K. P. Harrier Update as of Friday, July 17, 2015 Earthmoving for Two-Tracking … … Walong-Marcel Has Begun Part D (A-D)[snipped - PDN] . . . The last two photos below show the area ‘north’ of Tunnel 10, the actual Tehachapi Loop. . . .
Earthmoving for Two-Tracking …
… Walong-Marcel Has Begun
Part D (A-D)[snipped - PDN] . . . The last two photos below show the area ‘north’ of Tunnel 10, the actual Tehachapi Loop.
. . .
http://graniteconstruction.com/Our_Company/Our_Markets/Transportation_
So this project is for real, and some serious players are involved. I wouldn't rule out anything from the possible scope of work, unless told otherwise by people who are in a position to know.
- Paul North.
Question for anyone.
What effect did the planned California High Speed Rail have on the double track project? Is this a case of getting there first to avoid having to deal with another layer of bureaucracy(CHSR)?
This is mostly random thoughts.
The IGN
Update as of Friday, July 17, 2015
Part D (A-D)
The train gets to the north switch of the Marcel siding and a high green signal.
This area would seem that heavy terrain alterations will be necessary for a second-track. As seen in the posts in this series before this one, work seems to now be focused on the Tunnel 10 area. Maybe (“maybe”) excavated dirt from the Tunnel 10 hill area will be used for landfill here by the north switch of the Marcel siding.
We have been looking at views taken on the ‘south’ side of Tunnel 10. The last two photos below show the area ‘north’ of Tunnel 10, the actual Tehachapi Loop.
Not much construction-wise is seen at the Loop. Physically, there are two tracks already here, though technically it is referred to as single-track and a siding.
The lower two-tracks above, which become just single-track on the right, goes into Tunnel 10, which cannot be seen from this angle.
K.P. hopes to return to the Walong-Marcel are in two-three months, when more pronounced happenings should be seen.
This will conclude the Walong-Marcel construction views. An overview of current and recent happenings from Bakersfield to Mojave should be ready for posting in three to four days.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 C (of A-D)
The second unit is a rare EMD AC mainly used on coal trains, like for the Powder River Basin. It must have wanted to see the Tehachapi two-tracking for itself!
Continued in Part D
Part “B” (of A-D)
More views:
A BNSF southbound (eastbound) shows up and passes equipment:
Continued in Part C
Part “A” (of A-D)
From reports, more progress had been expected, but, apparently grading is now only in the early stages.
Continued in Part B
A New Kern Junction
Word has been received that besides limited two-tracking on Tehachapi Pass, Kern Jct. in downtown Bakersfield is being revamped, with a rather unorthodox but very logical track layout.
Current Google aerials show uninstalled switches laying railroad north of Kern Jct.:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/4158+California+Ave,+Bakersfield+Plaza,+Bakersfield,+CA+93309/@35.3753353,-118.9842744,196m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x80ea4200d011f38b:0x9ced1eb83e5cc40f
Diagrams K.P. has seen show a universal crossover arrangement railroad north of the junction with the BNSF, with the current junction itself unchanged.
.
A NEW KERN JCT.
.......... . . . . Bypass------- -------------------------- \ / \ / Main 2---------------------------------------- / \ / / Main 1 \ /---------------------------------------- / / / / BNSF #1 / / ------------ / / BNSF #2 / ----------------
The “Bypass” (on the Bakersfield Yard side) reportedly runs railroad south to Quantico (the south end of the Bakersfield Yard), where powered switch and crossover is supposed to be put in. This arrangement will allow UP trains to go around or bypass a congested Kern Jct.
An unsignaled track reportedly will allow movements around and not within the interlocking of the new Kern Jct., as represented in the diagram by dot marks.
But, Wait! K.P. Went to Tehachapi!
Before the above could be posted, an onsite, in person visit was made to most of the KEY areas of Tehachapi Pass, from downtown Bakersfield to Mojave (excluding the Cliff area). The two-tracking of the Walong-Marcel stretch IS now underway, but was a major disappointment, as mere preliminary things seem to be taking place there.
Above, electrical transmission power lines are in the way of seeing the BNSF southbound (eastbound) head-end power, and equipment was digging on the upper right. There was also equipment on the photo lower right. Not in the view was digging above the train.
