Part I (of I-II)
On December 19, 1960 the Santa Fe Railway's line between Chicago, IL and Los Angeles, CA (now known as BNSF's Transcon) was forever altered with a major line relocation in Arizona, between Williams and Crookton. The segment between Ash Fork and Crookton was actually abandoned.
In the 1980's this forumist traversed I-40 in Arizona, and that abandoned rail line right-of-way was easily recognized. In the last decade, however, that abandoned line was difficult to recognize because of overgrowths.
On Tuesday, August 10, 2010, this forum contributor went to Arizona (from California) in response to MapQuest research aerials, particular around I-40's Exit 139 a few miles west of Ash Fork. The following photos document that Exit 139 area in behalf of the forum.
Looking westbound from Highway 66 by I-40's Exit 139: The line curves to the photo's lower right. The abandoned line is so clearly evident in this view because the present property owner (who has ‘No Trespassing' signs displayed) evidently uses it quite often to traverse the property.
Looking west, the route curved through a relocated Highway 66 and the north side of I-40's Exit 139. In the below view, the lower bottom semi-clearing curves away from the camera and goes behind the trees on the upper right.
West of the Exit 139 overpass, looking back to the east. The twisting roadway and freeway ramps now go over the old right-of-way, which can be seen in the middle of the lower left quadrant. That line curved and went below the area were the street guard railing ends in the photo's middle.
Looking east now by the freeway overpass, the rail route followed the north side Highway 66, which since has been upgraded to I-40 status.
In the last photo above, high electric wire poles now line the near-middle of the old right-of-way. Such high poles were not present in the 1980's, nor when the rail line was abandoned in 1960. Of course, back when the line was alive and active, the line was adorned with telegraph wires and poles used for signal, dispatcher, and corporate communications (the latter between Chicago and the West Coast).
On the upper right of the last photo an 18-wheeler is visible on I-40.
Continued in Part II
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 II (of I-II)
From the south frontage road of I-40, east of Exit 139, a long gone old bridge's gap:
Through this area, the double-track line back then was Automatic Block Signal (ABS) left hand running. Not too many miles west of the above views, one track went over the other, and the line thereafter was of the traditional right-hand running with mast ABS signals all the way to Victorville, CA.
Signal bridges were traditionally used in left-hand running ABS territories. The old concrete blocks along I-40 east of Exit 139 are such an example.
While the line was obvious and clearly evident a few decades after its abandonment, it now in many places is so overgrown with growth one can go right by it on I-40 and not recognize an old, historical train route! Highway 66, which years ago was famous in its own right, west of Exit 139 branches off from following I-40's route, and kind of semi-follows the tracks. Both auto and train routes are historically noted for having both the more famous and the common man traverse them. This post series was an effort to visually tap into that long gone history.
I was one of the engineers who participated in the construction of the new line in 1959-60 (and also the relocation of the Peavine which now bypasses Prescott),
Two years ago I drove along the abandoned line from where it leaves the old route 66 all the way northwest to where in joined the current Transcon. There are residents living out in these desolate areas and I did not get questioned about trespassing, althought I did not stop when I encountered someone.
The two main tracks which parallel I-40 between Ash Fork and Exit 139, as shown in the photos above, diverge as they proceed on westerly and are about 1/4 to 1/2 miles apart before they rejoin the original alignment which is now the Transcon. This can be seen by using Google Maps and entering Ash Fork, AZ to get started. Then click on satelite and follow it west until it rejoins the Transcon at a location names Crookton.
If some of you have questions I may be able to answer them.
The two separate mains are prominent here
http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=35.275054,-112.647629&spn=0.028729,0.054846&t=h&z=14
The longer westward track was the original line, the downhill eastward track being added... around 1915?
K. P. Harrier On December 19, 1960 the Santa Fe Railway's line between Chicago, IL and Los Angeles, CA (now known as BNSF's Transcon) was forever altered with a major line relocation in Arizona, between Williams and Crookton. The segment between Ash Fork and Crookton was actually abandoned.
