A (of A-C)
The New Signal by ONT, and a Montclair-Fontana, CA Overview
Previously, it was photo-shown that new tri-light signals were activated between the east switch NORTH MONTCLAIR (M.P. 518.2) and the east switch of NORTH ONTARIO (M.P. 520.9). It can be stated that the new, relocated intermediate signal between NORTH ONTARIO and the west switch of GUASTI (M.P. 523.5) is in service.
The above photo looks west from Vineyard Ave, the old, previous access route to Ontario International Airport (ONT).
When this area is two-tracked in the future, K.P. believes there will be about a 13-mile stretch of relatively high-speed running WITHOUT any crossovers. Especially in the City of Ontario there is a proliferation of grade crossings, thus making a double-crossover anywhere near the community impractical.
From the west switch of GUASTI to the west switch of SOUTH FONTANA (M.P. 529.3) the new signals have NOT been put in service yet.
Previously, reference the west switch of SOUTH FONTANA, it was stated: "For the first time, the west end of that siding had a new, short mast erected, with some unknown type of head on it." On the K.P. visit for this report, NO NEW SIGNAL OR SHORT MAST was found to be present for exiting the siding! So, it is unknown if K.P. was previously fooled by some kind of illusion, or a then newly erected signal has already been taken down. K.P. leans towards the latter possibility.
Previously, also, no new erected mast at the west end of SOUTH FONTANA had a head on it, but now the south eastside westbound signal has a head, as illustrated above.
In K.P.'s opinion, the EAST switch of SOUTH FONTANA siding (which siding likely will be a future long Kaiser Yard lead) will be the future double-crossover CP KAISER when the second main is laid. Likely, too, those switches will be of the 30 M.P.H. type.
The future CP at VINA VISTA towards the WEST likely will be a high-speed universal crossover arrangement.
-------
Part B will have a few more photos of the 'Up and Over" in the City of Industry in response to recent fine posts by Paul D. North, Jr., as well as more details on the Orange Ave. situation at the center of the above structure. Part B is scheduled for posting Monday, December 27, 2010.
Part C will look at the Puente Hills Intermodal Facility (PHIMF) vicinity on the LA&SL that MikeF90 had alerted us to. Part C is scheduled for Wednesday, December 29, 2010.
Part B (of A-C), Section 1 (of 1-2)
A Follow-Up on the 'Up and Over'
City of Industry, CA
In his Saturday, December 18 post, Paul D. North, Jr. commented on the unusual Sunset Ave. industrial track's south side flasher device not having a crossing gate. The site was visited by this poster Thursday, December 23, 2010, and what Mr. North commented on was specifically photographed.
It was found that the flasher mast is kind of in the way of pedestrian traffic, but not overly so. If there was a crossing gate mechanism on the pole it probably would be very much in the way. It was found also that it was somewhat dark under the bridge! (It had rained the days before, and storm clouds were in the sky.) The cones in the roadway were so a laddered truck could install lights in the housings embedded for them underneath the big Sunset Route railroad bridge.
In the above photo, the flasher mast is higher than the clearance under the bridge, as the below photos clearly show.
Continued in Section 2
Part B (of A-C), Section 2 (of 1-2)
It was also noted that Sunset Ave. does not cross the track at a pure right angle, but is slightly angled.
In the above photo, note that the mast on the left does NOT have flasher lights facing oncoming traffic as does the far flasher! K.P. found that situation rather odd.
Now, by the center of the 'Up and Over,' at Orange Ave.: The street is still not open yet, but the overall arrangement at the site can clearly be seen now.
Just left of center on the above photo, Orange Ave. also has a LEFT crossing gate and apparently NOT a right one as viewed by autos approaching the camera! Also, note the narrow single-lane (and the lane curbing) on the photo left for that approaching auto traffic.
On the other side of the 'Up and Over,' in the background of the last photo, Orange Ave. "T" intersects into the busy Valley Blvd.
---------
Coming Wednesday, December 29, 2010 ... The Puente Hills Intermodal Facility (for trash hauling by rail).
K. P. Harrier Covering Some Loose Ends Part B (of A-C), Section 1 (of 1-2) A Follow-Up on the 'Up and Over' City of Industry, CA In his Saturday, December 18 post, Paul D. North, Jr. commented on the unusual Sunset Ave. industrial track's south side flasher device not having a crossing gate. The site was visited by this poster Thursday, December 23, 2010, and what Mr. North commented on was specifically photographed. It was found that the flasher mast is kind of in the way of pedestrian traffic, but not overly so. If there was a crossing gate mechanism on the pole it probably would be very much in the way. It was found also that it was somewhat dark under the bridge! (It had rained the days before, and storm clouds were in the sky.) The cones in the roadway were so a laddered truck could install lights in the housings embedded for them underneath the big Sunset Route railroad bridge. ....
....
