Update as of Saturday, January 29, 2011:
City of Industry to Colton to Riverside, CA
Part B (of A-B), Section 1 (of 1-2)
The Magnolia Ave. Underpass Construction
Riverside, CA
In the previous inspection of the Magnolia Ave. construction site in behalf of the forum, the following photo of I-beans was illustrated:
Also shown were the concrete supports.
With that background, the following four new update photos are shown:
As seen just above, the railroad bridging is becoming formed now.
Continued in Section 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- K.P.’s absolute “theorem” from early, early childhood that he has seen over and over and over again: Those that CAUSE a problem in the first place will act the most violently if questioned or exposed.
Part B, Section 2 (of 1-2)
A westbound, straight on view with the LA&SL main from Los Angeles is in the background:
From Merrill Ave. on the south, the center support and I-beams.
A wider view, again from Merrill Ave., with piled up dirt seen on the background upper right:
What part the pile of dirt will play in the future is unknown to K.P., or if it is even related to the underpass. There was some dirt piled up before the underpass was started to be dug out.
By comparison, a previously shown Garey Ave. in Pomona westward underneath photo shot in 2009: The left LA&SL single-track bridge is WITHOUT rivets (left, like the Magnolia Ave. structure in Riverside), while the right SP multi-track bridging has rivets.
Apparently, the Magnolia Ave. railroad two-track bridge will be built first and trains operated over it before the underpass concrete walling is even formed. Therafter, with the shoefly out of the way, the underpass downward walling and other necessary structural parts will be built unhindered by train traffic at ground level.
Interesting photos of the bridge construction in process, K.P. - thanks for sharing ! Some comments/ observations:
This bridge will likely be a ballast-deck type, but it appears that the 'floor' under the ballast will be the steel plates in these photos, as opposed to the more typical poured or precast concrete trough. They appear to be thick enough and the right width to span from Center-line to C/L of each beam, and if they were only going to be used as a 'walking/ working surface' by the construction crew, then wood would likely be used instead. Also, there's no sign of any of the 'studs' projecting upwards from the beams that would usually be there if a concrete deck was going to be poured. The concrete deck would not only be heavier - meaning that more or stronger I-beams would then be needed - but would add from 6" to 12" to the thickness of the bridge deck. That would mean the excavation for the roadway underneath would have to be that much deeper for it's entire length, and also would have to be a little longer as well on the grades down and back up to accomodate that greater depth. Finally, a 'poured-in-place' concrete deck would have to have some curing time to gain strength before the construction and train loads are placed on it, which would delay or slow down the construction work at least 1 week, and perhaps as long as 1 month. Taking all of that into account, the steel deck is probably the better-value choice.
Notice the gap or 'joint' between the I-beams at the center support. That means that both spans are "simply supported" = independent of each other with regard to carrying and sharing the train loads, other than what little bit the rail spreads over both spans. That is typical for railroad bridges, unlike highway bridges - a little more expensive, but a lot more certainty in predicting loads and analyzing the resulting stresses than a 'continuous' bridge, and far less vulnerable to pier settling, earthquakes, etc.
The new bridges don't have as many rivets as the old SP bridge at Garey Ave. in Pomona because the new bridges are built from large single solid rolled steel I-beam shapes - other than a few bolts for the cross-braces (the double-vertical-rows of bolt heads at about 8 ft. spacings). In contrast, the SP bridge's beams are "built-up" by riveting an angle-shaped piece to each side of the webs at the top and the bottom, and then riveting the top and bottom flange plates to those angles. Today, it is easier to achieve that shape and function by using large rolled I-beams as here - although these I-beams look like they're pushing the envelope on the largest ones made as a standard off-the-shelf product. If a larger size is needed such as for a longer and hence deeper girder bridge, today those are fabricated not by riveting, but more usually by welding the top and bottom flanges to the web instead.
K.P.'s speculation as to the construction sequence for the rest of the excavation, and installation of the retaining walls for the road on each side of the railroad bridge after the bridge is in service and the 'shoo-fly' bypass track is removed, makes as much sense as anything else.
- Paul North.
