BLUE STREAK 1:
OLTMANND's comments about NS (ex-SOU) "Y" turnouts taking a beating would seem to be right on the mark. My Mom's housing development (Charlottesville, VA) is about 100 yds off the Washington to New Orleans mainline , a few hundred yds south of one of those "equilateral turnouts", and (even for someone who savors railroad noises) I have always been surprised by the amount of noise and vibrations associated with them, especially at track-speed.
As for the movable frog question, I am a regular AMTRAK rider on that NS mainline and I have never seen a "Movable Frog" sign posted at these "Y" turnouts (like those show in KP's frequent postings of So.Cal. UP turnouts). So, I would guess that NS does not use them on that part of the former Southern RR.
--John (Wash, DC)
oltmannd They are all coming out, eventually. Turns out, they are expensive to maintain. Every move beats them up like a diverging move - at least that's what I've heard.
They are all coming out, eventually. Turns out, they are expensive to maintain. Every move beats them up like a diverging move - at least that's what I've heard.
blue streak 1 KP When SOU rr changed their double track ATL - WASH line to single track CTC most of the turn outs were made "equilateral turnouts" I have not ever looked at the frogs so cannot confirm your speculation as to how they are built. Do not know if NS is continuing the practice ? With the NCDOT restoring all the double track from CLT - GREENSBORO the equilaterals on that section are being change to regular turnouts as double track is reinstalled..
KP When SOU rr changed their double track ATL - WASH line to single track CTC most of the turn outs were made "equilateral turnouts" I have not ever looked at the frogs so cannot confirm your speculation as to how they are built. Do not know if NS is continuing the practice ? With the NCDOT restoring all the double track from CLT - GREENSBORO the equilaterals on that section are being change to regular turnouts as double track is reinstalled..
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
K. P. Harrier
KP loved that picture. This appears to be high wind area and a location where stringlining can occurr. Do you wonder why there is not a signal bridge supported on just the outside of the curve to protect the signals ? I see the signal bungalows are on the outside of the curve !! + would enable the signals on the left track easier to see if a train is on the right hand track
K. P. Harrier Severely Windswept, Very Cold, Rainy (Some Snowflakes); Massive Dust Storms; and a Derailment Cleanup For several days very severe winds in the Tehachapi area was wreaking havoc with BNSF and UP train operations, and even hampering a derailment cleanup at the Cable Crossover just west (northbound) of the town of Tehachapi. K.P. desired to find out firsthand just how severe the winds were, see how extensive the derailment had been, eyewitness the progress on the target to color light signals conversion, and note if any two-tracking on the west slope had begun yet. Also, there was a question whether or not the conversion of the east slope’s “Double-Track” to “Two-Tracks” had begun yet. And, it was found that the conversion HAD started! The result of the Monday, April 8, 2013 visit was 265 photos and a better comprehension of very adverse scanner radio discussions between trainmen and dispatchers. A multipart presentation of a fraction of those photos will be compiled for the forum. The preliminary estimate is that it will take between a few days to a week to put such a presentation together. As a teaser, it seems like UP had contracted with NASA to erect a few new Tehachapi Pass signals in outer space! A photo or two of that will be included too.
Severely Windswept, Very Cold, Rainy (Some Snowflakes); Massive Dust Storms; and a Derailment Cleanup
For several days very severe winds in the Tehachapi area was wreaking havoc with BNSF and UP train operations, and even hampering a derailment cleanup at the Cable Crossover just west (northbound) of the town of Tehachapi.
K.P. desired to find out firsthand just how severe the winds were, see how extensive the derailment had been, eyewitness the progress on the target to color light signals conversion, and note if any two-tracking on the west slope had begun yet. Also, there was a question whether or not the conversion of the east slope’s “Double-Track” to “Two-Tracks” had begun yet. And, it was found that the conversion HAD started!
