The Rochelle, IL crossing (w/ the webcam) is eerily like Colton Tower in Colton, CA (later Colton Crossing) of a half century ago! Thereat, UP trains used to pick up transfers from the Southern Pacific, and the crossing was blocked for a half hour to an hour! Today, the same thing happens at Rochelle. One would think planners would have foreseen the crossing being blocked and would have avoided that. Or was the game plan maybe to get Federal funds sometime down the road and build a Rochelle Flyover, with the BNSF maybe going over the UP? Your comments, please …
Locations like Rochelle were formed in the middle of the 19th Century by financially struggling carriers. There was no Plan for Federal Funds, especially in the years before Lincoln launched the encouragement and funding for a transcontinental railroad line. The geography of Illinois would make any form of a 'flyover' a very expensive undertaking and require miles of grade elevation changes to not make the flyover into a mountain grade in the middle of nominally level ground.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Elevating either line through Rochelle would be an issue, as they essentially run right through the middle of the city.
Running a bypass around town might actually be cheaper, with BNSF the choice, in my mind. The local traffic in Rochelle that BNSF handles could be done with stubs.
Back when many lines were built, they really didn't interfere with much of anything. Trains were shorter, and likely less frequent.
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...
The actual 'flyover' could be fairly short, as this is essentially freight-only and the actual 'peak' portion of the train that would actually have to be 'restarted' is relatively short -- even easier to handle with AC power and DPU at what might involve only a couple of minutes of longer trip time. There are comparable bridges on the ex-Southern at the east end of White Siding (over Ridgeway Rd.) and on the ex-NKP over the Bayfront Connector in Erie, PA; there are surely many other comparable examples involving stack-train clearance.
The question is: "In the absence of lavish government grants, how much would a flyover cost vs. continued maintenance of a diamond crossing with speed restriction'. And I suspect the absence of any railroad discussion may indicate such a question has already been considered...
OvermodThe actual 'flyover' could be fairly short, as this is essentially freight-only and the actual 'peak' portion of the train that would actually have to be 'restarted' is relatively short -- even easier to handle with AC power and DPU at what might involve only a couple of minutes of longer trip time. There are comparable bridges on the ex-Southern at the east end of White Siding (over Ridgeway Rd.) and on the ex-NKP over the Bayfront Connector in Erie, PA; there are surely many other comparable examples involving stack-train clearance. The question is: "In the absence of lavish government grants, how much would a flyover cost vs. continued maintenance of a diamond crossing with speed restriction'. And I suspect the absence of any railroad discussion may indicate such a question has already been considered...
There has to be at least 25 feet of clearance above the top of the rail of which ever carrier is on the lower level.
I don't know what the ruling grades are on either the BNSF or the UP lines through Rochelle are. My experience with the B&O from Willard, OH to Chicago the maximum grade is 0.3%. I would guesstimate the the grades on the BNSF and UP are similar. Gaining 25 feet with a 0.4% grade would require over 6200 feet - up one side and down the other so something approaching three miles in total. I don't know the width of the carriers rights of way through Rochelle are, however, if track has to be raised to be at least 25 feet over the other carrier, the width of the 'fill' to support the track will be wider than the current track footprint.
As someone that spends quite a few days a year in Rochelle there is NO WAY to make this work in Rochelle. In order to get the required clearence the BNSF or UP would have to buy out most of the old downtown area and several neighborhoods to get the required right of way for the fill required. Also they do come thru here at least on the BNSF at 40MPH and unless UP is going into or coming out of Global 3 they are moving at a good clip normally.
Here is a video of the BNSF Truxton AZ flyover that might be informative:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=trGcWhjMgwU&pp=ygUPVHJ1eHRvbiBmbHlvdmVy
There's an in-town highway bridge (old hwy 51) just east of the crossing which bridges both railroads. It was built to eliminate constant backups waiting for trains. Just don't see a flyover there ever happening.
GrampThere's an in-town highway bridge (old hwy 51) just east of the crossing which bridges both railroads. It was built to eliminate constant backups waiting for trains. Just don't see a flyover there ever happening.
Highway bridges can have much steeper grades than railroad crossings can. Even with that it takes a lot of ground to get a highway over 25 feet above the top of the rail of a railroad - when it is done in an area of nominally level terrain.
Most overpasses are built with a 4 to 5 percent grade to get over a obstacle like a road or railroad. So if you are wanting 25 feet before a railroad about 500 600 feet would do for a state route. For a street one they will go as high as 7 to 8 percent to between 350 to just over 300 feet to get the needed height. We have one in town here that does it in 350 feet to clear the BNSF transcon.