KP:
Thanks for posting the photos of the abandoned former SF route....I did remember the 1960 date, but have wondered why this rerouting was done. I'm assuming it was to lower the grades thru this area. Perhaps "Dinningcar" can comment on that....
Back in 1969 I drove all thru this area on rt. 66 to get to Kingman. I must have seen some of this abandoned ROW, but don't remember any specifics of it. I am always watching for abandoned lines such as this so I'm sure I saw parts of it.
Thanks for posting the photos {KP}.....Sure is interesting to me.
Quentin
A huge reduction in curvature and curve sharpness (nothing sharper than 1 degree as I recall), a reduction in rise and fall, and reduction in maximum grade (ascending with the current of traffic) from 1.4% westward and 1.8% eastward to 1.0% both ways. Not much change in distance.
timzA huge reduction in curvature and curve sharpness (nothing sharper than 1 degree as I recall), a reduction in rise and fall, and reduction in maximum grade (ascending with the current of traffic) from 1.4% westward and 1.8% eastward to 1.0% both ways. Not much change in distance.
....Thanks for info. I wonder if it required so much curvature / sharpness of curves....with the first ROW, and later that route could be reduced in grade and curvature....and, not add much milage....Why wasn't the first try engineered / surveyed similar to 2nd try....?
Modelcar ....Thanks for info. I wonder if it required so much curvature / sharpness of curves....with the first ROW, and later that route could be reduced in grade and curvature....and, not add much milage....Why wasn't the first try engineered / surveyed similar to 2nd try....?
Quick and dirty answer, the survey party back in the 19th century was following the route between (and trying to connect) existing towns, such as they were. The mid-20th century survey started with USGS topo maps which weren't even a dreamland artifact 70-odd years earlier.
Interesting thing about the abutments of that now-absent bridge. There were two bridges, with abutments built at different times. The original is made of big red sandstone (I think) blocks. The second bridge installed during double-tracking rested on poured-in-place concrete. It's just north of I-40, about a mile west of the last Ash Fork exit.
Chuck (former frequent I-40 flyer)
According to a paper/ report presented to the American Railway Engineering Association and published in its Proceedings for 1962 (pg. 25 et seq.), the Santa Fe's locating engineer at the time - Lewis Kingman - was aware of the better alternative northern route, but it would have required the removal of too much hard basalt rock for the primitive equipment and techniques of the time.
My father-in-law - who lived in Arizona for a while back around then - has a VHS tape that is a copy of a publicity movie made just after the completion of the relocation by either the Santa Fe and/or Morrison-Knudsen, the lead contractor, which tells quite a bit about it. I believe it's called something like "A Better Way for the Santa Fe". If I can find a decent reference to it, I'll post it here.
- Paul North.
EDIT: P.S. - Cripes, it looks like the entire movie is on YouTube ! It's 28 minutes long, from 1959, and here's the description and link:
1959 Santa Fe Railroad newsreel - "Better way for the Santa Fe"
"An educational documentary film by Morrison Knudsen and the Sante Fe RailRoad about a new mainline track being built in Arizona. The first 1/3 of the film shows some railway activities and general items of interest in Arizona, the remainder of the film covers the new construction activities."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QCQt_5hO5Q
- PDN.
Both reports prior....very interesting.....Thanks.
Appropriate questions Modelcar.
The route now occupied by the Transcon was known in 1880 but the much more difficult route from Williams through Johnson Canyon to Ash Fork was chosen for three major reasons. ( Ash Fork and most other towns between Albuquerque and Needles did not exist until the railroad was built.)
!. Water was needed for the steam locomotives and it was avalable on the selected route. This was accomplished by building dams to capture runoff, runoff not available in sufficient quantities on the current alignment.
