Dittoes, Super Hunky (from another Ed Roth fan).
The rest of us who have been enjoying this thread for so long should hold some kind of electronic testimonial dinner for K.P.
SP657E44 In engineering, a truss is a structure that "consists of two-force members only, where the members are organized so that the assemblage as a whole behaves as a single object". A "two-force member" is a structural component where force is only applied to two points. Riverside avenue: "If the railroad bridgework is only for one track as you say, " Well gee kp, you were just there, what did you see ? Maybe if the cutesy fruitsy language would just convey what's happening and not whatever conjecturbation you're on about ??? A solution to a non-existant problem is extending track. Three of the four platform tracks at Riverside access the EB mains, two of them on the "proper" side for Metrolink's Perris Valley line. I know it's hard to believe but dispatchers know where trains are, what trains are coming their way, and when they'll be at any given point. It's part of their job .... IF at some point in the future a "fleet" of Metros is heading east out of RIV they'll take priority over freight movements as they do now and quite possibly the triple track will extend over most if not all of the San Bernardino sub. (they just added a tripled grade crossing at the only mainline BNSF crossing that will remain in Fullerton). A10
A10
Replies
mvs (3-20):
As you do, I’ve got a gut feeling that the Clay Street area in Riverside (CA) will be two-tracked. Within a year what the bridging will be track-wise for the Clay Street underpass should give us a few clues about the future.
SP657E44 (3-21):
About ‘flyover fantasies’ … In the last few decades at least two flyovers to build have been mentioned in official circles. It might be seen as a fantasy to some, but it wasn’t my concoction or dreaming up. As great as our democracy and form of government is, it does have a few things hard to deal with, namely, the transitory nature of those in power, and that transitory nature is by the will of the people. A flyover may have been promoted by Person A, but when person B got into power they had other solutions to problems that meant something to them, and on and on it goes.
The ‘fantasy’ of a flyover somewhere on the west side of Pomona came from those in power some years ago.
Recently, this 2009 LA&SL westward view from Grand Ave. in the City of Industry was posted about.
The background area may (“may”) be where the south (left) side of the Walnut siding’s east end was. But, yet the two-tracking of the area west of here produced a north side second main. The old track layout is foggy in my mind. Maybe someone at the forum remembers about this. So, things are often evaluated based on foggy memories of yesteryear and what those then in power might have had in mind.
Perhaps the Pomona Diversion and that Walnut siding area’s mysterious alignment shift are two totally separate matters. Maybe somewhere along the line someone will see that the Diversion should NOT have been four-tracks wide, but maybe five! Who knows?
I must admit when the following Diversion photo was taken recently, it became clear to me two-tracks will eventually (“eventually”) head west out of the Diversion on the SP Alhambra Sub, and two on the LA&SL Los Angeles Sub.
But, that goes contrary to the proliferation of spring frog switches at the future big CP AL514 HAMILTON. So, we are back in mystery mode with things that don’t make sense in Pomona. Through the grapevine, I DID hear that someone at UP really got chewed out royally for something in Southern California! Maybe it was the putting in of the wrong type of switches at the future CP AL514 HAMILTON … Wasn’t there a guillotine laying trackside in Pomona for a while? (Hehehe. Just kidding.)
Those switch parts boxes in Colton may (“may”) hold the key to all this. Are they parts for moveable point fog switches instead of spring frog ones? You likely recall even more boxes were recently added to the group.
IF incorrect switches were installed in Pomona, all my trying to make sense of things was in vain and a waste of time, which trying to make sense of things inspired your comment. Oh, well …
Concerning the Riverside Ave. underpass construction in Riverside …If the railroad bridgework is only for one track as you say, SP657E44, that should settle it.
The multiple 91 Freeway railroad bridges in Riverside sure have stirred the pot, so to speak. Over the years, with Riverside too, a flyover surfaced. But, again, the transitory nature of the leaders of American government may have killed the concept, but things that were said by officials in the past somehow linger on among observant railfans, like me.
One thing I am not sure about is your reference to a ‘truss’ bridge that was tucked in with your words concerning the 91 Freeway. There is NO truss bridge over the 91 Freeway in Riverside, nor in any place in Riverside, Orange, or Los Angeles counties.