In light of the number and scope of the photos taken (232 photos to be exact), it will probably take several days to put a presentation together for posting. Preliminary plans are to highlight the Walong-Marcel area of the two-tracking, then, cover the Bakersfield to Mohave distance afterwards.
K. P. HarrierSources also say the Bakersfield area is having major track work taking place, with Kern Jct. being revamped, so that a “bypass” allows (or will allow) UP trains to get around stacked-up westbound (northbound) BNSF trains stopped for crew changes.
It appears that most of these BNSF trains should have room to clear Kern Jct when stopped for crew change at their yard two miles west. Still, without any universal crossovers or sidings and mostly ABS-DT between CP North Bakersfield and CP Sandcut 'significant traffic' could turn this section into a real CF. It will be interesting to see what UP has in store.
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! ***
I haven't seen a "Truck No Passing" zone yet, but I suppose it would work - certainly quick and cheap to do, just a couple signs needed saying that.
Adding a 3rd lane is almost always along the side of a mountain, hence horribly expensive and time-consuming, and not always feasible with bad geology, environmental and other constraints, etc.
Avoiding that kind of thing along I-81 was one of the principal rationales that Norfolk Southern put forth as a justification for the Commonwealth of Virginia to assist in funding some of the upgrades for the "Crescent Corridor" along its portion of I-81 a few years back - see this article from Nov. 2009:
http://www.progressiverailroading.com/norfolk_southern/article/If-funding-falls-into-place-so-will-Norfolk-Southerns-Crescent-Corridor--21900v
ouibejamn ChuckCobleigh I'd rather see a third lane on EB 58 going uphill so that the semis going 36 Mph to pass another semi going 35 Mph could do that to their hearts' content without holding up faster traffic.
ChuckCobleigh I'd rather see a third lane on EB 58 going uphill so that the semis going 36 Mph to pass another semi going 35 Mph could do that to their hearts' content without holding up faster traffic.
Paul_D_North_Jr We have a couple places like that here in eastern Pennsylvania. I call it "the race of the elephants . . . ". - Paul North.
We have a couple places like that here in eastern Pennsylvania. I call it "the race of the elephants . . . ".
On highway 58, the bad stretch is coming up from Bakersfield to Tehachapi, though for some reason things always seem to be easier from Keene to Tehachapi. I'm not sure if the grade eases (it doesn't seem to) or just dumb luck. Coming from the east doesn't ever seem to be much of a problem, but I think the grade there is not so challenging as the one up from the west.
In May, we hit the grade from the west at close to dinner time and saw a half-dozen or more trains between Woodford siding and Tucker Road/Cal-202, pretty much every siding holding a train while another was going through. When we got to the motel there, the parking lot was filling up with a fleet of UP trucks (except for two of the big-uns that parked on the boulevard) suggesting that there had been no traffic on the line all day. The parade of trains continued well into the night, and the next morning early the UP folks were out getting their first briefings before leaving the motel parking lot. If I remember right, it was the eastbound trains that were moving when we drove those last few miles.
The present moderate slow-down in rail traffic volume generally may be providing a 'window of opportunity' for one or both railroads' train operations to accomodate the resulting interference without too much disruption.
Tehachapi (and Bakersfield) are now a Changing!
Very reliable sources indicate the very partial two-tracking of Tehachapi Pass is NOW taking place!
The single-track section between the Walong and Marcel sidings is now having major grading in the area. Reportedly, the south end of the Cliff siding is having some type of grading take place also.
Sources also say the Bakersfield area is having major track work taking place, with Kern Jct. being revamped, so that a “bypass” allows (or will allow) UP trains to get around stacked-up westbound (northbound) BNSF trains stopped for crew changes.
K.P. hopes to get out that way soon to see and photograph what is now taking place.
PNWRMNMThis is yours of March 1. The stations you cite are on SP/UP line not ATSF/BNSF. If you go to BNSF website you will find that BNSF Mojave Subdivision is between Mojave and Barstow which is where BNSF will do its work. Mac McCulloch Former SPT
If you go to BNSF website you will find that BNSF Mojave Subdivision is between Mojave and Barstow which is where BNSF will do its work.
Mac McCulloch
Former SPT
Mac, I'm well aware of the difference. You may be right, but until I see some detailed proof I still believe that the release refers to the previously planned project funded by Caltrans and BNSF; due to the dominance of the latter's traffic over Tehachapi UP has rarely invested in trackage upgrades there.
