MikeF90 @BarstowRick, Here's my Google map showing the Mojave sub with some key locations: http://g.co/maps/g7k8e Two double tracking segments are underway and neither are near the BNSF connections.
@BarstowRick,
Here's my Google map showing the Mojave sub with some key locations: http://g.co/maps/g7k8e Two double tracking segments are underway and neither are near the BNSF connections.
Like the map but I'm having a hard time deciphering it. Still better then nothing.
Seems to me we are still going to have some single track sections where trains will need to negotiate one at a time. The advantage to the current work is the ability to run longer trains and contain them in the double tracked sections. We used to call sidings.
Thanks again!
RickH
BarstowRick.com Model Railroading How To's
BarstowRickLike the map but I'm having a hard time deciphering it. Still better then nothing.
The only thing I can think of is to zoom in more. Unfortunately, the formerly readable square dialog (per bookmark) was replaced with that huge, navigation hostile pop-out side panel by Google's (Unsupervised Spoiled Children) programmers. Now back to topic.
IMO after finishing the current projects tackling the N Bealville-Caliente single track would be very worthwhile. It is only 2.5 miles long but has a constant 2.1% grade with a 23 MPH speed limit.
Links to my Google Maps ---> Sunset Route overview, SoCal metro, Yuma sub, Gila sub, SR east of Tucson, BNSF Northern Transcon and Southern Transcon *** Why you should support Ukraine! ***
MikeF90 BarstowRick Like the map but I'm having a hard time deciphering it. Still better then nothing. The only thing I can think of is to zoom in more. Unfortunately, the formerly readable square dialog (per bookmark) was replaced with that huge, navigation hostile pop-out side panel by Google's (Unsupervised Spoiled Children) programmers. Now back to topic. IMO after finishing the current projects tackling the N Bealville-Caliente single track would be very worthwhile. It is only 2.5 miles long but has a constant 2.1% grade with a 23 MPH speed limit.
BarstowRick Like the map but I'm having a hard time deciphering it. Still better then nothing.
Got it figured out. Took me awhile. Thanks.
Walong-Marcel is Now ‘Two-Tracks’!
Word has been received that the Walong-Marcel section on Tehachapi Pass is operated officially now as two-tracks. K.P. hopes to get out that way soon to see the situation first hand.
Word is also that an operating method that K.P. has never ever encountered before is in effect on the far northern portion of the pass.
More details (hopefully) before the weekend.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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.
KP, That's good news.
Waiting with baited breath for the next tid bit of news
Discoveries on Tehachapi: A Quick Overview
Tehachapi Pass was visited Wednesday, September 7, 2016 with mixed discovery results.
The Walong-Marcel second track IS in service.
After the above train, Maintenance-of-Way, which had been on Main 1, started to use Main 2 (the new track) so everything was routed through the tunnel. But, at least K.P. got one train on the new track!
A light engine move on Main 1 (the tunnel route) is seen by the old north switch Marcel with Main 2 being worked on.
Above, note the SD70MAC in the consist (by the gray unit). More and more such power from the Powder River Basin coal trains are showing up in California.
A northbound BNSF (on Main 1) goes over Tunnel 9.
In the upcoming more thorough review, a shot into Tunnel 9 will show the new north side southbound signal and the number of lights on each head. At Marcel, the signal heads have a different arrangement, and K.P. has feelers out on that .
On the Sandcut to Bakersfield stretch, the signals on that straightaway are in service now, with the heads in one direction that were turned aside now facing trains.
The new signals at the south end of Bakersfield Yard, at Quantico, still have NOT been activated yet. Presumably the same is at Kern Jct., but K.P. did not go that far railroad north.
K.P. found the signals on the Sandcut-Bakersfield area seemed to be operating the same as all the others on Tehachapi Pass, so it is unclear what the reported difference is. But, K.P. is investigating further.
Expect a more thorough update report maybe the early part of next week.
What is an aprox % now of Tehachapi trackage that is double track?
MidlandMikeWhat is an approx % now of Tehachapi trackage that is double track?
Depends on what your definition of 'Tehachapi trackage' is.