Take a look at Google or Apple Maps satellite view. The highway bridge is Seventh St. and spans three to four blocks including the rrs., with the Kyte River (creek) just south of where the south highway ramp starts to climb. Have driven through Rochelle (The Hub City) many times both before and after the highway bridge was built and I-39 was put in. Often used to be a hassle to drive through Rochelle in the "old" days.
Shadow the Cats owner:
Is the cat’s owner scary?
Seriously, I am not sure how to take your post. I’ve cursory reviewed the BNSF line in Rochelle, and it appears a flyover there would work. In the last couple of decades, I’ve seen so many flyovers built that your difficulty alarm baffles me. Please elaborate more and enlighten me!
Thanks.
croteauddShadow the Cats owner: Is the cat’s owner scary? Seriously, I am not sure how to take your post. I’ve cursory reviewed the BNSF line in Rochelle, and it appears a flyover there would work. In the last couple of decades, I’ve seen so many flyovers built that your difficulty alarm baffles me. Please elaborate more and enlighten me! Thanks.
Flyovers FOR RAILROADS require much longer 'run up and run down' than do highway grade separation flyovers. While you can get away with a 4% or greater grade with highways - YOU CAN'T with railroads. Additionally highway flyover only need to have on the order of 15 feet of separation. A railroad flyover requires 25 feet at a minimum.
I suspect the carriers at Rochelle have ruling grades of less than One Half of One Percent - ie. six inches or less elevation deviation over a span of 100 feet. With that level of grade - the run up and run down become quite lengthy - especially when you are talking about an inhabited area. The carriers would not accept any construction that would increase the ruling grade for the territory.
If we take a couple of numbers to heart, 0.5% ruling grade, 25 feet of headroom, which probably means an actual rise of 30 feet (or more), then the run to the bridge is 6,000' plus additional distance for vertical spirals. (Muddyfeathers could probably elaborate on that very arcane subject.)
My cursory review of Rochelle sees problems on the east side of the crossing in several areas. There are several crossings at grade that become problematic with respect to getting buy-in from Rochelle itself. Also, there is the 7th Street viaduct over the present lines. Finally, there is not a lot of “elbow room” on the eastern reaches of the run-up all the way out and some restrictions of said “elbow room” to the east.
Finally, there is the issue of “can you build the flyover and keep the line open while doing so” to consider.
I suspect that all of those questions have been answered already to the satisfaction of BNSF.
Also you can forget about digging down a trenching run. Rochelle has way to many local customers that require service so that can not happen. So basically you can not go up due to the town and going down due to their customers. Also going down your talking about relocating how many buried ultilities.
ChuckCobleighFinally, there is the issue of “can you build the flyover and keep the line open while doing so” to consider.
This is one reason why I suggest that the solution, if a flyover is to be built, is to go around Rochelle on the southwest side. The necessary 12,000 feet for the whole project would not be a problem with that approach.
Shadow the Cats ownerAlso you can forget about digging down a trenching run.
What's the water table in the affected area?
Overmod Shadow the Cats owner Also you can forget about digging down a trenching run. You didn't mention the real kicker: drainage. How often does it storm in Rochelle? Be sure trash doesn't accoumulate to clog the pumps, too... What's the water table in the affected area?
Shadow the Cats owner Also you can forget about digging down a trenching run.
You didn't mention the real kicker: drainage. How often does it storm in Rochelle? Be sure trash doesn't accoumulate to clog the pumps, too...
CSX in increasing clearance through the Howard Street Tunnel in Baltimore dug the floor of the tunnel deeper. When I was ATM in Baltimore the maximum allowed height was 17'5" at 10 MPH and 17'3" at track speed of 25 MPH. Subsequently CSX increased the clearance to 19'2". In doing so, the tunnel is now subject to flooding at its West End in the vicinity of Camden Station which is located about 4 blocks from Balttimore's Inner Harbor - which defines Sea Level. The reality is that the West End of the tunnel is actually below Sea Level; the current project to increase clearance to 20'2" for double stacks will not help the situation.
Yes there are pumps in the vicintiy of the West End of the tunnel to pump out excess water, the problem is at times of Severe Thunderstorms that create the excess water - there is no place to pump the water to - somewhat like trying to bail one side of a chain link fence on to the other side of the same fence.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.