The result of the Monday, April 8, 2013 visit was 265 photos and a better comprehension of very adverse scanner radio discussions between trainmen and dispatchers. A multipart presentation of a fraction of those photos will be compiled for the forum. The preliminary estimate is that it will take between a few days to a week to put such a presentation together.
As a teaser, it seems like UP had contracted with NASA to erect a few new Tehachapi Pass signals in outer space! A photo or two of that will be included too.
K.P.,
Your derailment photo reminds me of various off-rail excursions on my home layout.I wonder how that single head searchlight signal avoided getting knocked over.
I'm very much enjoying this series.
John Timm
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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.
OK, I see it now. Thank you.
I was looking at it as if the two rails on the left were one track and the two rails on the right were the other track.
greyhounds (2-3):
Yes, my presented view was of an installed and functional movable point frog switch as in the below reshown (in this thread) close-up:
The switch was part of CP SP598 RIMLON (M.P. 597.7) between Palm Springs and Indio, CA on Union Pacific’s Sunset Route, some 230 rail miles from the Bena area on Tehachapi. A view from another nearby bridge of the bridge that the above photo was shot from:
It may help you, greyhounds, to realize that the switch I photographed and the switch you linked when shot from OPPOSITE angles, so comparing them is very, very difficult. The key to mentally seeing both views is (1) the flange contacts with the rails, and (2) where the rails go to, i.e., do they become one or two tracks.
Once you mentally see it, your mind will very much be at peace!
By the way, it looks like both switches you and I presented are creations from different manufactures.
Best,
K.P.
Is that a photo you took of an installed movable point frog?
It seems to me that there is no way for the flanges to get through that thing.
This looks better:
http://www.progressrail.com/docs/movable-point-frog.pdf
I wonder if the pic you posted (no criticism to you) is from a ad done incorrectly.
Replies Continued:
John Simpkins-Camp (2-1):
Greetings, John!
You asked about the combination of target signals and cantilever signals at CP SP325 SANDCUT (M.P. 325.0).
There is another set of such signals in the town of Tehachapi at the top of the hill.
At both the bottom and top of the hill, double-track territory meets two-track territory.
In the old days, John, Southern Pacific had many cantilever signals. Beaumont Hill on the Sunset Route had a proliferation of them on that CTC territory.
As far as I know, both Southern Pacific and Santa Fe used the same type of cantilever structures years ago. Santa Fe used them in their Automatic Block Signal double-track over Cajon Pass up till 1972 when the double-track line was two-tracked, and also from Winslow, AZ to Belen, NM, both left running territories. With CTC two-tracks, cantilever structures aren’t really necessary for the most part. But modern types strangely have very recently come to the Ice Deck siding area on the Sunset Route in the Loma Linda area, in the M.P. 542 area.
All this probably is more than what you asked for, but it is hoped you found a satisfactory answer amongst the broad picture presented.
Replies:
CShaveRR (1-31):
About “equilateral switches,” you said “I'm not sure what the arguments are against them.” I am not sure either, but it is known from employees that UP does not favor them. May I offer a possibility? Note very, very carefully the below UP wye switch – officially an equilateral as you said, Carl – in UP’s ex-SP Alhambra Trench near Los Angeles:
Barely visible because of the distance away from the camera, but if you look real carefully (above photo) you will see THE FROG HAS FLANGE WAYS THROUGH IT! That runs very contrary to UP standard practices!
Historically, UP uses either movable point frogs …
… or spring frogs …
When UP bought SP, SP’s traditional flange frogs for sidings quickly went bye-bye, whether they were on Tehachapi, the Sunset Route, or other lines.
The reasoning on that may (“may”) be the violence of constant lateral springing motion may be less damaging than the violence of the full vertical tonnage weight pounding on the frog because of flange way openings!
The frog angle necessary for equilaterals may or may not be too severe for such applications.