Paul_D_North_Jr Interesting photos of the bridge construction in process, K.P. - thanks for sharing ! Some comments/ observations: This bridge will likely be a ballast-deck type, but it appears that the 'floor' under the ballast will be the steel plates in these photos, as opposed to the more typical poured or precast concrete trough. They appear to be thick enough and the right width to span from Center-line to C/L of each beam, and if they were only going to be used as a 'walking/ working surface' by the construction crew, then wood would likely be used instead. Also, there's no sign of any of the 'studs' projecting upwards from the beams that would usually be there if a concrete deck was going to be poured. The concrete deck would not only be heavier - meaning that more or stronger I-beams would then be needed - but would add from 6" to 12" to the thickness of the bridge deck. That would mean the excavation for the roadway underneath would have to be that much deeper for it's entire length, and also would have to be a little longer as well on the grades down and back up to accomodate that greater depth. Finally, a 'poured-in-place' concrete deck would have to have some curing time to gain strength before the construction and train loads are placed on it, which would delay or slow down the construction work at least 1 week, and perhaps as long as 1 month. Taking all of that into account, the steel deck is probably the better-value choice. Notice the gap or 'joint' between the I-beams at the center support. That means that both spans are "simply supported" = independent of each other with regard to carrying and sharing the train loads, other than what little bit the rail spreads over both spans. That is typical for railroad bridges, unlike highway bridges - a little more expensive, but a lot more certainty in predicting loads and analyzing the resulting stresses than a 'continuous' bridge, and far less vulnerable to pier settling, earthquakes, etc. The new bridges don't have as many rivets as the old SP bridge at Garey Ave. in Pomona because the new bridges are built from large single solid rolled steel I-beam shapes - other than a few bolts for the cross-braces (the double-vertical-rows of bolt heads at about 8 ft. spacings). In contrast, the SP bridge's beams are "built-up" by riveting an angle-shaped piece to each side of the webs at the top and the bottom, and then riveting the top and bottom flange plates to those angles. Today, it is easier to achieve that shape and function by using large rolled I-beams as here - although these I-beams look like they're pushing the envelope on the largest ones made as a standard off-the-shelf product. If a larger size is needed such as for a longer and hence deeper girder bridge, today those are fabricated not by riveting, but more usually by welding the top and bottom flanges to the web instead. K.P.'s speculation as to the construction sequence for the rest of the excavation, and installation of the retaining walls for the road on each side of the railroad bridge after the bridge is in service and the 'shoo-fly' bypass track is removed, makes as much sense as anything else. - Paul North.
Interesting analysis for the design. It's been a while:
First, I wonder if a Cor-ten type steel is used for the steel deck to control corrosion. If so, I also wonder if something is used to protect the rust from abrasion?
I suppose the floor sheets could be spot welded to achieve a structural connection between floor beams in the horizontal plane. The beams are painted; so they probably aren't Cor-ten.
Interesting that a simple beam would be used. The bounce at the end of the bridge beam exacerbates the degradation of ballasted track surface whereas a continuous beam would greatly reduce the middle bounce. This bounce results from beam deflection relative to the stiffness from its size. This bounce could be minimized with a stiffer, albeit deeper and more expensive beam.
I would think a rolled shape would be standardized mostly in smaller sizes for mass-production. Particularly large structural shapes usually are fabricated by bolting, riveting (rarely done anymore), or welding steel plates of almost any length and of different widths and thicknesses, giving the engineer a lot more freedom and economy in design.
Another issue is the amount of expansion that would be needed for two single beams compared to one long beam. I would assume the floor plates would overlap the abutments and at the center pier; and that an elastomer would act in shear to prevent mechanical contact.
Replies:
MikeF90 (1-24):
I think you are on the right track about the Red Rock Yard with your statement: "I would expect to see yard expansion along I-10 west toward Wymola."
See the replies further on in this post to tdmidget and desertdog.
jeffhergert (1-26):
Believe it or not, Jeff, you taught an old dog a new trick! For decades those "hash marks (metal rings around the poles)" escaped my notice.
mvs (1-28):
When I was scrambling around Saturday, January 26, 2011 for the recent post series, nothing was taking place in the Milliken Ave. area (M.P. 525.4), EXCEPT a boom truck with someone in the boom cage possibly taking a pole wire down.
The article you linked was quite informative. I would imagine a railroad shoefly would be one of the first steps of that project, and was kind of expecting at least signs of such on the above mentioned visit Saturday, but I guess it is too early yet for that.
tdmidget (1-28):
Your informative post about the future Red Rock Yard in Arizona shed much light on what is happening. Thanks.