The distance between CP Bena MP 328.1 and CP Cable MP 356.4 is about 28.3 miles, of which ~27% is officially 2MT. Some remaining sections have been identified by the CTC and BNSF for possible 2MT upgrade: Caliente to Bealville (2.6 miles) and Bena to Ilmon (2.5 miles). Time and money will tell .....
K. P. Harrier [snipped - PDN] . . . that two-tracking effort is State funded. . . .
Spectacular chronicle, as usual. Thanks !
- Paul North.
P.S. - Looks like I found the answer to my own question: 50% BNSF, 50% California, from Project Funding on page iv (6 of 270) of the Draft Environmental Impact Report here:
http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist6/environmental/envdocs/d6/bnsf_track_eir081713final_draft_august2012.pdf
So does UP really get a free ride,* or is there some mechanism/ provision in the trackage rights / joint facilities agreement that would recoup some of the costs for BNSF ?
Another interesting article:
http://cenews.com/article/10214/double-tracking-in-the-tehachapi-mountains
(*even though not a Monopoly game RR or property space . . . )
- PDN.
Paul_D_North_Jr K. P. Harrier [snipped - PDN] . . . that two-tracking effort is State funded. . . . Looks like I found the answer to my own question: 50% BNSF, 50% So does UP really get a free ride,* or is there some mechanism/ provision in the trackage rights / joint facilities agreement that would recoup some of the costs for BNSF ?
K. P. Harrier
Looks like I found the answer to my own question: 50% BNSF, 50%
Do I get to answer this question?
Just some thoughts. Most of my resources have dried up or passed on.
Over the years Santa Fe and SP had an agreement where the visiting railroad contributed to most of the up keep and repairs. Heard in Santa Fe circles grumpbling over this agreement but also heard that it was wise to invest in the tracks that keep your railroad moving.
Not absolutely sure what the break down really is but guessing UP is into this big time as is BNSF. And State funding may actually be limited with BNSF and UP putting in the major part. Also, thinking the Fed's might be involved.
The one thing that isn't of interest to the state is the fact there isn't any state passenger trains moving over the mountain. Plus they are spending monies on a high speed train to no-where.
What you find in writing isn't always the whole of the story but comes as close as we are going to get it.
I hope that helps.
While on the subject of paying to operate on another RR we should keep in mind that UP operates on BNSF (former Santa Fe) from Daggett to Riverside and that significant $$$ were spent fairly recently to triple track portions of that line through Cajon Pass.
Both of these "trackage rights Agreements" are long standing and with history of many extraordinary expenses like the 1952 earthquake on Tehachapi and the many flooding issues on Cajon. Both owners keep lots of records to substantiate allocation of expenses as stipulated in the Agreements.
Electroliner 1935 In the Paul North's post with this link: http://cenews.com/article/10214/double-tracking-in-the-tehachapi-mountains It states: The infrastructure is owned by the UPRR as a result of its merger with Southern Pacific Railroad. This mergercreated a potential monopoly in this area. BNSF, the competing railroad, did not oppose the merger under the stipulation that it would be granted trackage rights to several segments, including the Tehachapi Mountains, the reason being that BNSF has most of the clientele and, therefore, most of the trains that travel through the mountains are BNSF. I think that answers your question.
Paul and Electoliner
The paragraph Electroliner quotes above is from an engineering magazine. He quotes it correctly, but the original item is a mixture of True and False.
The first sentance is true. The second is false.
It is true that BNSF did not oppose the UP-SP merger and did seek trackage rights over several segments of UP-SP, but the Tehachapi is NOT one of those segments.
The SP built the original line ca. 1876. About 20 years later the ATSF bought their current line north of Bakersfield and threatened to build their own line from Mojave to Bakersfield, which would have been a wasteful duplication of facilities, so SP granted ATSF trackage rights between those two points.
