Spectacular Abo Canyon, New Mexico (BNSF)
In the last few years one of the last remaining single-track portions of the southern Transcon was two-tracked. It was desirable to visit, see, and photograph the place. On site, as spectacular as the eastern end of Abo Canyon was, it could NOT be photographed! The Highway 60 overpass is a narrow, two-lane road with no room to stand on. The semi-walkways leading to the overpass were deemed too narrow for safety with vehicle traffic whizzing by at 60-70 M.P.H.
Aerials show dirt roads leading to the tracks …
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.4342168,-106.4500029,396m/data=!3m1!1e3
… but unfortunately signs (white one on below photo’s right) prohibit the road’s use by the non-BNSF public, and there are locked gates beyond the signs. The sign belongs to the BNSF.
From either end of the several miles long canyon public exclusion is present. No matter what one does railfans are thwarted. Only by driving over the Highway 60 Bridge on the eastern end can one by looking west get a glimpse of the canyon. Just a glimpse, but it is an absolutely spectacular one! If you come to the site, leave your camera at home, or in the trunk. But, the glimpse will be etched in your consciousness for a lifetime thereafter.
On site, or as close as one can get to the tracks, K.P. was pondering what do, and a westbound train suddenly showed up, and an un-composed, surprise grab shot was the best that could be taken.
If you visit, as said above, what can be seen (for but a moment) is spectacular, and you will be left wondering why the State doesn’t bridge over the tracks with a wide sidewalk-platform for visiting tourists to gawk at and take pictures from. It is wondered if a letter campaign would do the trick for the State to do such … As said above, a mere glimpse will etch that glimpse in your consciousness for a lifetime!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 - This IS New Mexico, remember? Those of us lucky enough to have been invited down in there to work or visit got an eyefull. There already has been a set of incidents that have happened that make the current access as good as it will probably get. (two of which have zero fomite involvement)
Buy a ticket on the Chief? or does it traverse a different route?
Different route. This line meets the Chief's route at Belen.
Disappointing, to say the least, but you've got to remember as I do that the 'roads are in the business of moving, uh, "stuff" from Point A to Point B as profitably as possible, not in keeping railfans entertained.
Be nice if it was otherwise, but we've got to be realistic here.
Thanks, K.P. I spent most of 1962 in El Paso and grew to really like New Mexico. By the way, have you considered a drone?
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
Here is a video on Abo Canyon double tracking put out by BNSF in 2012:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvgXO-3Uh0g
kgbw49 Here is a video on Abo Canyon double tracking put out by BNSF in 2012: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvgXO-3Uh0g
Similar locations to some of the viewing locations such as Rochelle,Il., or the one on CSX at Folkston,Ga. or Fostoria, OH. It would allow them [BNSF} to possibly stop any trespass for photos, and they could 'control' Public traffic in that area. Such would seem to be a good PR move for BNSF. Just my thoughts.
K. P. Harrier Spectacular Abo Canyon, New Mexico (BNSF) In the last few years one of the last remaining single-track portions of the southern Transcon was two-tracked. It was desirable to visit, see, and photograph the place. On site, as spectacular as the eastern end of Abo Canyon was, it could NOT be photographed! The Highway 60 overpass is a narrow, two-lane road with no room to stand on. The semi-walkways leading to the overpass were deemed too narrow for safety with vehicle traffic whizzing by at 60-70 M.P.H. Aerials show dirt roads leading to the tracks … https://www.google.com/maps/@34.4342168,-106.4500029,396m/data=!3m1!1e3 … but unfortunately signs (white one on below photo’s right) prohibit the road’s use by the non-BNSF public, and there are locked gates beyond the signs. The sign belongs to the BNSF. From either end of the several miles long canyon public exclusion is present. No matter what one does railfans are thwarted. Only by driving over the Highway 60 Bridge on the eastern end can one by looking west get a glimpse of the canyon. Just a glimpse, but it is an absolutely spectacular one! If you come to the site, leave your camera at home, or in the trunk. But, the glimpse will be etched in your consciousness for a lifetime thereafter. On site, or as close as one can get to the tracks, K.P. was pondering what do, and a westbound train suddenly showed up, and an un-composed, surprise grab shot was the best that could be taken. If you visit, as said above, what can be seen (for but a moment) is spectacular, and you will be left wondering why the State doesn’t bridge over the tracks with a wide sidewalk-platform for visiting tourists to gawk at and take pictures from. It is wondered if a letter campaign would do the trick for the State to do such … As said above, a mere glimpse will etch that glimpse in your consciousness for a lifetime!