This is a secondary track, and industrial lead operating at restricted speed, with few movements through the crossing. Flashers would seem to be appropriate and is surely better than a crew attempting to flag a train across the busy street.
Part C (of A-C), Section 1 (of 1-3)
Puente Hills Intermodal Facility (PHIMF)
(Near Pico Rivera)
The PHIMF is a planned trash-to-trains location that will load Intermodal containers for train transporting of trash over the Sunset Route's Beaumont Hill to beyond the Salton Sea, to near the Glamis, CA area way out in a remote desert of Southern California.
MikeF90 first alerted us to the future facility, as well as about a 3.5 mile new track to be laid for the facility. Even I, after looking at an aerial of the area, wondered how a three-track LA&SL line could go through the 60 Freeway overpass' two-track opening for the line. View looks eastbound from Workman Mill Rd.
After pondering the situation, the modifications performed on the 57 Freeway overpass in Pomona came to mind.
The above eastward view from Temple Ave. is from May 1, 2009 when the slanted dirt supports were being modified. The below later evolved view is from January 2, 2010.
Clearly, the 60 Freeway Bridge in the first photo above could easily be modified for a third track (left), even an access road (right).
When the 60 Freeway was originally built, the LA&SL line was single-track. Around 1992-93 the line under the 60 Freeway was two-tracked. While it is not the original SP Sunset Route, TRAINS Magazine in the November 2007 issue diagramed the Los Angeles area and showed the LA&SL line as the Sunset Route in addition to the original SP line through Alhambra.
Part C, Section 2 (of 1-3)
Looking westbound from Workman Mill Rd. the two-track main curves.
In the above photo, just left of center, the mounds of dirt is the PHIMF site. Apparently, the site is being dug down for some type of construction building project. The site is actually in a rather small, confined area. It is hard to believe multiple tracks will be put in there for loading Intermodal containers onto double-stack cars!
A telephoto westbound view:
Workman Mill Rd., where the above photos was shot from, will eventually have a roadway bridge overpass constructed that will go over the tracks.
Looking eastbound again from Workman Mill Rd., it was noted that power line structures are present. Also present are large single-poles that will likely replace the power line 'towers' that are presently kind of in the way of another track, though those poles look disproportionately small.
Part C, Section 3 (of 1-3)
Farther south, the photo below from Rose Hills Rd. shows what are believed to be intermediate signals in the distance, near where the future PHIIMF will be located (left).
The fact, though, that the lower heads for westbound trains coming towards the camera have three and four bulbs respectively may indicate they are absolutes. The fact, too, that the right lower head has a green, fourth bulb may indicate it is one of the weird special application signals previously speculated about on earlier posts in this thread. (There will be more about this reference the next photo.)
Looking the other way, towards railroad west, is a CP in the distance, the site of the old two- to one-track [CP] C011 BARTOLO. The line through there is two-tracked now all the way to Los Angeles. CP C011 is where the old haulage rights SP line, now termed the Los Nietos Subdivision, branches off (towards the photo distant left).
So, in light of what is present physical plant-wise in the PHIMF area, it is unknown if the siding to be laid will be a controlled siding or if the siding will be uncontrolled and merely have automatic exit signals. It is known, however, that between the beginning of mileposts (i.e., LA&SL M.P. 0.0 near Union Station in downtown Los Angeles) and CP C026 GRAND (M.P. 26.2), two CP'ed double-crossovers are supposed to be installed, but their locations are unknown. MAYBE one of the double-crossovers will be of a slow speed type in the middle of the 3.5 mile siding and between the siding and Main 1. The other double-crossover COULD be at the eastern end of the 3.5 mile long siding, and between Mains 1 and 2.
Whatever the trackwork, undoubtedly the PHIMF will be a moneymaker for UP, and UP traditionally tends to have trackwork consistent with lucrative accounts ...
K.P., happy holidays and thank you again for the informative pictures/narration.
I did not know of the planned overpass at Workman Mill Road. That is a great idea.
Also, on the Alameda Corridor East webpage, various technical documents have been posted concerning grade separations at:
mvs (12-29):
In your reply post you stated: "I did not know of the planned overpass at Workman Mill Road."
Well, mvs, I apparently erred on that one, as no overpass is planned. And, I am unable to find the specific reference that gave me the impression that there would an overpass constructed.
The following photo is of that LA&SL and Workman Mills Rd. grade crossing, looking south:
In the above southward grade crossing view, stoplights are seen towards the background. Thereat, Workman Mills Rd. right angles to the RIGHT and heads west. If one was to make a LEFT turn at the photo background intersection instead of a right turn, one would head east on Crossroads Parkway South.
As Workman Mills Rd. confusingly right angles here and there, and with the PHIMF's website mislabeling a street or two and not always making distinctions between the streets, such as between Crossroad Parkway South and Crossroads Parkway North, a person can come to incorrect conclusions. Official website statements about UNSEEN construction thus can also be confused with what IS seen by a visiting onsite observer.