About the seeming controversy relative to my words about the Barton Rd. bridge in the far southern part of Colton (in the Grand Terrace area), the three new truss bridges over the I-215 freeway, and Highgrove’s BNSF’s CP CP61 HIGHGROVE, the things I’ve suggested would solved problems, though my solutions are certainly not official. Consider this, SP657E44 … In the afternoon and evenings on weekdays, a fleeting of sorts of eastbound Metrolink trains (in the future) WILL take place (because of the new, yet future Perris Valley Line). They will be on Main 3 out of Riverside. Since westbound trains tend to use Main 3, if a fleet of BNSF and UP trains shows up at commuter time, will they find themselves in conflict with eastbound Metrolinks? Will BNSF just smile, grin and bear it when their bread and butter trains are regulated to in essence single-track at CP HIGHGROVE? My offering a way out of the mess of conflict and gridlock is severely doubted and criticized by you, SP657E44. Do you see a way out of the worsening gridlock that I haven’t seen?
Whatever happens in the Riverside area, it shouldn’t be very long now before we all find out how things will be! And, aren’t we all eyes on that?
kgbw49 (3-22):
Welcome to the forum.
And, thank you for your kind words!
Since you’re an ex-Southern Californian now living in ‘flyover country,’ I take it that might be the Chicago area.
The Chicago area’s sprawling rail network sure has worked itself into a gridlock type situation where flyovers are needed for the railroads to be free flowing. Here in Southern California, the only real gridlock place was Colton Crossing, now free flowing with the Colton Flyover where the Sunset Route flies over the BNSF Transcon, which you as an ex-Southern Californian undoubtedly know.
Nearby to Colton is San Bernardino, where Metrolink flies over the BNSF Transcon.
Unfortunately, the City of San Bernardino is not as well off as the two western railroads, for the City has been in bankruptcy for a while now. In a few months we should know if it will go the way of the dinosaur by court order …
Anyway, at least you have a report from your old Southern California haunting grounds to bring back memories. The drought here continues but we’ve had several rainstorms in the last several months. I guess that means the western end of the Sunset Route will still be able to put water in UP’s SD70ACe and AC45 radiators, unless they put antifreeze in those things too.
Great hearing from you,
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.
Ignoring the fly-over fantasies you're known for ... Yes the Nogales Street bridge was designed and built with future expansion in mind, quite unlike the UP bridge in any way. Nobody said they were going to scrap* the old new bridge, only that it was going to come down. * The foreman's use of the term "demo" most likely pertains to the concrete work - the truss itself could be used elsewhere. Keeping the bridge in place on either side gains the UP nothing - the rock cut is still single track, Riverside avenue is single track. As with CP Strip Club (Club 215 is closer than Barton road) there's no reason to extend trackage simply for to gain a few hundred feet at the expense of signals, switches, etc .. and the cost of maintaining same. "CP Barton" (CP 215) would gain the BNSF maybe a half mile of track, still ending up with the two-track bottleneck to West Colton. Until the river bridge is widened (where would they find a bridge to do that ? ) and Barton road's aging two-lane bridge is replaced moving the Control Point is a waste of money and time. On your statement about CalPortland and switching: There's no "reciprocal switching agreement" with BNSF. UP switches the plant just as SP did after the SF switch was removed. The customer pays for maintaining switches into their property and most if not all of the business was going out via SP thereby making the SF switch a needless expense. SP and SF used to exchange cars at West Colton and San Bernardino on an alternating basis: SP would haul to A yard during their turn, SF would haul into West Colton on theirs. These moves have been replaced by BNSF's WCLBAR/BARWCL trains that avoid the double handling that occurred the old way - 2 trains do the work of 4 and the cars spend less time sitting in yards.
K.P - Thank you for the post! I bet that UP double-tracks the Clay underpass.
Update as of Wednesday, March 18, 2015
The Clay Street Underpass Construction
Riverside, CA
Part “B” (of A-B)
The area has been barricaded with wood elevated extensions on top of the cement barricades to keep people out of the construction area, making photography a bit more challenging than prevuiously.