Because of that post, I was able to find a newspaper article on the future Red Rock Yard from 2008 that gave an excellent report on the issues and players involved, at least from a few years ago. I would imagine the polarized drama players are the same today, and no clear cut winner has surfaced.
(A map of the yard's location was also included in the article. The link below is provided for interested parties.)
I had thought previously that the planned, future Red Rock Yard might be patterned after BNSF's Barstow Yard on the Transcon, but the above linked article mentioned it as 'six miles long,' which makes me wonder if it will be patterned after West Colton Yard in California, which yard is in the 'six miles long' range.
Today's Union Pacific West Colton Yard is somewhat different than the original Southern Pacific West Colton Yard of 1973. Sometime after UP took over, much of the Departure Yard and Trim connection to the Bowl was rearranged, so instead of using a bowl track for a long train in the Departure Yard, four separate tracks now continues west way past Riverside Ave. and on the south side of the Bowl.
The Red Rock Yard will have a slight bend in alignment about two-thirds of the way railroad west, as the above linked news article illustrated. West Colton Yard in Southern California also has a bend, in the Departure Yard, as shown in the below photo's upper background.
The above previously shown file photo is dated May 22, 2009.
desertdog (1-29):
Between yours, MikeF90's, and tdmidget's posts, and the news link provided in this post, I think the forum is getting a better picture of what the new yard might be like and where, and the politics involved as well.
What I now wonder is who will get to Red Rock first: Sunset Route two-tracking crews, or classification yard builders?
Take care, guys.
K.P.
Hey K.P.
I was on another site getting information for the possiblity of working on a RR as a Diesel/Industrial Mechanic, (I am in school for this particular trade) and had a response from an individual who's brother works for UP, and I received a reply concerning Red Rock Yard. QUOTE : "Red Rock is only a rumor at this time. I can find out if there is any funding, but I doubt it. They just finished the diesel facility at West Colton about 3 years ago and due to it Multi-Million dollar cost and the Santa Fe diamond project starting this year, no way they would close West Colton any time soon. " UNQUOTE..
The reason of his comment on West Colton, was I had INCORRECTLY heard some other rumors that if Red Rock were built, UP might close both Tucson and West Colton Diesel Facilites and put both at Red Rock. So by the statement above, that rumor is most DEFINATLY DEAD !
K.P. Was Contacted ...
... by locomatt63 with some more enlightening two-tracking update photos shot on "Wed 1/26/2011" east of downtown Maricopa, AZ. A selection follows ...
From Locomatt63: Part I
FIRST PHOTO BY LOCOMATT63:
Caption by locomatt63:
The partially ballasted new track as shot from the Porter Rd. crossing (facing westbound):
Comment by K.P.: For those unfamiliar with the area, Porter Rd. is about a mile east of CP SP899 EAST MARICOPA.
SECOND PHOTO BY LOCOMATT63:
From Porter Road (facing eastbound):
THIRD PHOTO BY LOCOMATT63:
Crews installing/moving new gates at White and Parker Rd Crossing
Comment by K.P.: The new second track (with concrete ties) is presently higher through the grade crossing than the old track (with wooden ties).
Continued in Part II
From Locomatt63: Part II
FOURTH PHOTO BY LOCOMATT63:
New signals at Hartman Rd. (eastbound is to the photo left):
Comment by K.P.: The above signals evidence that at least TWO signal groups will be between CP SP899 EAST MARICOPA and the new CP just west of Anderson Rd. that desertdog first gave us photos about. Locomatt63 captured a rather maverick scene in the above photo. A comment on that will be in a "Second Section" that will follow this post.
FIFTH PHOTO BY LOCOMATT63:
At Anderson Rd ... the [grade crossing] box is installed and lettered.
SIXTH PHOTO BY LOCOMATT63:
[This] picture shows the TEMPORARY track just beyond the switch in order for crews to install the new track from Anderson Rd to CP East Maricopa.
Comment by K.P.: The CP's east end (foreground) is almost at the Anderson Rd. grade crossing as seen in comparing the Fifth Photo and the Sixth Photo.
SEVENTH PHOTO BY LOCOMATT63:
Looking east from Anderson Rd crossing, those searchlights in the distance are CP Bon.
Comment by K.P.: I see the eastbound two target head mainline signal, but NOT the westbound counterpart!
