mvsDoesn't Metrolink now own -- or at least dispatch -- the former SP branch line between Baldwin Park and Azusa?
Busted! Looking through my APTT, it appears that SCRRA (Metrolink) Does own the branch mentioned above - now called the Azusa Industrial Lead. Surprisingly, Google Maps shows some cars next to Cactus Mat Manufacturing and Veolia in Azusa. UP has trackage rights but I've yet to find confirmation that they are using them.
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! ***
MikeF90Brain cramp update - @mvs suggested the use of the isolated UP branch to serve Miller/Coors. Since UP hates locals, they have no interest in maintaining the branch for service. If they did want to provide the service (heh heh) it would have to originate downtown (J-yard? Fourth St?) then run over the Metrolink River sub, then the Al sub to Bassett, then onto Metrolink again. Yah, sure, they'd love to do that.
Doesn't Metrolink now own -- or at least dispatch -- the former SP branch line between Baldwin Park and Azusa?
K. P. HarrierWhat are the powers that be going to do?
The latest plan (link) is to move the Metrolink platform east of College Ave and change to center platforms; the ex-AT&SF ROW is wider there and both sets of tracks can hug the edges. Away from the platforms, the freight/Metrolink tracks probably would be on 16 foot centers and the light rail less than that. Remembering the AT&SF days, I'm always amazed to see two tracks when I ride the line between those buildings in old town Pasadena.
Brain cramp update - @mvs suggested the use of the isolated UP branch to serve Miller/Coors. Since UP hates locals, they have no interest in maintaining the branch for service. If they did want to provide the service (heh heh) it would have to originate downtown (J-yard? Fourth St?) then run over the Metrolink River sub, then the Al sub to Bassett, then onto Metrolink again. Yah, sure, they'd love to do that.
About Claremont
Mention has been made that the right-of-way is wide east out of Pomona. Rightfully so, because it just wasn’t one railroad, but two, the AT&SF and PE (SP) lines were side by side. What baffles K.P. is the Claremont stop area. There are TWO tracks now, with maybe room for another, for a total of three. To have the Gold Line come through, there would have to be two more tracks, for four altogether! But, I don’t see room for four.
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0939285,-117.7163966,199m/data=!3m1!1e3
What are the powers that be going to do?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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.
Mike and JR, you two both are correct -- I just think, looking back, that was a wasted effort.
(In other words, it would have been less expensive to have the right-of-way be exclusively Gold Line, and grant BNSF trackage rights on Metrolink westward from Pomona to Baldwin Park; then BNSF would get trackage rights on the old SP Azusa branch.)
mvsAs for the Gold Line Phase 2B to Montclair... at what point does the BNSF service to the Miller Brewing in Irwindale get "rerouted" via Metrolink to Azusa, then up the old SP branch? It seems silly to have the extra right-of-way for freight bypass.
If I understand you correctly, BNSF will use the remainder of their line (now the MLNK Pasadena sub) where it splits off at CP Cambridge (near Cambridge Ave in Claremont). That CP is near where the ex-PE and ex-ATSF lines crossed. BNSF does not and will not use the UP branch that runs by the east edge of the Miller-Coors plant in Irwindale.
Apparently the ex-ATSF ROW through downtown Claremont is wide enough to support two LR tracks and two Metrolink tracks. Heck, BNSF squeezed three tracks onto their narrow (50 ft?) ROW in Fullerton.
MikeF90UPDATE - Looking forward a little too far in the future perhaps, the new Ontario Airport authority is set to finalize transfer of the airport from LAWA for November 1: http://www.dailybulletin.com/business/20161003/ontario-airport-authority-gears-up-for-takeover?source=most_viewed If the new authority can get passenger traffic to grow (hopefully to level off LAX) light rail might be extended to ONT eventually. K.P.'s grandkids will have to cover that ....
http://www.dailybulletin.com/business/20161003/ontario-airport-authority-gears-up-for-takeover?source=most_viewed
If the new authority can get passenger traffic to grow (hopefully to level off LAX) light rail might be extended to ONT eventually. K.P.'s grandkids will have to cover that ....
I'm glad that ONT is returning to local control. I live close to BUR, and prefer to fly out of BUR, but I'll make the drive to ONT before I set foot at LAX.
As for the Gold Line Phase 2B to Montclair... at what point does the BNSF service to the Miller Brewing in Irwindale get "rerouted" via Metrolink to Azusa, then up the old SP branch? It seems silly to have the extra right-of-way for freight bypass.