Support beams hold up the temporary form walling (background left). That foreground wire meshing for the future east walling looks incredibly thin and flimsy.
A glimpse of the east wall forming on the east side is seen on the far right holding up drying (and curing) cement.
Because the railroad bridge-work has not yet begun, it cannot be determined if the bridging will be one- or two-tracks (or more) wide. Likely, though, the bridging will be for two-tracks.
The sequence in the construction is odd. Most underpass construction projects of late have put in place the railroading bridging first. This Clay Street one it is the walling even before the bridging! Apparently, that sequence was by design and NOT how the lead contractor may have wanted it. The lead contractor is Ames, by the way, a very well-known outfit to us, an outfit that has done much two-track grading on the Sunset Route.
When the underpass railroad bridge is in place and trains going over it, it will be interesting to see if the LA&SL two-tracking (from the year 1993) continues eastward to the big viaduct thereafter.
This will conclude the series.
Part “A” (of A-B)
Six new, update photos will be shown. The track is on the LA&SL alternate Sunset Route via Riverside.
As viewed from the south side, on the east walling, a rather thin mental-work meshing makes up the future cement walling.
Of special note, above, on the lower right, a wood barricade walling is seen. It is in addition to and on top of the traditional cement barricades.
The west walling is seen on the background left, and consists of a rather thin cement vertical wall.
The shoofly rails are seen (top). No bridge-work for the track(s) has begun yet.
Continued in Part B
(Continued)
SP657E44 (3-18)
About that new, uninstalled switch by Iowa Ave. in the northern Riverside-Highgrove area, I don’t know how I failed to notice the switch (as you said I did) when I photographed it. There isn’t another switch hiding somewhere, is there, SP657E44?
Concerning a future, new CP by Barton Road, IF (“if”) a track is laid though the third truss bridge over the I-215 Freeway (our “E” bridge, the westernmost one), somehow three-tracks will have to become two to go under the Barton Rd. old 1936 roadway bridge, and a CP seems the most logical way to do it. In light of the new Perris Valley Line using Main 3 Riverside to their junction switch, having Mains 2 and 3 meet by Barton Road makes more operating sense than Mains 1 and 2 meeting up. That assumes CP CP61 HIGHGROVE is done away with, which is likely.
About there being NO “wye” at Highgrove to rebuild … What I was trying to say is that by the Metrolink grading of a sharp connection route between Iowa Ave. (Transcon) ….
… and Citrus Street (San Jacinto Branch), there will in essence be a wye. The east leg of that wye, while it could remain a very slow speed switch …
… it would seem if Metrolink would use that switch for trains from San Bernardino, they would do away with that 10 M.P.H. switch and make the arrangement more of a higher-speed one.
At both BNSF CP WEST RIVERSIDE and a possible new CP by Center Street in Highgrove, there are presently huge piles of ballast, which I interpret as being used in the near future for rearranging the CP’s or new CP’s.
It is hoped the above material makes more sense to you, and that you can see where I was coming from in saying the things I did.
Take care,
SP657E44 (3-18):
Hi, there!
It is hoped everything is going well with you.
You could very well be right, but I can’t be faulted for trying to figure out a way to save taxpayers (like you and I) millions of dollars and not having to scrap a new bridge!
In pondering your reply, what flashed through my mind was the SP-side Nogales Ave. underpass in the City of Industry / West Covina, CA, photographed on November 6, 2010.
As seen above, while there are center supports for a second-track’s bridge at Nogales Ave., there doesn’t seem to be any end wall support for it for whatever reason. So, the lack of supports for another 91 Freeway bridge in Riverside doesn’t prove in itself there never will be a bridge placed north of the now under construction permanent one.
It has been suggested that the present shoofly bridge could be used for a south side second-track, but that seemed to have illogical routing options, at least in my opinion. But, what if that new south side bridge was (or may not even) repositioned on rebuilt supports so it became part of a flyover over the BNSF? In evaluating the area, there seems to be just enough room for BNSF Main 3 to flyover Mains 1 and 2 as well as the 91 Freeway. Now, that would make good use of that seeming unneeded 91 Freeway new bridge. As usual, we will just have to wait and see how things future-develop.