This will end the photos by locomatt63. Thanks for sharing, Matt! An additional "Second Section" post will follow ...
Second Section: An Extra K.P. Comment About locomatt63's Fourth Photo
In looking at the Fourth Photo in the post before this one, the newly erected signal masts on the east side of Hartman Rd. have an odd characteristic. The LEFT mast has top mast stems for heads in both directions, whereas the right mast only has stems for heads facing east for westbound trains.
K.P. interprets that as a future two-type signal location, with the north (left) mast for intermediate signals, and the south (right) mast as an east side absolute for westbound trains.
Just to the west of Hartman Rd, K.P. photographed a westward view on August 4, 2008 of an industrial track with one of the two-bulb signals to exit the track (top left) and get onto the mainline.
In file photos available to K.P., the west end of the industrial track (by White and Parker Rd.) also has one of the simple two-bulb, non-dispatcher controlled absolute signals. (Aerials show that industrial track actually goes through a railroad customer's building.)
So, back at Hartman Rd., obviously there should be west side eastbound absolute signals erected for the industrial track and the future Main 2. If the railroad does do that, K.P. sees a possible rare cantilever structure being put in there, though mast signals seem more likely for the siding and future Main 2 as there appears to be sufficient clearance there.
K.P. would love to hear more about this from contributing forumists in Arizona.
Best wishes to all, and thanks again to locomatt63 for the onsite photos in the two posts above this one.
Can anyone direct me to a map showing the progress of the double tracking?
Does anyone have a link to a map showing progress of the double tracking?
I don't think that are any such maps -- even Google Earth satellite photos are not up to date.
"Comment by K.P.: I see the eastbound two target head mainline signal, but NOT the westbound counterpart!"
K.P.,
The siding at Bon is 8,330 feet long and there is a slight rise between where Matt is standing and the east siding switch. You can make out the rise in the code lines. The two things together make it hard to see the westbound signals from there. It is even harder in summer when the heat waves distort everything.
Now then, in the SIXTH PHOTO of Matt's series taken at Anderson Rd., I note there are two switch motors, one at the points where you would expect there to be one, and another opposite the frog. Does this mean they actually plan to install a moveable point frog on a temporary turnout? Or is the object I see something else?
Locomatt63,
A great series of shots. I have not been able to get back to the scene lately. Thanks for bringing things up to date.
John Timm
Paul_D_North_Jr: Re the new Pomona signal bridge, as previously discussed the 'gap' where a signal head could go for a fifth track is extremely Unlikely IMO. The probable (and somewhat in the future) fourth track will route onto the existing wide Garey Ave bridge.
ccltrains and cacole: FYI my sig below contains links to 2MT progress maps as reported on this topic and elsewhere. Clicking on individual bookmarks will show further details, links and will keep location centered while zooming. I update them as time permits.
As K.P.H. noted earlier, it remains to be seen if the existing Bon siding will be 'spliced' into the new second main or replaced with concrete ties. Also, the new switch west of Anderson Rd appears to be part of a future universal crossover (not temporary) - note the signal spacing and grading on Google maps.
It's been a week since Matthews latest photos - things are happening fast! Besides Bon siding, it would be worth checking out Montgomery Rd, the possible new CP at MP 912 (east of Corrales Rd) and Ethington Rd for anything new. TIA!
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! ***
desertdog (2-3):
Reread the post about the sixth photo -- it was edited slightly since with Matt's permission. I must have been in another dimension or something ... Anyway, the switch itself is a permanent installation, and will probably have all those signs warning trainmen that the points and the moveable frog must be in agreement.
K. P. Harrier desertdog (2-3): Reread the post about the sixth photo -- it was edited slightly since with Matt's permission. I must have been in another dimension or something ... Anyway, the switch itself is a permanent installation, and will probably have all those signs warning trainmen that the points and the moveable frog must be in agreement. K.P.
I think what we are saying, then, is that the Anderson Rd. installation is indeed permanent. And given the proximity to the grain terminal, this makes further sense in that shuttle trains will use a westbound crossover at that point--as yet unbuilt--to access the industrial spur shown in Locomatt63's fourth photo.