K.P. will be glad to know that the Citrus Avenue extension in Glendora is now open:
http://www.citruscollege.edu/pio/NewsRoom/Pages/default.aspx
http://www.sgvtribune.com/general-news/20160919/you-can-finally-walk-bike-or-drive-directly-to-and-from-the-gold-line-station-near-apu-citrus-college
http://www.dailybulletin.com/general-news/20160930/heres-a-glimpse-of-what-the-gold-line-train-from-glendora-to-montclair-will-look-like
Much more direct access from I-210 to the APU/Citrus College station and parking lot is now possible.
UPDATE - Looking forward a little too far in the future perhaps, the new Ontario Airport authority is set to finalize transfer of the airport from LAWA for November 1:
The extension is doing well. Station at Irwindale Avenue has a full parking lot during the week. There is nothing around the station other than industrial buildings and the Miller Brewery.
I rode the Gold Line home to Pasadena last Sunday after the Dodger game and the trains were filled.
A Crossing Gates Show
California Ave.
Monrovia, CA
Part “D” (of A-D)
And, on and on the show goes. Red, green, red, green, and …
That signal goes to red when pasted, and back to green when the light rail set gets sufficiently ahead. Red, green, red, green … The middle light, assumedly yellow, is never seen.
There are signals the other way, east, too.
When first arriving, an eye-catching signaled track caught the eye, with painted lines as if an extension of the track.
Assumedly, that is for car delivery, possibly trucked to the site, lined up with the track, and lowered unto it. It wouldn’t seem that signal would be used very much ..
Some signals are used often, other hardly used. And, the crossing gates get flexed super often. Great show at California Ave. in Monrovia!
This will conclude the series.
Part “C” (of A-D)
On the south side of the tracks, another set comes, heading outbound.
A signal is seen, displaying green.
Back on the north side of the tracks, an inbound soon comes.
Continued in Part D
Part “B” (of A-D)
The gates go up and things are quiet. Then, they start clanging again, and arms come down, all at a different timing sequence.
Above, there are the (1) normal vehicle traffic flow gates, (2) pedestrian gates, and (3) reverse traffic flow gates that come down last.
And another Gold Line train zooms by.
Earlier, with a bit better light, the pattern was seen often.
Continued in Part C
Part “A” (of A-D)
In Monrovia, on the north-south California Ave. grade crossing at the cross street Duarte Road, the Gold Line Foothill Extension crossing gates put on quite a show. With catenary overhead, the crossing gates start clanging, red lights flash, and gates come down.
If one was to be right next to the tracks and look both ways, one would see no train approaching. The gates stay down. And stay down. And stay down. Finally, the gray Gold Line cars come zooming by!
But, after the inbound cars go by, the gates stay down! And stay down. And stay down. Finally, an outbound light rail set zooms by in lowering light, so low light that the speedy train set is semi-blurred.
The light is being so lacking the camera captures a blurred number, and the new yellow decorated set remains unidentified.
Continued in Part B
K. P. HarrierAll during the visit one sees a steady flow of equipment passing, whether it was in Irwindale, Duarte, or Arcadia.
That's what riders want to see - regular and rapid transportation. BTW the opening of the Citrus Ave extension is anticipated for the September 2016 timeframe.
The near absence of the new P3010 cars from your photos has been noted elsewhere. Metro needs to explain what is going on.
For reference, a list of Metro rolling stock: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_Metro_Rail_rolling_stock
The Speed Demon Hot Rod Express
Irwindale-Arcadia, CA
Part VI (of I-VI)
Santa Clara St. & First Ave.
Arcadia
The station stop is diagonal, so designers had little choice but putting in a park-like arrangement on the south side.
A final view, an inbound arrives. Note the lower headlights. The camera caught only one on, but the alternate flashes right and left and right and left …
All during the visit one sees a steady flow of equipment passing, whether it was in Irwindale, Duarte, or Arcadia.
This will end the series.
Part V (of I-VI)
The Arcadia stop is on that ex-AT&SF track that goes diagonally through the intersection.
An inbound comes along.
Another outbound shows up and then leaves.
Continued in Part VI
Part IV (of I-VI)
At first arrival in Arcadia, an outbound shows up.
A half a block to the west is this stop’s parking structure.
The Arcadia stop.
Continued in Part V
Part III (of I-VI)
In the Mountain Ave. Area
Duarte
In Duarte, east of Mountain Ave. looking west (or inbound):
Above, note the pot-like signal on the right, lit green on the lower position.
An inbound comes and takes the green signal.
Once that light rail movement was ahead, the signal went from red to green again.
An outbound comes and K.P.’s hair gets ruffled!
Continued in Part IV
Part II (of I-VI)
Irwindale
On the west side of Irwindale Blvd., south of all the tracks, is a new parking structure.
Up on the Irwindale Blvd. overpass a westward inbound view. BNSF tracks are on the left, Metro’s tracks are in the center.