Continued ...
The Streeter Ave. Underpass
On December 10, 2014 found this underpass situation at Streeter Ave. under at the LA&SL.
On January 7, 2015 the underpass situation was photographed, and one lane in each direction of the WEST roadway was open.
This visit, on March 18, 2015, the roadway was gone over and it still only had ONE side paved, the west roadway! The sign this time reflected an even further extension, to a May completion.
Something has obviously caused the delay and the lack of additional paving.
The Clay Street underpass site was visited too, and much progress was seen. But, besides progress, something rather negative was present too. A short posting on the progress and situation there will be forthcoming in few days.
Posting continued with a reply to SP657E44
SP657E44 H beams are temporary in most cases, drilled and filled columns are permanent. A10
H beams are temporary in most cases, drilled and filled columns are permanent.
Notes: If kp looked closer at the UP bridge area he would see there's no abutment to "support" his bridge moving idea (a.k.a. don't you think they would've built it there in the first place ?) He also failed to notice the turnout for the Mterolink connection laying just north of the signals and boxes near the Iowa avenue overpass (and visible in his picture). A Control Point usually has a reason to exist, I see no reason for Barton to be one. Slover Mountain is now almost 30 feet shorter than before, the crushing and screening plant visible from Pepper avenue has been going full blast (pun intentional) as the top of the mountain is drilled and blasted. Views from the top were not very good and now are gone forever. Eventually the view eastward should be cleared enough to see headlights westbound from Loma Linda. There's no "wye" at Highgrove to be rebuilt.
billio (3-16):
Sources advise nothing has been put in service Pomona (CA) to Estrella (AZ).
Concerning the Araz-Araz Jct. section, when I was out that way November 23, 2014, the grading process had a long ways to go.
It has been almost four months. So likely is finished now. But, track laying is not usually a quick process. Just look how long the five miles between Pomona and Ontario (CA) took!
What looked like track laying would begin soon back then between Colfred and Mohawk, AZ …
… may now have track laid, but finishing it consumes much time, so it doesn’t surprise me sources have nothing new to report..
It is K.P.s desire to get out that way in the next four or five weeks. When I do, hopefully much will be found.
It is presumed the new train crew changing place in Yuma, AZ …
… is in service, and if it is when I visit sometime in the future, I should be able to get photos of that too, and HOW crews change by a universal crossover!
Until then, take care,
Super HunkyIt would be interesting to know what the additional cost is for the drilled piers vs. driven "H" piles on the two projects. It's obvious that driven piles weren't used due the noise of pounding them in the densely populated areas of the projects.
Hopefully a CE will speak up, but I'm pretty sure the CIDH (drilled hole) method was used because they are going to excavate a deep trench there. By contrast, pile driven beams were used for the PHIMF siding retaining wall along the LA sub And the nearby residents probably didn't like That noise.
@billio, good reminder that it's time for the KPH camera copter to revisit the desert west of Yuma ....
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! ***
It would be interesting to know what the additional cost is for the drilled piers vs. driven "H" piles on the two projects. It's obvious that driven piles weren't used due the noise of pounding them in the densely populated areas of the projects.
Two quick questions:
1) Any word on whether the 2-mile desert stretch between Araz and Araz Jct. has been converted from single to double track?
2) Any word regarding additional two-tracking work between Acolita and Cactus? Or anywhere else between Pomona and Estrella?
Thanks.
Update as of Friday, March 13, 2015
Part IV (of I-IV)
The BNSF Truss Bridges over the I-215 Freeway
Highgrove-Colton, CA
A westbound view (looking south) from just south of Barton Road in Colton:
A sort of dug out area as if a west side (south) eastbound mast signal would be placed here, possibly called CP BARTON:
As viewed southward, the future Mains 3, 2, and 1 through the trusses. The future far right track (future Main 1) as it approaches the camera might have to swing leftward to clear the bushes on the right, unless BNSF purchases that property and is yet to grade it fully.