Looking at the photos and the google aerial views, it would appear that good photos could be obtained from the Highway 60 embankments on the East or West sides of the track depending on whether the photographer was there in the morning or afternoon.
In similar locations, I have parked my car beyond the end of of the Armco barriers and walked in, walking on the side of the Armco barriers away from the roadway. From the Google views there is a wider and safer area to walk and stand for photographs on the non roadway side of the barrier.
If you have the time, take a folding chair and a drinks cooler (non alcoholic if you are driving) as well as the camera. Depending on the weather conditions and the ground conditions, a beach umbrella might be a good move.
It is likely that you would still have to stand to take the photos, and assuming you are facing West into the canyon, you may have to turn around and even cross the road to photograph Westbound trains.
I assume that the curved track (in the last photo) is the original track, and the straighter track is the second track.
M636C
M636C (10-29):
Your suggestion is a good one, but as I recall, I didn’t do as you suggested because the ground in that pathway sloped slightly, and this old geezer doesn’t do good on slanted ground. Others probably wouldn’t do so either.
A wider view that shows how the ground slopes closer to the camera:
If I’m out that way ever again, and have the time, I should attempt what you suggested.
Best,
K.P.
K. P. Harrier M636C (10-29): Your suggestion is a good one, but as I recall, I didn’t do as you suggested because the ground in that pathway sloped slightly, and this old geezer doesn’t do good on slanted ground. Others probably wouldn’t do so either. A wider view that shows how the ground slopes closer to the camera: If I’m out that way ever again, and have the time, I should attempt what you suggested. Best, K.P.
KP,
After making the post I accidentally triggered street view with the bridge in the centre of the frame.
I recommend that anyone else interested do the same.
Apart from showing a BNSF double stack train passing under the bridge, it gives an excellent view in each direction down the tracks.
It also shows that there is a flat, level area suitable for railfan purposes beyond the Armco on both sides of the track facing the Canyon.
I agree that provision should be made for pedestrians, however. There are similar bridges that I've had to use the "beyond the Armco" solution when standing on a footpath would be much easier. Sadly such provision has become less common, even in large cities not just in the wilds of New Mexico.
It is apparent that an awful lot of rock was moved for the second main track, along with some significant bridging:
Looking at the Google aerial view, it appears that Route 60 took a different alignment in the past and crossed the original single line at grade.
Whether this was done in preparation for the additional track or not, clearly the bridge allowed for two tracks.
The earthworks don't look as recent (or as extensive) as those for the additional line.
The outside of the Armco gard rail is beyond the traveled portion of the road ROW, and would probably be considered private property. Plus those weeds on the far side look more like rattlesnake habitat than a railfan access trail.
The ROW of the road in front of my house actually includes the "margin" (about 6 feet) and sidewalk (~3') on both sides of the road - well outside the travelled portion of the road. In fact, it's 66' wide. The road is more like 30'. I would presume that would be true of a state highway as well - it will only narrow for the bridge.
On the other hand, "rattlesnake habitat" is a term not to be taken lightly...
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
MidlandMike The outside of the Armco gard rail is beyond the traveled portion of the road ROW, and would probably be considered private property. Plus those weeds on the far side look more like rattlesnake habitat than a railfan access trail.
There does appear to be more grass in KP's photos than in the June 2016 Google street view. However in the Google photos, the area I suggested standing (or sitting) is composed of gravel with almost no grass or weeds of any kind. Were any snakes to use the area to warm up in the sun, they would be visible.
I'm happy to revise my suggestion to walking up on the road side of the Armco (towards oncoming traffic) and crossing the Armco where the area is clear of both grass and reptiles.
There are access roads to the BNSF track on all four sides of the road embankment so I doubt that any of the embankment could be regarded as private property. Beyond these roads there appear to be fence lines parallel to Route 60, which mark property boundaries. There are gates marking the edge of BNSF property. If you remain outside all of the property boundaries I think you will remain in public property.