As a corollary, as you suggested earlier, CP Bon will disappear entirely when the siding is upgraded with concrete ties and becomes part of Track 1.
locomatt63 (2-2):
Both West Colton and Red Rock Yards should be around for years to come. However, I somehow have been thinking maybe twenty to thirty years from now UP would move West Colton Yard operating to Red Rock because of a friendly business and tax environment in Arizona. But, I've heard some very recent talk of California lawmakers making the tax environment much friendlier to businesses, so that instead of fleeing the State, businesses would again be attracted to it. (See the reply to desertdog below.)
desertdog (2-3a):
I think we are on the same wavelength on that future universal crossover just west of Anderson Rd. between Maricopa and Casa Grande, AZ.
But, you know, John, I think you Arizonians are about to see something you are not used to seeing! That new CP west of Anderson Rd., the south signal on the east side, theoretically, should have a four-bulb head to display a yellow over lunar. In that mode, the next future signal west, at Hartman Rd., should display a red over flashing red, with the lower head having only a single bulb (showing either red or flashing red), for entrance into the industrial track alongside (south of) the future Main 2.
Such rather rare signal aspects are at Colton / West Colton Yard here in California. As an example, a westward view of the east side of CP SP538 RANCHO (previously shown, as were the rest of the photos in this post). The lower head of the left signal (for Main 2) has four bulbs, one of which is a lunar.
The next CP a mile westward, at CP SP535 PEPPER, has those odd lower RED single-bulb heads. Note both the left (the Balloon) and right (Sunset Route) masts in the view below that looks eastward.
The next signal set west (photographed eastward) is at Riverside Ave., and is of a split arrangement, with intermediates for Main 1 (left) and absolutes for Main 2 (right).
But note, desertdog, the CP numbering at Riverside Ave.!
It has a '900' series CP number while at a '500' series milepost! UP seems to differentiate such split arrangements with a '900' number. In Arizona at Hartman Rd., however, how would UP differentiate that split arrangement? The mileposts are already in the '900' block! Will UP make the CP have a '400' series number? '500'?
I honestly did not think that type of situation would present itself so soon. But, it is here! When the new track and signals are up and running, if you, desertdog (or anyone else for that matter), can see the CP number at Hartman Rd., I would love to know what number series it is in. Of course, the split intermediate / absolute arrangement at both ends of the Mobile siding off Main 1 uses the normal numbering in sequence, CP SP882 MOBILE (M.P. 882.1) and CP SP884 MOBILE (M.P. 883.9) respectively! Maybe ("Maybe") the difference between Arizona and California is related to State taxation policies, as with the reply to locomatt63 above in this post. After all, UP's highest top brass reportedly are accounting wizards!
A Follow-Up to Odd CP Numbering
In a reply to desertdog earlier this date, it was suggested that the new CP at Hartman Rd. between Maricopa and Casa Grande, AZ might have a non-sequential number, as does CP AL935 RIVERSIDE AVE in the M.P. 536 area by West Colton Yard in Southern California.
K.P. has reviewed the CP designations from Los Angeles to El Paso, and NONE have a non-sequential CP number like CP AL935 RIVERSIDE AVE has. So, K.P. feels the CP at Hartman Rd. will have a CP number that conforms to the Sunset Route milepost numbering.
From CP SP535 PEPPER eastward, the prefix SP is used until M.P. 1000 is reached, and the prefix "S" is used eastward instead of "SP."
Below is a list of CP's currently in the Bloomington-Colton, CA area:
M.P. 534.7 - CP AL534 CEDAR (in years past identified as CP WEST COLTON)
M.P. 536.2 - CP AL935 RIVERSIDE AVE
M.P. 537.3 - CP SP535 PEPPER (Main 2)
M.P. 538.1 - CP SP537 EAST LEG BYPASS (Main 1)
M.P. 538.5 - CP SP538 RANCHO
M.P. 538.7 - BNSF [Transcon] CROSSING
M.P. 538.8 - CP SP539 RIVERSIDE INDUSTRIAL LEAD (Main 2)
M.P. 539.9 - CP SP540 MT VERNON (Main 2)
Other information:
Conspicuously absent is a CP SP536.
From around M.P. 538 eastward, for a little over a mile and a half, the future Colton Flyover will affect CP's.
The Economy
Hey, guys, things are looking up economically! Not only has two-tracking resumed, but now UP has started ordering power for mainline service again!
At the website ...
http://www.dieselshop.us/UP.HTML
... updated January 22, 2011, 40 new EMD SD70ACe's are now listed as being "On order," numbers 8671-8710.