MikeF90 BNSF has announced their record 2015 CapEx budget, and it includes some investment in the 'Mojave sub'. The wording is vague but it probably means the plan for a second MT between Walong and Marcel, and to extend Cliff siding. Their details are here: http://www.bnsf.com/media/news-releases/2015/january/2015-01-15a.html
BNSF has announced their record 2015 CapEx budget, and it includes some investment in the 'Mojave sub'. The wording is vague but it probably means the plan for a second MT between Walong and Marcel, and to extend Cliff siding. Their details are here: http://www.bnsf.com/media/news-releases/2015/january/2015-01-15a.html
Mike,
This is yours of March 1. The stations you cite are on SP/UP line not ATSF/BNSF.
Sam, for the record, you were mashing two South Shore incidents together. The one on the gantlet (or gauntlet) track near Gary's western city limits involved two passenger trains (one of which did not have the signal); there are now two bridges in this area.The one with the coiled projectile going through the car was a bit east of Gary, and occurred when a truck got in the way of a NICTD train. The load had been improperly secured, and basically stayed where it was as the train shell plowed around it.
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)
Does anyone have any info as to whether grading has started in the Walong area? I recall seeing a note recently that it has commenced.
From what we've seen in your Sunset Route thread, the fill over Tunnel 9 could either be replaced by a bridge or a second tunnel bored through the fill as fairly easy engineering efforts. The rock cut would present some issues, but as the Sunset Route work shows, if UP wants to put in a second track connecting Walong and Woodford they will certainly make things happen.
John Simpkins-Camp (3-17):
It is believed that the “bad cut of solid rock” that you were referring to was the cut between Walong and Woodford, just railroad south of a river bridging. Gauntlet track might work in some places, and is a noble idea, but I don’t think it would on Tehachapi. Besides the narrow cut, there is the large landfill over Tunnel No. 9 (the tunnel that is part of the Loop). If a commuter railroad had need to use the line they might fund the extra expense of a special reinforcement program needed to hold up the present two tracks that go over Tunnel 9 during tunneling, but UP and BNSF are commercial entities that spend their money differently than taxpayer assisted commuter railroads do. In the final analysis, in my opinion, it would be too expensive to have anything other than single-track all the way between Walong and Woodford, and gauntleting that ENTIRE section would be operationally pointless.
Take care,
K.P.
samfp1943 Gauntlet Track? A term I had heard of, but was not familiar with.
Gauntlet Track? A term I had heard of, but was not familiar with.
Know of at least three kinds.
1. Turn out type but a stock rails does not frog over the opposite rail. Proceeds along and finally joins regular track. Have seen this on NJ Transit's Raritan valley track. The freights using this type track can swing out away from high level center platforms so all freight cars can clear. This method is one that can also be used to divert a passenger train towards an outside platform without changing the main line for freights. This type needs 4 single switch points 2 at each end of gaunlet.
2. 2 main tracks have the rail near to other track frog over near rail and you have one rail proceeding between rails of other track. At end of gaunlet rail frogs over same rail to separate tracks. Only 2 frogs needed. This was used on the South shore to allow for one bridge not needing to be full width of 2 tracks.
3. 2 tracks coming together where one rail is shared by both tracks. Imagine 2 HO trains on an "O " guage track each using one outside rail and sharing middle rail. This should only require one non movable switch point against stock rail to allow for diverging. Another way would be to use a modified frog so flanges of cars travel as needed. Saw a picture somewhere but have no idea where used ? Could have been on a D&RGW narrow guage / Standard guage location(s) ?
John Simpkins-CampJust a random though here, but could the area of the "bad cut of solid rock" be a place for a gauntlet track?
IMO more than the solid rock, the tight curve and very steep terrain / rock face close to SR-58 are indeed a formidable civil engineering challenge. A look at the area map suggests that straightening the curve while gaining elevation might require something like a long tunnel bypass. Any solution would be extremely expensive and likely has been surveyed and rejected by the RRs.
Not enough traffic here yet to justify the 'solution'.
John Simpkins-Camp Just a random though here, but could the area of the "bad cut of solid rock" be a place for a gauntlet track? I know that this is an odd practice (and, certainly wouldn't allow for the passage of two trains at once), but it could eleminate two turnouts and squeese two tracks trough the narrow area. This is not a perfect solution, and there may some operational issues that I am not considering, but gauntlets have allowed two tracks (usually different owners) to use single width bridges without the cost of additional infrastructure or ROW. Certainly, it would be no more operationally challenging than a single track through the area. Correct?