One of the numerous locations the lead contractor (Ames) on the Perris Valley Line construction is at is the Blaine Street-Spruce Street area, rebuilding Santa Fe’s old San Jacinto Branch with entirely new rail, concrete ties, and ballast.
Surely in a month or two they will have reached the Highgrove area. So, we should see soon something (“something”) more there about tracks, switches, and signals.
Part III (of I-IV)
The BNSF-Perris Valley Line Connection
Highgrove-Riverside, CA
A southwest view from the northeast:
On the south side of the tracks, nearest to Main 3, a telephoto:
While it is early yet in the signal placements, K.P. wonders if the CP will extended east all the way to Center Street in Highgrove, or maybe there will be two separate CP’s for the wye type arrangement.
The possible east wye connection area (background), likely to be rebuilt:
Continued in Part IV
Part II (of I-IV)
The alternate Sunset Route over the LA&SL must also traverse the BNSF from Colton to Riverside. In the Highgrove-Riverside area, BNSF Main 3 had had the west eastbound signal erected and box placed for the Metrolink Perris Valley Line.
The new Iowa Ave. overpass is nearby.
Continued in Part III
Part I (of I-IV)
The LA&SL Riverside Ave. Underpass Construction
The construction did not look (“look”) well along, as the underpass had been expected to be dug down by now. From the north side looking south:
But, the construction is different than most underpasses.
Apparently, the construction concept is patterned after the San Gabriel Trench construction in San Gabriel near Los Angeles. That trench’s wall construction:
Continued in Part II
The LA&SL Bridges over the 91 Freeway
In recent days the two new LA&SL railroad bridges over the 91 Freeway where only one is needed has caused much speculation. And, previously, at the site, there was a good sized gap between the east dirt and the new east walling. On the above date that gap was being filled with dirt and compacted.
In studying photos afterwards in the office the small, very limited amount of photos taken near the site, it almost looked like an embanked, north side, SECOND track route was being graded.
K.P. is unsure if that will be the case, or the looks of such presently is only an illusion because of the angle of view.
On the above date, too, K.P. was able to check on the status of the Highgrove area on this alternate Sunset Route, and found a new BNSF signal being installed east of Iowa Ave.
In a few days photos of that will be posted, as well as other findings in the area.
Super Hunky (3-13):
It just doesn’t make sense to do away with a new bridge. In the above second photo, lower right, K.P. noted that, theoretically, the temporary bridge could be lowered, 90 degree angled, and moved underneath what will be the permanent bridge to the other side, the north side, 90 degree angled to parallel the LA&SL, raised, and put back on abutments, new north side ones. To me that seems the most logical. Otherwise, as you said, it just doesn’t make sense to scrap a new bridge. I would venture to speculate that within the next two months we will know the end result.
Kp I bet they leave the second UP bridge over the 91 and move the switch to the west side..Just can't believe they would throw away a brand new bridge.
Thoughts on the Montebello Agreement
MikeF90 found and was thoughtful enough to link for us a news item about the settling of the 15-year controversy between Montebello and the Alameda Corridor East (ACE) people about grade separations in Montebello, CA.
Whatever the rightness or wrongness of the settlement will not be discussed herein, but a wide overview will.
As K.P. recalls, the single-track line through Montebello was two-tracked maybe ten years ago. Nevertheless, the positions of the Metrolink commuter stops are ironic, and operationally troublesome. Eastbound out of Los Angeles Union Station, the Montebello stop is on the SOUTH side. The City of Industry stop off Brea Canyon Road and most closely associated with Diamond Bar is a NORTH side stop. Next is Pomona, a SOUTH side stop. Next is East Ontario, a NORTH side stop. So, back and forth the train goes, which operationally must hinder UP freight operations.
Much of the Metrolink back and forth station locations concept on UP was formed in the early 1990’s. With the merger of UP and SP in the latter half on the 1990’s, major new traffic patterns took place, compounding the interference Metrolink trains encountered. The only real way the problems can be solved is through the use of flyovers, at least four of them. Laying a third-track in the two-track opening under the 605 Freeway will be a project in itself, and the right-of-way width east of the 605 Freeway in conjunction with the Puente Hills Intermodal Facility may make such nearly impossible.