Replies continued …
K.P.:
Is it just me, or is it a bit unusual to see a combination of ex-SP target signals and ex-ATSF cantilever signals as shown at CP SP325 Sandcut? Does this combination exist at any other crossovers on Tehachapi? It seems a very eclectic set of signals! When converted to color-light signals it would be a double tragedy!
JOHN
Wash., DC
Those are called equilateral switches. I'm not sure what the arguments are against them, layout constraints permitting, but my understanding is that they permit a doubling of the diverging speed for the same frog for the diverging route (or both routes, actually). That might be perceived as a reduction in speed for the straight route, but in theory a frog used for a 50-mph crossover would be good for 100 in an equilateral turnout on either route--basically meaning no reduction in speed.
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)
Update as of January 21, 2013
The Present Situation on the Hill
Part XIV (of I-XIV)
A southbound view of CP SP325 SANDCUT (M.P. 325.0) from Neumarkle Rd. (M.P. 324.7):
Above, the foreground is Double-Track and the background is Two-Tracks. The last time K.P. was by Sandcut, the foreground left signal was a pot signal between the tracks. Color lights have not arrived here yet. Note that the Main 2 side (left) on both the foreground and background signals only have one head each. Undoubtedly, when the Ilmon to Bena section is two-tracked likely the north of Sandcut ABS will be converted to CTC.
A northbound view into ABS territory:
Lastly, the Neumarkle Rd. grade crossing from which the above two photos were shot from.
Color light conversions were seen here and there in the Tehachapi area, all in advance of two-tracking a portion of this hill. As previously mentioned, the Alhambra Sub (Los Angeles to Colton on the Sunset Route), had color light signals put up in the last couple of years, but much of them will have to come down with the Pomona to Fontana two-tracking, like what is apparently to happen here on Tehachapi.
--------
Speaking of color light signal conversions … as noted in the first part of this “The Present Situation on the Hill” series (in this “TEHACHAPI: Two-Tracking Updates” thread), K.P. was up in the Las Vegas area, at Sloan, NV. For the “Sunset Route Two-Tracking Updates” thread, K.P. will report his findings on color light signal conversion on the Los Angeles & Salt Lake, and make a connection to the Sunset Route conversions. That presentation is pending.
Part XIII (of I-XIV)
A closer view of the bridge: Note the ‘wire’ railing, and the different stakes holding up the wire. It is like one part of the bridge was wiped out by flooding. The staining on one part of the concrete suggests that also.
The distant past that K.P. can remember was that the bridge was an old SP girder type, but now is a pre-stressed concrete one.
The following link may shed some light:
LINK: Aerial of Flood Damage
Perhaps someone at the forum has further information.
Continued in Part XIV
Part XII (of I-XIV)
A westward view from that private road, technically railroad northbound:
By the bridging just railroad south of the intermediates (far background upper left), was roadway with a very newly paved short stretch, with Road Closed signs still present, but vehicles were traversing it.
A more close-up of the intermediates:
It is unknown when the right signals above were converted to color light types, but the left ones are still target ones. Several decades ago mast signals replaced a signal bridge here that got knocked down during massive and disastrous flooding in the area. The location may be more troublesome that it first looks.
Continued in Part XIII
Part XI (of I-XIV)
We now go to almost the bottom of the hill, near (“near”) CP SP328 BENA (M.P. 328.1).
Above, color light signals at that CP are up and running. The location is where single-track (far background) becomes two-tracks (foreground).
That background single-track section will be the last to be two-tracked, according to the Caltrans Environment Impact Report (EIR).
K.P. had always thought that single-track to two-tracks CP used a wye, but from the above photos, obviously not. It is unknown if a wye switch was there or not before UP bought SP. Reportedly, UP doesn’t like wye switches. The 1978 built Alhambra Trench in Alhambra next to Los Angeles on the Sunset Route uses a wye switch, and it lingers on.
Now, back to Bena …
The first two photos in this section were shot from the “SIMCAL CHEM.PVT.X” grade crossing at M.P. 327.71.