One of the reasons for no access is that area landowners want it that way. There has been damage and trespassing over the years and the landowners got the tight security in return for some of the widened right-of-way for the construction. It used to be easy to go there as several landowners were happy to allow visitors, but those who came without asking left gates open, tore up roads, and a number of other things to end the friendly access.
You can really wonder about the thought processes of some people--you find a closed gate on someone else's property, what authority have you to open it? Do you think that there was no reason for the gate's being closed?
Johnny
My thoughts exactly..Mr/Ms.Rattlers won't like intrusion into their AO by humans.
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
DeggestyDo you think that there was no reason for the gate's being closed?
Well, you know, I know the gate was closed, but that's to keep out the general rabble. It doesn't apply to me...
But that's not really the people who are the problem. As already noted, it's the folks who can't seem to close the gates behind them, who damage property, and generally don't abide by "take only pictures, leave only footprints" code of ethics.
I would opine that by and large railfans don't cause the problems - because they know that they're jeopardizing future access to a coveted site.
Rather it's the "up the establishment" types who have little regard for anything that are causing the problem. They don't care if they can't get back to a given site - there's always somewhere else to raise Cain.
BRAKIE MidlandMike The outside of the Armco gard rail is beyond the traveled portion of the road ROW, and would probably be considered private property. Plus those weeds on the far side look more like rattlesnake habitat than a railfan access trail. My thoughts exactly..Mr/Ms.Rattlers won't like intrusion into their AO by humans.
I've never come across a rattlesnake, but I assume that if you keep away from them they will be happy. I'm more used to snakes that attack without warning and in more than forty years, I've only come across one that thought about striking me after I disturbed it. This was in Port Hedland, Western Australia. I just stopped and the snake decided that I was too far away and crawled off. I've been in that particular area many times before and since, and have only seen a snake once. These snakes can be five feet long and are, I understand, bigger and more venomous than Rattlesnakes.
And I got my photo of the arriving Iron Ore train....
I will admit to working out where I had to drive to in order to get to the local Hospital Emergency Ward (only three blocks away) while waiting for the snake to decide what it was going to do... It is also interesting how you can recognise a snake if only seen out of the corner of your eye.
Hoever, as I posted above, the actual areas on Route 60 I suggested standing to take photos, on all four corners of the bridge is clear of vegetation and only a quick glance would be needed to check for local reptile activity. This is clear in both the Aerial and Google Street views.
tree68 The ROW of the road in front of my house actually includes the "margin" (about 6 feet) and sidewalk (~3') on both sides of the road - well outside the travelled portion of the road. In fact, it's 66' wide. The road is more like 30'. I would presume that would be true of a state highway as well - it will only narrow for the bridge. On the other hand, "rattlesnake habitat" is a term not to be taken lightly...
My understanding is that the landowner actually owns the road ROW, and that the highway dept and public only has an easement to use the ROW for transportation. Traveled portion includes breakdown shoulder, sidewalks, etc. The public does not have the privilege of wandering just anywhere within 33' of the centerline, as I understand.
MidlandMike My understanding is that the landowner actually owns the road ROW, and that the highway dept and public only has an easement to use the ROW for transportation. Traveled portion includes breakdown shoulder, sidewalks, etc. The public does not have the privilege of wandering just anywhere within 33' of the centerline, as I understand.
As I posted earlier, it looks as though Route 60 was redirected as part of the second track construction, although this may have occurred earlier than the track construction.
However, in the area of the bridge over the BNSF line, there are clear fence lines both sides of Route 60, presumably installed by the highway authorities.
There does not appear to be a clear fence line north and east of the bridge where there is a roadway that leads to a farmhouse and to the BNSF track. It would be logical that this is a private road not accessible to the public.
However on the west side of Route 60 there are two roads leading to the BNSF track which are clearly on the highway side of the property fences, and these could be regarded as rights of way as far as gates to the BNSF right of way, ie vehicles other than BNSF vehicles could use the roadway as far as the gate to BNSF property as long as they did not impede access by BNSF vehicles, since they are travelled portions of road outside property boundaries.