Overall, while the agreement regarding the Montebello situation may now be in place, as more and more Sunset Route trains use the LA&SL between Pomona and Los Angeles, and likewise with more Metrolink trains, something will have to crack, especially with Metrolink going from the south side to the north side back and forth in its LA&SL journeys. File the concept in the back of your mind, for the future may bring surprising things …
Second Section
Just as a reference in filing away what may (“may”) happen in the future, as noted above, remember the Brea Canyon Road underpass near Diamond Bar with supports for a third-track.
If a bridge was put on those above supports, the current Metrolink platform would have to be removed for that third-track, and platform redone.
Then, too, the below now weed infested Diversion on the west side of Pomona was shown.
As seen above, a second-track, a southern SP one, may eventually be put in south of the currently not-in-use yet one.
The “C” one, the third track from south to north (left to right), currently LA&SL Main 1, strangely has wooden ties, and future wood tied moveable point frogs.
The accounting wizards at UP may envision a tax credit or something else in the future by waiting, maybe until a bunch of flyovers becomes serious in someone’s mind
Concerning that Montebello agreement again and building underpasses, it should be quite telling how many tracks wide the bridges over those underpasses will prove to be.
Update as of March 8, 2015
The LA&SL Bridges over the 91 Freeway …
… and BNSF CP WEST RIVERSIDE
North of Cridge Street is a huge pile of BNSF ballast, with that UP Intermodal train still passing.
South of Cridge Street more BNSF ballast is present, and that Intermodal train is still passing.
Those LA&SL bridges and yet another big pile of ballast (left).
At this point in time, it is unclear what the resulting track layout will be, thus unclear how the signaling will be.
Perhaps, in the future, the signals will be repositioned. Currently, as in the third photo in Part A, UP mainline signal is a LEFT handed one, right next to BNSF’s two mains, and theoretically, could be misinterpreted as a right signal for BNSF Main 1.
The fact that there are so many piles for BNSF’s CP WEST RIVERSIDE suggests something radical may be done track arrangement-wise. On the other hand, it may just be for putting more ballast under the CP tracks and raising them.
The new, temporary bridge (right, with the track through it) and the newer, incomplete permanent bridge (left) is slowly progressing in its construction.
The eastside of the 91 Freeway north walling (background center and left) is in place, and extends northward (leftward) quite a bit.
Above, what you cannot see is that behind that walling is much unfilled-in open space! K.P. was too pressed for time to hike in for a view of such, but maybe next time he will have more time.
The west end of BNSF CP WEST RIVERSIDE (target signals) and the east end of UP’s CP C056 SCRRA JCT (green, westbound color light signal), with the two present new LA&SL bridges in the background. The right new bridge is the newer, permanent one.
The green signal was for UP 4899, an empty Intermodal train. The roadway on the lower right is Cridge Street.
BarstowRick (3-7A):
Last Monday when I drove twice (going and coming) under the new railroad truss bridges over the I-215 Freeway in the Highgrove-Grand Terrace (CA) area, I was rather amazed at how well along the I-215 Freeway revamping was. It wouldn’t surprise me if the freeway was restriped soon, and the carpool lanes finally put in.
The slowness now railroad-wise may (“may”) be because the need for the BNSF track revamping that will be needed because of the two Metrolink future Perris Valley Line connections. Some type of interlocking will have to go in here, east of the new Iowa Ave. overpass (background left):
I’ll bet my boots that BNSF CP61 HIGHGROVE will be done away with within a year, and the third truss bridge over the I-215 Freeway pressed into service. Another interlocking by Center Street likely will be put in too, only for Main 3. Remember that humongous pile of ballast just south of Center Street in Highgrove?
That pile of ballast is still there.
Thus, in the future, BNSF thru-trains and UP alternated Sunset Route trains will be biased to Mains 1 and 2, though Main 3 will be available to those trains as the DS deems necessary.
My guess (“guess”) is that when the Metrolink Perris Valley Line track relaying (currently by Mt. Vernon Ave. in Riverside) …
… reaches Highgrove, things will start happening on the BNSF in the Highgrove-Grand Terrace area.
Stay safe,
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.