Anyway, I apologize for the error. I knew I should have double-checked all that before posting ...
Without an overpass, I'm unsure of how movements to assemble or disassemble various sections of the trash trains won't block the not very busy Workman Mills Rd. grade crossing (pictured above). Maybe they will move only a section or two at a time, and back (or bring forward) them over the future 'third-track' over the Peck Rd. underpass.
An interesting technical inconsistency at the PHIMF website is the length of that third-track "siding." It is mentioned as 18000-feet (3.4 miles) as well as 3.5 miles!
Technicalities aside, for the benefit of forum readers that may be unfamiliar with the area, mvs, the zigzagged nature of the Workman Mills Rd. by the LA&SL that we've been discussing is the SAME Workman Mills Rd. a few miles northeastward that becomes Puente Ave. and crosses the original SP Sunset Route by the 'Up and Over' that you and I also previously talked about.
Some K.P. numbered excerpts of pertinent parts of the PHIMF website is presented (in ONE place) below ...
Take care, mvs, and all,
--------
EXCERPT #1:
The rail improvements within UPRR right-of-way will consist of a new staging and arrival/departure track and ancillary structures, such as switches and signals, along a 18,000-foot span between Mission Mill Road and Seventh Avenue.
EXCERPT #2:
This project involves raising the grade of a portion of Workman Mill Road, constructing a new access road underneath Workman Mill Road and the UPRR railroad tracks between the PHIMF and the Districts' existing Puente Hills Materials Recovery Facility (PHMRF), modifying existing roads and associated infrastructure improvements at the PHMRF.
EXCERPT #3
The improvements to the right-of-way include construction of a new railroad track, railroad bridges at Peck Road and over the access road, an upgraded at-grade railroad crossing at Workman Mill Road, retaining and sound walls along the right-of-way, landscaping, roads and drainage structures, and all appurtenant work.
EXCERPT #4:
[Reference] SR-60 and Crossroads Parkway Underpass Modification[s:] The Sanitation Districts are in the process of completing final design for this portion of the project.
EXCERPT #5:
Rail Improvements within UPRR right-of-way[:]
Construction of an additional railroad track that would span 3.5 miles from Mission Mill Road to approximately 3,500 feet west of 7th Avenue [that aligns with Sunset Ave. over by the 'Up and 'Over'].
Modifications to the Peck Road railroad bridge, existing railroad underpasses at Crossroads Parkway North and SR-60, and the at-grade rail crossing at Workman Mill Road.
Installation of new railroad signals and modifications to existing railroad signals to further improve safety.
------------
Information and photos are being prepared for presentation concerning the Fontana to the wet Bryn Mawr area.
A Gila Sub construction update and three mysteries:
Last Monday (12/27), Susan and I took an extra vacation day and headed down to Casa Grande. After some serious post-Christmas bargain hunting at the mall, our next stop was along west Main Avenue where the UP has set up a heavily-protected construction materials compound across from the former SP depot site.
Along with two large stacks of signal masts and several signal bases were numerous well-wrapped cartons of unknown contents, but most likely signal-related.
They use this little Terex beast to move things around within the compound:
More to follow.
Mystery #1, the signals at the east end of the Casa Grande siding:
If you have been following this thread for any length of time, you may recall that K.P. and I have speculated as to the purpose of the short-masted target signal at the east end of the Casa Grande siding. It was installed at some point in the early part of the decade with the signal head turned away from the track:
I had recently came to the conclusion that the existing main would be converted into a drill track for the industries that branch off of it to the west and that the signal would govern movements onto a new #1 main.
Bad guess on my part. Here is what we found on Monday:
The signal has vanished without a trace. In addition, a more gradual turnout has been installed at that point, perhaps to allow faster movement out of the siding for eastbound trains.
Ouch:
One last shot before we leave Casa Grande. Since our last visit, it looks like something heavy hit the base of the westbound signals.
Mystery #2, why the manual turnout in one place and not the other?:
We move next to the corner of West Main Avenue and Ethington Rd. west of town and about a quarter mile from the west C.G. siding switch. Despite the imposing street names, this is the intersection of two rural roads, and by this point W. Main "Avenue" is nothing but plowed dirt.
This will be the transition point where the present main becomes main #2, and looking down the track towards Maricopa, we see that a new main #1 has been cut in on the north side. But curiously, it is accessed by a manual turnout:
Since this is a temporary arrangement, having a manually operated switch may not seem strange until you see what they have done at Anderson Rd., west of Bon Siding.
Here we have what you would think to be a similar situation to that above. However, as you can see, they have gone to the trouble of installing a remotely controlled turnout and a signal base has been poured alongside. This looks fairly permanent to me:
All of which brings us to mystery #3:
Looking back east from the same point at Anderson Rd. you can plainly see the Bon Siding control point not more than half a mile away:
So why have they left this little single-track gap? Everything is graded and appears to be otherwise ready for ties and rail. K.P.? Anybody?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.