2. The only significant local source of revenue in 1880 was from the Prescott area which was the only significant town in northern AZ then. Even though Prescott was 50 miles distant from Ash Fork it was not engineeringly feasible to build along that alignment; but it was deemed prudent to locate as close as feasible.
3. The route that was built in 1959-60 required very, very substantial excavation and embankment which the 1880 'construction state of the art' could not provide. The 1960 route has maximum 1 degree curviture and maximum 1% grades. There are solid rock cuts 115 feet deep and more than one mile long. Embankments are as high as 110 freet in some locations. To establish these 1960 criteria caused normal creek drainage to run into the top of cuts, so the water was diverted from upstream to a location where it coud pass under the track. Many other innovations were used.
The result was that trains which were relegated to 15-20 MPH between Ash Fork and Williams could now travel at 90 MPH for passengers and 70 MPH for freight trains over the entire 44 miles. The Johnson Canyon tunnel with its restrictions for high or wide loads was eliminated. This restriction had caused all such loads to travel on the second track. This track built in 1920 +/- and used for one way traffic had been subjected to occasional moves against traffic to accomodate these loads.
There are other factors that some of you may question and I will attempt to respond to specific inquiries.
Diningcar:
Thats interesting stuff.....The kind that has always opened my interests. In fact, I believe that is the most interest in railroading for me....That is, the art of locating the ROW, and for me, learning about old ROW's from the past. Thanks for the comprehensive answer.
Diningcar; Skull Valley is quite a historical place from what I've seen.Bnsf runs by there as you know. In the 60s was S.V. part of that realignment . The old section house is interesting. The dates and names on the walls inside tell a story all thier own. Thats a nice ride across Wiliamson Valley rd. Respectfully, Cannonball
P.S. ~~ are you going to the model train / swap meet in Prsc. Sat. ? on Gurly st.
Y6bs evergreen in my mind
Cannonball, Skull Valley was at the southern end of the Peavine line change. The Change begin at the curve about 1/4 mile north of the street crossing (the one with crossing protection) and continues about 39 miles to a location about one mile northeast from the Highway 89 RR overpass at Paulden.
Is that swap meet today, the 14th? I have a funeral service at noon but can be there before then if you wish to meet. 778-7425 is my home #.
dinningcar (8-13):
Greetings!
Well, well, a reply from one of the horses' mouths -- a civil engineer that actually worked on the reroute design plotting itself! Fantastic! Yes, I definitely have a few questions ...
First, was the reroute distance-engineered to be the SAME distance as the line that it replaced?
When prowling around the Crookton area, the following milepost sign was photographed:
That M.P. 418A marker was located WEST of the aerial spotted junctions of the new and old lines! The next marker west was simply M.P. 419, WITHOUT the "A." Thus, the actual western junction may be somewhere other than the apparent one. Further, since M.P. 418A is by the presumed actual unmarked M.P. 418, the above question was raised.
Second: West of the I-40 Exit 139, the old line changed biases, from left hand running to right hand running on towards California. Where does such occur on the new line that you helped engineer? I find no such location on aerials. Of course, the old line between Ash Fork and Williams could have changed biases in double-track days, but I have seen no indications of such on those aerials either.
It is hoped that you, dinningcar, are in good health and everything is fine with you. It has been quite a while since we have crossed paths here at the forum, hasn't it?
Take care,
K.P.
KP, it's always a pleasure to discuss RR specifics with someone who wishes to know the more obscure details. Your continuing story of the UP double tracking project has kept my interest, thank you.
The Williams -Crookton line change was not designed to obtain any specific distance. Quite the opposite, it was designed to achieve the maximum 1% grades and to have no curves exceeding one degree and to "take on" whatever was in the way. As it turned out the new line was 3016 feet longer than the old and therefore MP 418A is 5280 feet from MP 418 on the new line. MP 418A is then 3016 feet distant from MP 419.