I don't think BNSF would claim that the four feet or so of embankment top on the non road side of the Armco barriers belong to them, but rather to the highway authorities who constructed the embankment and might use that area if the bridge needed to be widened, for example.
In my part of the world most land outside cities is regarded as "crown land" and is the property of the state government, who may lease it to individuals for agriculture and grazing, or mining. The state government also constructs the highways, while local councils are in charge of minor roads.
But while compensation may be paid to a lessee who has had land resumed for road construction, there is no question of ownership of the land used for any road or railway. That is owned by the state government.
I would be surprised if a similar regime did not exist in the United States, with the obvious difference that while the roads belong to the state, in most cases the railroads do not.
MidlandMikeMy understanding is that the landowner actually owns the road ROW, and that the highway dept and public only has an easement to use the ROW for transportation. Traveled portion includes breakdown shoulder, sidewalks, etc. The public does not have the privilege of wandering just anywhere within 33' of the centerline, as I understand.
Around here, it's all over the place in that regard.
On my deed the monument marking the reference point from which the rest of the property is defined is, in fact, on the edge of the ROW. The county tax map (I have a copy) confirms that. There are those, however, who believe they do own to the center of the road... And that may be the case for some properties.
The tax map also shows the ROW as 49' 6" wide...
Tree, although I grew up in NY, I didn't pay attention to property matters until I owned land in the mid-west. My examples probably apply more to out in the country and west of the Appalachians. Also, I believe limited access freeways own their often fenced ROW.
Those wondering about the fresh hole in the ground better look for BNSF's "portable mountain" NW of the highway bridge. Contractor bought the site to pile the blasted rock for later use.
As for NM highway R/W, don't count on it behaving like anywhere else. (some places downright bizzare) It's been hard to get them off the federal highway dole. They are considerably more reliant on Uncle Sugar than most to get things done, even with US-60.
MidlandMike M636C, the US has a long history of strong private property rights. As I remember "crown lands" were a sore point at the time of the revolutionary war for independence. Out west there are ranches, and then a lot of US Bureau of Land Management public grazing land. The BLM lands are leased to ranchers for grazing, but the ranchers protect their cattle, and pretty much treat their leased land as their own private property. .While the BLM land may be open to recreation, I know of cases where ranchers have kicked hunters off the leased land, with no recourse taken by BLM. There was a recent extreme example of a group of armed ranchers taking over and occupying a federal wildlife sanctuary office in Oregon for some weeks. During the standoff one of the group was shot and killed by police at a checkpoint. A local jury found the group leaders innocent of wrongdoing, although they said they did not approve of their methods. Back to the Abo Canyon highway bridge. In the US, roads are generally easements, and the surrounding land owners own the property (the government wants those property taxes). Even if the adjacent property is government land, in some jurisdictions they pay a reduced "tax" to support local services. Generally pedestrians have the right of movement along public roads, except where prohibited such as limited access highways and major bridges without sidewalks. Looking at the highway bridge photo, if I wanted to take a railfan picture, I would walk on the road-side of the guardrail, and then wait until there was no traffic on the bridge.
In Australia it is the state government and not the federal government that "owns" rural land.
This is partly because federation took place relatively more recently (1901) and the state legislature and regulations were well established by that time.
Regardless of the exact title, agricultural and grazing land should not be entered without permission of the lessee or other title holder.
However I would think that the entire easement of a public road would be accessible to the public for reasonable purposes, such as parking a vehicle off the pavement in areas where no Armco type barriers are provided.
I would also assume that the fences installed by the highway authority marked the edge of the easement, and that they could build road on any part of that easement to meet traffic demands.
There is a vaguely similar bridge on the "Golden Highway" (so named because it links a number of long depated gold mines). This area recently had a third track added on a steep grade and the additional track was given an easier grade than the former double track, and is in a deeper section of cutting.
A new longer bridge was required for the new third track. The new bridge was located east of the old bridge. This left a stub of the former pavement heading toward the cutting.
This is a popular spot for railfans, owing to good lighting in the early afternoon and a view of the three tracks making a reverse curve with mountains in the background, and frequent coal trains. A shot from this location is on the cover of the second edition of my book "An Australian Locomotive Guide" which can presumably be found by your favourite search engine.