My recollection is that per the original agreement the ATSF paid SP rental equal to one half of 6% return on the book value of the line, plus a proportional share of MofW expenses, probably prorated on a ton mile basis. SP was responsable for performing maintenance to its standards. I suspect that ATSF could encourage, but not force, capacity improvements which SP would do and recover over time through increase in the base rental due to the increase in the book value. If ATSF really wanted somehing they could offer to sweeten the pot. I suspect both share equally in extra-ordinary maintenance like recovery from the earthquake of 1952. I suspect the 6% return has increased over time. It should be about 11% today.
Historically SP and ATSF put about the same number of trains over the line, with the SP's being heavier. I have no knowledge of the current split as between the UP and BNSF and doubt that the author of the piece does either. If I had to, I would guess is now about 50-50 on tonnage basis.
Yes, there is lots of accounting and there are many trackage rights agreements. The style described above seems typical of the older ones, but assume nothing about any particular agreement.
Mac McCulloch
PNWRMNMHistorically SP and ATSF put about the same number of trains over the line, with the SP's being heavier. I have no knowledge of the current split as between the UP and BNSF and doubt that the author of the piece does either. If I had to, I would guess is now about 50-50 on tonnage basis.
I don't know where to look for current authoritative figures, but I believe that in recent decades BNSF has run far more traffic. In addition, BNSF has been the driver for capacity improvements such as lowering tunnel floors to accomodate double stackers. Reportedly part of their agreements is that UP has to 'pay back' on these improvements if they ever run double stack trains. Most of UP's traffic does not use this corridor so this is unlikely to happen.
UPDATE - apparently UP has caught up on the 'pay back' as I just saw a double stack train on a video from last year.
Thanks to all for your answers - they greatly expand on my info.
What we need is an "insider leaker" source of the kind found in many political circles . . .
I suppose someone could file a Right-To-Know kind of request since state (public) money is involved.
But the agreement(s) may have a built-in security measure: no outsider could understand it. (I've seen some of those in the context of joint multi-government agreements over the collection and treatment of suburban sewage at the Allentown City's plant.)
Paul_D_North_Jr What we need is an "insider leaker" source of the kind found in many political circles . . .
I've got some experience in that, but probably not the right kind of "leaking" for the job.
Paul_D_North_JrBut the agreement(s) may have a built-in security measure: no outsider could understand it. (I've seen some of those in the context of joint multi-government agreements over the collection and treatment of suburban sewage at the Allentown City's plant.)
What? Sounds like they got some legal help from the City of Brotherly Love, eh?
MikeF90I don't know where to look for current authoritative figures, but I believe that in recent decades BNSF has run far more traffic.
It's seemed like that the last few stays in Tehachapi, though truth be told, the MOW folks had traffic shut down in daylight several times last year. Once they got done, a big parade of mostly BNSF traffic came through town with the occasional UP train, it seemed like. For a while, it was supposed to be BNSF during the day and UP at night, but I don't recall that being strictly the case.
In any event, I am hoping to have a couple of "boots on the ground" days in Tehachapi after the first week in October, one way or another.
Paul_D_North_Jr . . . P.S. - Looks like I found the answer to my own question: 50% BNSF, 50% California, from Project Funding on page iv (6 of 270) of the Draft Environmental Impact Report here: http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist6/environmental/envdocs/d6/bnsf_track_eir081713final_draft_august2012.pdf
http://cs.trains.com/trn/f/111/t/212889.aspx
K. P. noted then:
* The document itself goes by the title: “BNSF Railway/UPRR Mojave Subdivision Tehachapi Rail Improvement Project.”
So I still wonder how the UP figures in this - other than being the owner of the track - if at all ?
Paul, the UP as owner will participate in several ways. They must approve the design plans; they dispatch the trains and so must be in constant communication with the construction for slow orders and any other operational needs associated with the ongoing work; and they will surely send a bill for their extra costs associated with their participation. Others may contribute additional thoughts about UP participation.
diningcar - Understood, agree, and I would expect all that.
I was less than clear: what I meant to ask was financial participation, as in sharing the cost of the improvement, whether right now at the front end, or later on as a reimbursement. That was raised in my mind again because UP appeared on the title of the report - likely just because it owns the track, but perhaps it is also financially participating in some way. I haven't read much of the report yet, and it might not even say much because it's an environmental report, not a financial report or prospectus.