By the way, the engineering design criteria, partially described above, resulted in a 31 mile continuous 1% declining grade westward from Williams Jct. to Eagle Nest where an ascending grade of 0.88 % was engineered. To mitigate slack action a 10,000 foot verticle curve was engineered at this location.
To accomplish maximum operating efficiency the 44+ mile new line had CTC and # 24 turnouts so that trains could cross between tracks at Williams Jct.; Perrin; Doublea; Eagle Nest and Crookton. The left hand running bias could be established at any of these locations. Now of course the entire Transcon from San Bernardino to Belen is CTC.
Thanks for the pictures and info. Back in June-August of 2001 I did a Route 66 trip from Chicago to Santa Monica. Spent about ten days between Winslow and Kingman on 66 and saw the old transcon as you show but didn't know for sure that was it. In my nosing around I came across a what I think was a DASH 8 in peices on the side of the main line just east of Williams. Took a few 35mm photo's but would need directions on how to post them. It looked like it caught fire, the engine had been pulled off the frame and was setting on the ground. Looked like it had been there a while it was rusted up a bit.
tomikawaTT The mid-20th century survey started with USGS topo maps which weren't even a dreamland artifact 70-odd years earlier.
Offhand I'll guess MP 418A is a mile west of new-line MP 418. No reason to expect it to be at the junction.
Thank You.
Kootenay CentralThe following pertains starting at approx 8:20.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QCQt_5hO5Q
.....Thanks for the video. This really shows it wasn't an easy route to create. Lots of money..! And engineering.
ACTUALLY Santa Fe had their own maps created by a private service which flew over the possible routes and created 1' - 100 ft contour intervals. These were then provided to field parties and were used in locating the ' final line'. All government Bench Marks and and brass caps with land line ties were on these 1'= 100 maps. We surveyors were able to very accurately establish elevations and alignment with this current information in very remote and pristine wilderness.
timz tomikawaTT The mid-20th century survey started with USGS topo maps which weren't even a dreamland artifact 70-odd years earlier.I wonder how much they bothered studying the 1:250,000 maps-- which I suspect were all USGS had done by then. Offhand I'll guess MP 418A is a mile west of new-line MP 418. No reason to expect it to be at the junction.
diningcarKP, it's always a pleasure to discuss RR specifics with someone who wishes to know the more obscure details.
KP, it's always a pleasure to discuss RR specifics with someone who wishes to know the more obscure details.
KP's not the only one enjoying what you have to say about the line change. Even though I'm an EE, the "obscure" details are quite fascinating.
- Erik
diningcar ACTUALLY Santa Fe had their own maps created by a private service which flew over the possible routes and created 1' - 100 ft contour intervals. These were then provided to field parties and were used in locating the ' final line'. All government Bench Marks and and brass caps with land line ties were on these 1'= 100 maps. We surveyors were able to very accurately establish elevations and alignment with this current information in very remote and pristine wilderness.timz tomikawaTT The mid-20th century survey started with USGS topo maps which weren't even a dreamland artifact 70-odd years earlier.I wonder how much they bothered studying the 1:250,000 maps-- which I suspect were all USGS had done by then. Offhand I'll guess MP 418A is a mile west of new-line MP 418. No reason to expect it to be at the junction.
diningcar, the part about aerial photography caught my attention.
Do you perhaps know the name of the firm which did the aerial surveys? My family's business used to operate next door to Pacific Air Industries in Long Beach, California. PAI was founded early after World War II by a group of ex-Navy pilots and did a lot of such work around the West. It was later bought out and became Teledyne Geotronics.
garyla, first a correction-addition to the details of the maps we used;
the maps we had in the field were 1" = 100' horizontal scale and the contours were at two (2) foot intervals. Those of you who use such tools can quickly agree what substantial help these were.
A California company flew the routes and made the maps but I cannot furnish their name.
.....One more question: {Well, maybe two}....