Certainly there are no concerns from the track authority, the train operators, the local farmers nor the state police, who use that stretch of road as a trap for speeding motorists, and make no comment to railfans standing or parked behind the Armco.
The bridge is a little wider than that at Abo Canyon, and there is a hump which means that cars (and trucks) approaching from the north east can't be seen, and can't see photographers on the bridge when photographing westbound trains descending the grade.
But certainly, local authorities have no objection to railfans making use of the whole road easement, made more convenient by the bypassed pavement.
I sometimes stand on the bridge, particularly if two trains are climbing the grade together and the nearer train is leading, to get a clear shot of the second train.
Getting two trains climbing and one descending is possible but doesn't happen often...
My attempt to use Google gave this result:
https://www.google.com.au/maps/place/Golden+Hwy,+Singleton+Military+Area+NSW+2330/@-32.6419895,151.2271707,62m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x6b0c1ea7e7551fef:0xce4b489b2e527b75!8m2!3d-32.6366145!4d151.1906719
Sadly this shows two tracks and the old bridge, at least five years ago..
So, I would be very surprised if anyone, landowner or police, objected to someone standing on the embankment outside the Armco, and I believe this would be much safer than standing on the Abo Canyon bridge. As I've said, there is no grass in that particular area for snakes to hide in (although they might want to sun themselves there)
As I've said before walking (carefully) on the road side of the Armco might be less annoying to local reptiles, but the cars are more dangerous than the snakes.
M636C MidlandMike My understanding is that the landowner actually owns the road ROW, and that the highway dept and public only has an easement to use the ROW for transportation. Traveled portion includes breakdown shoulder, sidewalks, etc. The public does not have the privilege of wandering just anywhere within 33' of the centerline, as I understand. As I posted earlier, it looks as though Route 60 was redirected as part of the second track construction, although this may have occurred earlier than the track construction. However, in the area of the bridge over the BNSF line, there are clear fence lines both sides of Route 60, presumably installed by the highway authorities. There does not appear to be a clear fence line north and east of the bridge where there is a roadway that leads to a farmhouse and to the BNSF track. It would be logical that this is a private road not accessible to the public. However on the west side of Route 60 there are two roads leading to the BNSF track which are clearly on the highway side of the property fences, and these could be regarded as rights of way as far as gates to the BNSF right of way, ie vehicles other than BNSF vehicles could use the roadway as far as the gate to BNSF property as long as they did not impede access by BNSF vehicles, since they are travelled portions of road outside property boundaries. I don't think BNSF would claim that the four feet or so of embankment top on the non road side of the Armco barriers belong to them, but rather to the highway authorities who constructed the embankment and might use that area if the bridge needed to be widened, for example. ...
...
I finally looked at the Googlr Earth image of this bridge. First, I know the highway dept will fence the ROW of a limited access expressway. I am unaware that they fence any other highways or roads. Generally the cattle owner fences to control the cattle. But who knows, maybe NM ranchers have a sweet deal with the highways? On US Route 60, the "ROW" between the fences is 200' wide. The highway is apparently offset from center, possibly to leave room for an eventual divided 4 lane highway. I don't see any deviation in this pattern to indicate the highway was realigned at the bridge.
On the NE quadrant the fence appears to be along the east side of the access road, and then makes a 90 deg turn to the east (at the point where 2 dark lines indicate a double swing gate left open) and then the fence parallels the RR on the north side.
I believe the access roads on the north side of the highway, on both sides of the bridge are maintained by BNSF for their own use, and would not want the liability of some one else traveling on their access road. They might have exclusive easement, and I do not see any implied right for a private vehicle to travel on that road.
Along the highway, as I have said before, cars could use the shoulders as a breakdown lane, and I don't think anyone cares if you just stop to eat your lunch. BNSF might not care if you walked along the top of the embankment well above their access road. However, if you were smoking, and a rancher saw you, you should expect a confrontation, as he sees you as a brush fire threat.
Looking at Streetview, I see that the Google car was the only one on the highway as far as you can see for miles. It looks like for much of the time you could stop on the bridge to take your picture.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.