Thanks for your clarifications.
Paul,
There is a verly large agreement in the files of the three parties. Until or unless we had it, we have no idea what UP's participation is. They could have taken the long view and performed the things that they must without compensation, or they could have demanded to be paid.
The more interesting question to me is how they modified the trackage rights agreement in terms of the base rent since some of the fixed plant evidently will be owned by BNSF after all is said and done. With the state and two class I railroads involved, you can bet lots of lawyering went into the agreement.
Mac
It WAS Ready to Go …
In attempting to post the promised series on the now in service two-tracks between Walong and Marcel plus about the new signals activated Bakersfield-Sandcut, the posting process was found to have become so erratic and troublesome it was decided to wait a day or two with the hopes someone at Kalmbach can unscramble the new posting mess …
Sorry fellas,
K.P.
The Wednesday, September 7, 2016 Visit
Part “A” (of A-H)
Before we start, a memo about Amtrak Nos. 3 and 4 is given. During the recent Cajon Pass fire, those passenger trains detoured via UP and Metrolink via Mojave, where they were turned on the wye in town. The below view looks eastward, at the track Nos. 3 and 4 had to use in turning around.
Now, on Tehachapi Pass itself. Between Walong and Marcel:
The intermediates on the now in service two-tracks:
The newly cut Tunnel 10 area:
Continued in Part B
Part “B” (of A-H)
In that intermediate signals area, trains circling the Loop can now be seen.
It soon goes through the new cut area …
… and passes those new signals.
Continued in Part C
Part “C” (of A-H)
At a closer location to the Tunnel 10 area
Because of the different angle at that closer location, a train approaching can now be seen (approacing and NOT the Loop).
However, at this angle (above), the Loop itself cannot be seen.
That new approaching train is routed on Main 1, the old Tunnel 10 track.
Continued in Part D
Part “D” (of A-H)
That light engine move that took the Tunnel 10 route has a Powder River Basic SD70MAC unit (right).
That light engine move soon goes by the reason the new track wasn’t being used, a crew is working on the track.
At the Loop itself, the south northbound signals are observed, the northern end of the new two-track section.
Above, especially note the RIGHT, turnout route signal (photo center), how it has a three lamp top head. File that top head awareness away for a bit, as its counterpart at the other end of the two-tracks, at Marcel, seems (“seems”) inconsistent with this end.
Continued in Part E
Part “E” (of A-H)
At Tunnel 9 (the Loop tunnel) the north southbound signal is seen.
It has a two-lamp head over a three-lamp head.
Another southbound (eastbound) BNSF uses the old Tunnel 10 route (now Main 1).
Above, in this mountainous area, the afternoon shadows are becoming very pronounced.
Continued in Part F
Part “F” (of A-H)
A UP southbound train now approaches Marcel (the old south end).
But, a similar view very much blown-up indications the Main 2 turnout route has a red over signal. The top single lamp head seems to be unpainted or of a dark hue, and is difficult to see. But, it is by the top, silver stem attached to the mast.
Why does one end have THREE lamps over two lamps arrangement (north end), but the other end (south) has a red over instead?
Contacts advise K.P. (and aerials support it) that between Marcel and Cable is an intermediate signal, whereas between Walong and Woodford there isn’t. That difference is why one end is unlike the other signal-wise.
We now go down to the Edison area and the new bidirectional signals
Continued in Part G
Part “G” (of A-H)
At Comanche Road, at M.P. 321.73, on the stretch between Bakersfield and Sandcut, new bidirectional signals thereat have finally been totally put in service.
Sources indicate different rules have been applied to these signals, rules that fall under GCOR 9.14.2.
K.P. had envisioned maybe (“maybe”) the signals displayed green in both directions. But a train came that disproved that conjecturing.
So, the signals act the same way as they have always done on the UP (in modern times), but there is a minor technical issue in operations on that line. Reportedly, the new timetable page lists it as CTC-ABS, but the type of ABS is actually CBS (Controlled Block System).
Continued in Part H
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.