How can an aerial {one dimension} photo supply enough data to create a Topo map....?
And how is an accurate Topo map really created....To record the rise and fall every two ft. of a landscape, must require a lot of input data. And somehow that has to be gathered.....and to have it over a wide expanse of desert open space....??
Modelcar .....One more question: {Well, maybe two}.... How can an aerial {one dimension} photo supply enough data to create a Topo map....? And how is an accurate Topo map really created....To record the rise and fall every two ft. of a landscape, must require a lot of input data. And somehow that has to be gathered.....and to have it over a wide expanse of desert open space....??
The process is photogrammetry of which I have little knowledge.
By the way, this was not desert but a mountainess volcanic area with basalt and volcanic cinders overlaying sedimentary sandstone and limestome. Very difficult to determine what might be down below so we had to drill test holes to determine what slopes(s) to create; and we were still surprised after we opened up the large cuts to find we must re-engineer and lay the slopes back.
Those who looked at the MK film can get some idea of the many problems-surprises we had to deal with.
diningcar The process is photogrammetry of which I have little knowledge. By the way, this was not desert but a mountainess volcanic area with basalt and volcanic cinders overlaying sedimentary sandstone and limestome. Very difficult to determine what might be down below so we had to drill test holes to determine what slopes(s) to create; and we were still surprised after we opened up the large cuts to find we must re-engineer and lay the slopes back. Those who looked at the MK film can get some idea of the many problems-surprises we had to deal with
Those who looked at the MK film can get some idea of the many problems-surprises we had to deal with
Yes, I thought about that when I wrote "desert" as the landscape.....I noted in the excellent film / video of the construction, that was posted, the ROW was put thru nasty rock cuts and plenty of fills, etc......
Thanks much to the various posting forum members for this interesting and well documented railroad archeology tutorial. You don;t have to be an Arizona resident or ATSF fan to find all of this quite interesting.
Dave Nelson
diningcar [snip] the maps we had in the field were 1" = 100' horizontal scale and the contours were at two (2) foot intervals. Those of you who use such tools can quickly agree what substantial help these were. [snip]
Oh, yeah - that would be just about perfect for the task, considering the distances and grades involved. Actually, for the steeper slopes a 2 ft. contour interval at 1'' = 100' scale might be too close - 5' or 10' might be more appropriate. For example, if it's a 45-degree slope that rises 100' in 100 ft. forward, that would be 50 of those 2-foot contour lines in the 1'' on the print - they'd be 1/50 of an inch = 2/ 100th's = 0.020'' apart, which is pretty tight.
Even today, until recently for residential subdivision and medium-size land development work - say, from 100 to 500 acres, or about 1/4 to 1 square mile - in this eastern Pennsylvania area a horizontal scale of 1' = 50' and a 2' contour interval was quite common. But after some problems with accurately estimating earthwork quantities and planning road connections, about 15 years ago my current employer started asking for 1 ft. contour intervals for mapping for that purpose, which was uncommon then and is still so to some degree. Even there, we specify and ask for or will accept 5 or 10 ft contour intervals for the steeper slopes, to keep the prints legible and usable. Of course, now that those maps are all digital, we instead simply ''turn off'' or ''freeze'' the smaller contour interval 'layers' when working with the resulting maps, unless until we actually need that level of detail someplace.
dknelson Thanks much to the various posting forum members for this interesting and well documented railroad archeology tutorial. You don;t have to be an Arizona resident or ATSF fan to find all of this quite interesting. Dave Nelson
Dave,
If you're interested in some follow-up reading on this huge, remarkable project ($22 million used to be a lot of money!), I would suggest any of the following:
Pacific Rail News, September 1992, pp.18-23
The Warbonnet (Santa Fe Ry. Hist. & Modeling Soc.), 1998/#2, pp. 19-31
Railroads of Arizona, Vol. 4, by David Myrick, pp. 245-54
Enjoy.
-garyla
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.