Second-track layers have even more reason to celebrate as their newly resumed jobs look even more secure now!
I think the 9 may just be a default number to use when existing CPs in the area already use the available mile post numbers.
I've noticed around the Council Bluffs/Omaha area the UP has used 900 numbers for control points that otherwise don't fit the mile post locations. The newest CP by the Amtrak depot, a new connection to the BNSF, is B903. It sits between CP's B003 and B004.
Since there is already a CP SP535, they may have not wanted a CP AL535. Even though the letter designations are different, exact numberings might lead to problems. Using 936 would be out of sequence, unless they renumbered another CP. Using AL935 is a convenient way of adding a new designation to the existing number sequence.
Now, in an area with mile posts in the 900s if the mile post number was already taken for existing CPs, I don't know what they would do. Possibly turn the 9 into a 0? Say instead of 951 use 051.
Jeff
Jeff's right about the 900-series control points. At our end of the pike, the UP has rebuilt most of the control points close in to the Chicago Terminal--so we have Y900 (Northwest Junction--used to be Clinton Street), Y901 (Halsted--completely new), Y902 (Western Avenue), and Y903 and Y904 (Kedzie--it's complicated!). Kedzie, by the way, is Milepost 3.6.
Carl
Railroader Emeritus (practiced railroading for 46 years--and in 2010 I finally got it right!)
CAACSCOCOM--I don't want to behave improperly, so I just won't behave at all. (SM)
jeffhergert Since there is already a CP SP535, they may have not wanted a CP AL535. Even though the letter designations are different, exact numberings might lead to problems. Using 936 would be out of sequence, unless they renumbered another CP. Using AL935 is a convenient way of adding a new designation to the existing number sequence.
Meant to say, "Using 536 would be out of sequence,..." instead of 936. Oops.
Yesterday (2/5) we visited the Gila Sub to follow construction progress between Casa Grande and Maricopa. But before doing so, we first headed to the east side of town to see if there were any signs of renewed activity eastward towards C.P. Picacho. At Peart Rd., (approximately M.P. 922), we noted a set of precast concrete signal bases that had recently been deposited alongside the roadbed:
At the first block signal west of Peart Rd., two new signal huts were also in evidence. And still further west, at Hermosilla St., (approximately M.P. 920) we encountered more signs of preparation, including more signal bases and long sections of plastic conduit (not visible in photo). The second main will take the place of the siding in this area which dead ends a few car lengths beyond the crossing. The track in the foreground is the switching lead to Arizona Grain. Note that as elsewhere, the MP on the crossing signal box has been replaced with a DOT number:
The switching lead into Arizona Grain will be moved to the right accordingly. I have never before noticed a sign of the type in the foreground, delineating maintenance responsibility between carrier and customer:
The little GE 44-tonner in the background has an interesting history. It showed up about fifteen years ago, having been resurrected from the railroad museum in Chandler, Arizona. I will get some close up shots and post them in the Locomotives forum for those who like “critters.”
More to come.
The Casa Grande Yard contained the largest number of freight cars that I have seen there to date, in particular, QLF tank cars laden with molasses-rich cattle feed. Beside beef, the area supplies milk for Arizona and much of Southern California. Down the road further was a long string of CHTT, MP, SI, SSW and UP gondolas, flatcars and hoppers. This was one of many that carried a load of concrete grade crossing sections:
More signal bases were found at Ethington Road, the beginning of westward construction and the eventual transition point for the second main to move from north of the current track to south of it. I would certainly expect a universal crossover here as it is the west entrance to the Casa Grande Yard and also because of its proximity to the Frito-Lay and Abbott industrial tracks.
Just west of Ethington Rd, at the same place where I had earlier posted a photo of SI ballast cars, we found this interesting piece of equipment. Susan had a very difficult time taking this photo as she was shooting straight into the sun alongside a very busy road. Sorry, but getting any shots of the train itself were out of the question:
It is one of two conveyors in a GREX (Georgetown Railway Equipment) unit “Dump Train,” used to distribute aggregate in piles. The second conveyor was attached to the end of the train. There are photos and a short video of the dump train in action at:
<http://www.georgetownrail.com/materialHandling/dump_train.php>.