The first sentence in this post said “near.” Near because the parallel-to-the-tracks Bena Rd. is barricaded and eastbound vehicle traffic has to turn around.
Continued in Part XII
Part X (of I-XIV)
The north end of Tunnel No. 9, the Loop tunnel: The mast signal at the far end of the tunnel can no longer be seen, so a pot signal must be substituting in the interim … at least one would think so.
Railroad north of the Loop tunnel and between CP SP351 WALONG and CP SP350 WOODFORD (M.P. 349.7) are intermediate signals. The location as an intermediate signal location will not survive the changeover from target to color light signals. (Note the lower heads in the last photo of Section IX) The track curves around on the left, for those unfamiliar with the area.
In a spur within the Woodford siding (opposite a long gone water tower location, with the concrete-work still present), was a track machine.
Continued in Part XI
Part IX (of I-XIV)
The old and new south end CP SP352 WALONG boxes:
The south end’s north southbound new and old signals, with the Loop in the background (upper right):
The new north end’s northbound signals (before the Loop’s tunnel):
What K.P. found unusual in reference to the just above new mast signals is that they are going to replace the historic signal bridge of the south northbound signals at CP SP351 (M.P. 351.1), but the signal bridge was nowhere to be seen! Pot signals (below sight level) must be being used in the interim.
Continued in Part X
Part VIII (of I-XIV)
At the Loop itself, a bunch of track equipment was generally off the track around the Loop.
At the south end of the Loop, at CP SP352 WALONG (M.P. 352.2), the old target and future color light northbound south signals stood together.
Above, Southern Pacific had a tendency of erecting signals immediately in front of switches, but UP tends to erect the signals AWAY from switches, allowing for more of a shunt distance before the points might move in a dispatcher errant situation.
A wider view:
---------
Parts IX to XIV will be posted Thursday, January 31, 2013 before 9 A.M. Pacific Time, but likely much earlier.
Part VII (of I-XIV)
Because of time constraints, K.P. had to leave the tie train scene with the cars still in the tunnel. But, is it possible this BNSF tie train the next day left ties along the Tehachapi Pass Union Pacific right-of-way?
On December 28, 2009 at the Colton Crossing (Colton, CA), where the BNSF Transcon crosses the UP Sunset Route, a reverse situation took place. Because a BNSF predecessor railroad, the California Southern, in 1883 crossed the UP predecessor Southern Pacific track laid in 1875, BNSF is responsible for the crossing and its maintenance. However, in a strange development, UP replaced all the diamonds instead of BNSF! It was accomplished within just an hour or so in a massive blitz!
It is believed UP took on the roll because of agreements concerning the then future Colton Flyover that currently (2013) is under construction.
Such an agreement may or may not have been made about ties on Tehachapi Pass.
Continued in Part VIII
Part VI (of I-XIV)
A BNSF northbound train comes …
… but not just any train. One with coal-like cars loaded with wooden ties.
The train stopped with cars in the tunnel, and stayed that way.
Continued in Part VII
Part V (of I-XIV)
Between the Marcel and Walong sidings is this set of intermediates.
And a cool reverse S-curve.
Continued in Part VI
Part IV (of I-XIV)
We now go to the south side of CP SP353 MARCEL, where the CP can be seen from Woodford-Tehachapi Rd.
Continued in Part V
Part III (of I-XIV)
This Tehachapi post series from here on will generally be on a south (east) to north (west) basis.
The present not in service color light northbound south signal at CP SP353 MARCEL (M.P. 353.0):
The above photo was shot from the Broome Rd. / Highway 58 area. Strangely, just to the south of the Highway, on private property, can be seen from the public road what looks like an old railroad bridge.
It is unknown if the bridge was originally somewhere on Tehachapi Pass or somewhere else, or what the property owner’s intention is with the bridge section.