Just a random though here, but could the area of the "bad cut of solid rock" be a place for a gauntlet track?
I know that this is an odd practice (and, certainly wouldn't allow for the passage of two trains at once), but it could eleminate two turnouts and squeese two tracks trough the narrow area.
This is not a perfect solution, and there may some operational issues that I am not considering, but gauntlets have allowed two tracks (usually different owners) to use single width bridges without the cost of additional infrastructure or ROW. Certainly, it would be no more operationally challenging than a single track through the area. Correct?
Gauntlet Track? A term I had heard of, but was not familiar with. I did seem to recall that a number of years ago; when working in the Chicago area, there was an accident; I believe it was on the South Shore line, and involved a passenger train, and a freight train collision in the area of Gary,In. or to its East(?). The result was a very large steel coil was sent crashing in, or through a Passenger Car(?). It was at an area of 'gauntlet track' at a station platform(?)
Some 'searching' turned up the following link on Wikipedia (usual disclaimers ). @ https://www.google.com/#q=RR+Gauntlet+Track%3F
Along with a photo album of gauntlet track images @ https://www.google.com/search?q=RR+Gauntlet+Track?&biw=960&bih=517&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=CC4IVZ31B8WWyATUo4HwAg&ved=0CCoQsAQ&dpr=1.5
For some reason, I had always pictured 'gauntlet tracks' as being confined to mostly transit lines, but they are also part of 'dual gauging' operations on standard and narrow guage rail lines (ie DRG&W, to name one).
Reworking the Bakersfield Yard
Northwest of the Tehachapi grades is the town of Bakersfield. It has a junction there with the BNSF, and also both UP and BNSF have yards there. UP is presently rebuilding their yard at Bakersfield.
Reports are contradictory and somewhat unclear. One problem is that westbound (northbound) BNSF trains are stacking up on UP’s Tehachapi line because of crew changes on their own line just off UP’s line in Bakersfield, blocking northbound UP’s.
When K.P. can pin down exactly what is going on in Bakersfield he will let everyone know. If any live in that area or has passed through of late, they are most welcome to contribute a report.
K. P. HarrierWalong to Marcel (to the south) is planned for two-tracking, but Walong to Woodford (to the north) is not. That latter track has a bad cut of solid rock that would have to be taken out before a second main could be put in, so it is very unlikely that rocky area would ever be two-tracked.
Looking at that curve a little closer, it looks like the even bigger problem with widening the roadbed there would be the proximity to CAL-58. The highway is considerably higher than the track at that point, and I suspect that would contribute to some serious excavation issues.
Plus, the single track stretch is under a mile and a half, it would appear, so it probably falls into the "don't mess with it" file and will probably stay there.
If anything is to be done in that area, I'd rather see a third lane on EB 58 going uphill so that the semis going 36 Mph to pass another semi going 35 Mph could do that to their hearts' content without holding up faster traffic.
The main 'bottleneck' to improving the trackage on Tehachapi pass is the dominance of BNSF traffic using trackage rights; UP has little incentive to use much of their own $$$. "Let BNSF and Caltrans pay for it!"
In other Mojave subdivision news, the ABS main and signals between CP Cameron and CP South Mojave were finally converted to CTC last month. Reportedly the crossovers at South Mojave were also upgraded to higher speed turnouts.
IIRC the only remaining ABS signaling on the sub is North Bakersfield to the CP Sandcut u/c, a very odd arrangement given the volume of traffic.
Map reference: http://g.co/maps/g7k8e
If the rock cut that K.P. mentioned above is the one at these Lat./ Long. coords. - N 35 12.291' W 118 32.091' - then I'd say it would be difficult, but not "very unlikely". Based on the (hard to read) 40' contours on the USGS Topo Map of this area on ACME Mapper 2.1, the rock cut might be as deep as 120 ft.; based on the "Bird's-Eye" view from Bing Maps, about 700 ft. long +/-. That's comparable to some of the rock removal work done at Cajon Pass a few years ago and some of the recent NS and CSX eastern US clearance improvement projects, so it's entirely feasible - expensive, maybe, but do-able nevertheless.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.