This rock will not likely be used as ballast, per se, but rather to support signals and wayside structures, and to fill in and tamp where needed at crossings and under special work. Note the gravel piles to the right of the tracks in this shot taken back in downtown Casa Grande. There are similar piles all through the construction zone, mainly next to grade crossings and surrounding the new crossovers:
Still more to come.
There was a UP signal maintainer at Anderson Rd. when we arrived. I was about to pelt him with questions when the MPXWC showed up. He was on the opposite side of the crossing. By the time the train had passed, he was gone. Lucky man. Maybe next time...
Signal heads have now been installed on the west-facing mast and insulated joints are being cut in all along the newly-laid track:
As K.P. rightfully predicted, at Hartman Rd., just east of the Cow Town grain terminal and ethanol plant where the shuttle siding begins, the railroad is installing signals with a one-bulb lower head to govern access to the industry track:
And a closer view. Of special interest are the two side-by-side signal heads at the top of the mast on the right, their exact function unknown to me:
One last posting to follow.
While not directly related to the construction, we end with a few shots taken at the Maricopa Amtrak depot as the sun was about to set.
The materiel yard at Maricopa is once again humming with activity. We got there at the end of the shift. The fact that large crews were working on a Saturday suggests that this project has a high priority--a good sign. Here was one on many railroad vehicles on site. I especially like the horn at the rear the of vehicle:
Since our last visit, a new sign has been erected:
Perhaps more intriguing is this little structure that has popped up at the west end of the platform next to the SR 347 crossing. In the same frame as the ancient S.P. water tower, it offers an interesting contrast of the old versus the new:
We asked the not-so-friendly depot agent its purpose and he grunted “Handicapped lift” as he brushed past us. No such lift was present and it appears for the moment that it is being used for storage. Of additional interest is the 3/4 mile marker of the kind that jeffhergert brought up on 1/26.:
That's all for now.
jeffhergert (2-4) and CShaveRR (2-5):
Thanks guys for setting the record straight on CP designations ... and that 900 series numbered identifications are used when the regular series numbers are all taken up (or will be) around a particular location.
desertdog (2-6):
It was much appreciated, John, for the detailed Arizona report and photo postings.
On the third post of your four post series, the one posted 14 minutes after the hour, the FIRST shot MAY be more significant that you might have realize! At least I see it that way.
desertdog Signal heads have now been installed on the west-facing mast and insulated joints are being cut in all along the newly-laid track:
Aerials confirm that the photo was in fact shot at Anderson Rd. as you said. But, John, either you were in the Twilight Zone (I want to go with you next time!!!), or, more likely, you photo-captured a railroad booboo!
By reviewing locomattt63's photos on Page 91 of this topic, his post time ending in 29, the third of four photos, the far end of the CP west of Anderson Rd. has two masts EACH with a tri-light lower head indicating the CP is a double-crossover (a universal one).
But, on your photo on this page, though, a lower TWO-bulb head is present instead of a three-bulb tri-light head! I'll bet my boots that the railroad will not too long from now change that to a tri-light!
The third photo of that post, the one shot a Hartman Rd., can be interpreted as followers: The right mast is a single-mast intermediate situation with eastbound and westbound heads. The left mast is an absolute east facing westbound situation, with separate masts (or possible a cantilever structure) with west facing separate eastbound signals, all protecting the switch between the signals on the future Main 2.
Also, the evidence you photo captured east of Casa Grande sure is convincing evidence that two-tracking will continue straight through town and east towards Tucson.
John_Edwards (Private Email):
Your email via Kalmbach WAS received, but there was no way to reply to it, except via this post.
The webpage link it referred to mentioned someone seeing blueprints of the future Colton Crossing Flyover. I would love to be able to see such plans, but they are probably not available to the public.
The Email link to another forum had an inquiry about maybe another flyover to get the Colton Crossing southeast quadrant transition track over to the west side. That previously was brought up in this thread. From K.P. contact in the past with those actually in the know, there will be NO such second flyover, and the transition track in the southeast quadrant will continue and remain. Without a second flyover somewhere, though, my contention is that eventually ("eventually") animosity between BNSF and UP will surely arise.
That other website also mentioned that a single-track UP line would exist that would cross the BNSF at grade to access UP customers that are on the east side of the BNSF tracks. If residents in that area envisioned that with a flyover things would become nice and quite, they will get a rude awakening. Such a diamonds crossing traversed over by the many, many BNSF Transcon trains will still violently rattle the neighborhood night air! The locals will surely be disappointed and possibly very politically irritated too!