Continued in Part IV
Part II (of I-XIV)
Some other Sloan, NV views:
LINK: Aerial of Sloan, NV Tunnel and Bypass
LINK: Very Curvy Sloan, NV Area Overview
The cut alongside Tunnel No.10 on Tehachapi Pass in California will be similar to Sloan, NV, except the present tunnel will not be abandoned, but remain in service after the two-tracking project there is completed for that section.
Continued in Part III
This presentation will be in two groups, Parts I to VIII now, and Parts IX to XIV Thursday, January 31, 2013.
Part I (of I-XIV)
It is known from official public documents that the first section to be two-tracked will be between Walong (the Loop) and Marcel. Between those two sidings is the single-track Tunnel No. 10 …
… and next to it physically to the north (above photo’s right), a deep cut for the new track is to be excavated.
Our Tehachapi Pass two-tracking update investigation begins, though, at Sloan, NV, of all places! There, on the Los Angeles-Salt Lake City line (built circa 1905 and most commonly referenced as the Los Angeles & Salt Lake Railroad by those with a history orientation), a tunnel was originally built, but later a deep cut in the mountainside alongside it was made.
From what Caltrans has put out on the matter, a cut such as that Sloan, NV, cut will be made next to Tunnel No. 10 on Tehachapi.
Continued in Part II
MidlandMike Yes, I knew the UP trackage rights on Cajon were for the Salt Lake line, but I did not realize they had already shifted much traffic to the still expanding Sunset route. There is a connection from BNSF to UP about a half mile west of Summit. Google Earth image of 2/1/09 not only shows the connection, but it shows it's obviously in use. See location: 34°20'5.77"N 117°26'9.10"W
Yes, I knew the UP trackage rights on Cajon were for the Salt Lake line, but I did not realize they had already shifted much traffic to the still expanding Sunset route. There is a connection from BNSF to UP about a half mile west of Summit. Google Earth image of 2/1/09 not only shows the connection, but it shows it's obviously in use. See location:
34°20'5.77"N 117°26'9.10"W
Thx IGN
narig01 MidlandMike When BNSF triple tracked Cajon Pass, did UP contribute? They must have significant interest, otherwise they could have cancelled their trackage rights and utilized the ex-SP Cajon line on the west side of the pass. UP's utilization of BNSF trackage rights on Cajon Pass are to connect the Los Angeles & Salt Lake(LA&SL) line to Las Vegas and Salt Lake City. The tracks UP owns are the old Southern Pacific Palmdale cutoff from West Colton to Palmdale connecting north to Mojave, Bakersfield and the Central Valley. There is no connection at the top of the pass between the two lines. As the UP was able to rebuild and connect the Sunset route to the Golden State route the LA&SL UP's usage was lessened over BNSF Cajon pass. This allowed to lessen usage of the Overland route(Omaha-Green River, WY). For East West traffic the Sunset route's low crossing, at under 4000ft is the lowest crossing of the continental divide. And the reason why UP was willing to dump literally billions of dollars into double tracking.(personally I think they should have gone for triple track from West Colton to El Paso!) Thx IGN
MidlandMike When BNSF triple tracked Cajon Pass, did UP contribute? They must have significant interest, otherwise they could have cancelled their trackage rights and utilized the ex-SP Cajon line on the west side of the pass.
When BNSF triple tracked Cajon Pass, did UP contribute? They must have significant interest, otherwise they could have cancelled their trackage rights and utilized the ex-SP Cajon line on the west side of the pass.
There is no connection at the top of the pass between the two lines. As the UP was able to rebuild and connect the Sunset route to the Golden State route the LA&SL UP's usage was lessened over BNSF Cajon pass. This allowed to lessen usage of the Overland route(Omaha-Green River, WY).
For East West traffic the Sunset route's low crossing, at under 4000ft is the lowest crossing of the continental divide. And the reason why UP was willing to dump literally billions of dollars into double tracking.(personally I think they should have gone for triple track from West Colton to El Paso!)
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.