Best wishes all,
PS: For any that need to contact K.P., I may be reached at kpharrier@yahoo.com, but be patient, as I always have something taking up my time. I don't know what boredom is!
It’s not so much the twilight zone. More properly, it’s called the “Union Switch and Signal zone.” Life was much simpler when you just had to deal with a single target for block signals, while sidings, junctions and crossings with other railroads had at most three targets with a single lens in each. I’m slowly learning what goes on under those hoods, but it will take time. In a million years I would have never pointed out what you saw immediately.
One thing I failed to mention in yesterday’s posting is that rail is laid right up to the east switch at BON. It is now mostly surfaced but remains unconnected. There is the much-discussed gap between the west siding switch at C.P. BON to the Anderson Rd. crossovers. From there west to C.P. EAST MARICOPA it is mostly surfaced, crossings and crossing signals are complete, and rail is laid right up to the universal crossovers (also complete) at that point.
I predict that the portion from C. P. EAST MARICOPA to the Anderson Rd. crossovers will be the first to be placed in service. Further, I submit that this has taken priority because of the need to move eastbound Amtrak back and forth from one main to the other, along with getting shuttle trains in and out of the industrial siding at Cow Town with minimal interruption to through traffic. On the other hand, the Bon siding still remains to be rebuilt and crossovers need to be installed at the west end of Casa Grande, all requiring more time.
I had an oppportunity to check out progress of the Union Pacific track realignment project at the Marsh Station Road / Cienega Creek area east of Tucson on Tuesday, February 8th. I didn't have my camera with me but will attempt to get some photos in the next week or two and post them here.
The new Marsh Station Road exit is in service and the old exit has been dug out. At this end of the project, the rail line is approximately 10 feet lower than the level of the surrounding terrain, so a lot of dirt has had to be removed. That dirt has been hauled to the other end at the Empirita Road exit to build the rail line up to the level of the existing track. Several hills between the two points had to be removed and a massive fill constructed to cross what had been a rather deep ravine.
The massive pile of sand that was quarried when the project first began is now being spread on the new roadbed to a thickness of a foot or so.
There is a plate girder bridge over a dry wash tributary of Cienega Creek on the existing line approximately 1/2 mile north of the I-10 overpass. The grading and filling for the new line is not going to align with this bridge, so a new bridge will need to be constructed.
Union Pacific's latest estimate for completion at this site is "late 2011."
I'm quoting from this thread on Trainorders.comhttp://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?1,2389087
Railroad Track and Structures Magazine just posted an article on Capital Expenditures for 2011 for each of the Class One RR's. An official of UP is quoted as saying that "53 miles" of Sunset Route will be double tracked in 2011. The article did not say where. Of note is the fact that the distance from East Casa Grande to Rillito is just about 53 miles. It seems logical that this section would be next because the grading, foundation and culverts are all done. This would not leave any money left for Double Tracking in CA, say another 12 miles up to Glamis from Cactus. Since 2011 appears to be a prosperous year, again, that means it will be about five years for the entire route to be completed. 53 miles is less than expected. What seems to have happened is that the Blair,NE cutoff has been deemed more urgent to "uncork"the Overland Route and has diverted the money from the Sunset Route. The Blair route involves a second track Missouri River Bridge and that is obviously expensive. The money lies in coal haulage from the Powder River (captive market) and coal exports to the Pacific have moon-rocketed. Also, like BNSF, the Mississippi River Bridge needs to be replaced (like the BNSF bridge at Burlington), all of which soaks up money. (The U.S.Grant era bridges have all fallen apart).("Matching" Stimulus money seems to be playing a role in decision making.) Yet, on CNBC, the UP President said they would have the Sunset double tracking done in three years. That suggest 2012 and 2013 will be 100 mile years. (100 miles in CA and 100 miles in AZ would just about finish it) It appears BNSF will spend most of its money on eastern NE and western IA double tracking (again, a second Missouri River Bridge) and a very large chunk in northern WY for coal haulage to the Pacific. The transcon will seemingly not get much improvement this year. Tehachapi Double Tracking will get most of that money.
John
Continuing briefly, although off main topic, BNSF announced today that they will spend $3.5 billion on capital expenditures in 2011
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.