An inbound arrives.
Continued in Part III
Part I (of I-VI)
To set the stage for the findings on the Gold Line Foothill Extension visit of Saturday, June 25, 2016, this Mountain Ave.-Duarte Road scene is shown. The rod iron fencing made a safe demarcation between the public sidewalk area and the tracks, where an electrified light rail set came zooming quietly by at speed, probably 50 M.P.H.
Speed demon hot rod express is an apt description, as the three areas of this visit – Irwindale, Duarte, and Arcadia -- found such speedy operations a common thread or similarity.
At Irwindale, boarding is across the tracks, both the BNSF and Gold Line.
The BNSF single-track track is probably once a day arrival and return from this end of the line area, while the two-track Foothill Extension sees movements basically all day, except overnight.
Continued in Part II
A Brief Revisiting of the New Foothill Extension …
… to Further See the New Operations
On Saturday, June 25, 2016 the new Foothill Extension was passed by and a few locations were photographed, such as the Irwindale stop.
Did you notice the main photo composition’s train is larger than the one on the far right? The inbound and outbound light rail train sets tend to generally meet at the Irwindale stop, at least when this forumist was present.
A number of minutes was spend at the Irwindale stop, and quite a few photos taken, including the very near by rider’s parking structure.
A few photos will be prepared for a presentation to the forum in the next few days.
081552Amazing that the Irwindale parking lot is full on weekdays. I thought this station would be a bust because there's nothing around it except the 210 freeway, gravel pits, and industrial buildings.
The Irwindale station is the closest one to I-210, so no doubt commuters are bailing off of the freeway there to hop on the Gold Line.
Commuters have been complaining loudly on Metro's The Source blog about the shortage of parking. Some action is being taken by Metro to 'reclassify' some of the spaces that they control (like in downtown Azusa).
The shortage of cars on the Gold and Expo lines has discouraged some ridership. Later this year when the Citrus Ave connection in Azusa is complete, more parking frustration could ensue. Time will tell.
Meanwhile SANBAG and Omnitrans aren't doing squat to help their own westbound commuters. Not many decent jobs in downtown San Berdoozy.
Amazing that the Irwindale parking lot is full on weekdays. I thought this station would be a bust because there's nothing around it except the 210 freeway, gravel pits, and industrial buildings.
Foothill Transit's neighboring bus lines have been impacted by the opening of the Gold Line. Route 690, the commuter line to Pasadena is being cut back to change into a rail-feeder route.
DragomanOn the subject of requiring a fare to be on the platform, could that be considered (for those not actually traveling) some sort of "platform fee"? Like a small charge for the ability to take pictures. Didn't some railroads somewhere use to charge a small fee for a "visitor pass" to access the platform when seeing off paying passengers?
British Rail once sold "Platform" passes.
MikeF90Limited non-commercial photography is allowed for the price of a ticket.
Put that way, and so simply, makes me embarrassed for all the constitutional-rights carrying on.
Metro's photography and filming guidelines are here:
https://www.metro.net/about/filming-metro/metro-filming-photography-guidelines/
Limited non-commercial photography is allowed for the price of a ticket.
Once, at least 10-15 years ago, I had flown into Burbank Airport, intending to then catch a train to downtown LA. Just as I was getting to the platform a Metrolink train was arriving, so I didn't think I'd have time to pick up a ticket at the (to me) unfamiliar machine. So, I figured I'd jump on the train and buy a ticket from the conductor, even if it incurred an extra charge, as I had done on occasion on Caltrain and Amtrak.
Well, once the train is moving, here comes what I thought was the conductor. Nope, it was a fare inspector, who proceeds to read me the riot act and threatens a $250 fine for fare evasion. I explained that I was from Northern California, where the rail systems allow on-board ticket purchases, had no intent to evade, etc.
Finally, he said he would let me go "this time", but I needed to go and buy a ticket upon arrival at LA Union Station (to make up for the fare I hadn't paid)!
Always paid more attention after that.
J. BishopThe Penal Code is the Penal Code, there are no "versions."
When I used the term "versions" I was referring to the way the Web sites presented the code for review -- in other words, the clickable interface, the way the site rendered the text, the presence or absence of hyperlinks to different sections, etc. -- and not the underlying codes themselves.
There is no question that "the code is the code" and that the current revision is the basis of applicable law enforcement. The question lies only in whether we are reading the current revision accurately when we use a particular online site -- even a site nominally provided by a California government agency or entity.
(By the way, it appears that 'loitering' could not be applied to KP for a couple of reasons. It is explicltly noted in the Admin Code itself that the relevant section of PEN is 647(h), which in California would need to be noted on the red sign to be applicable as notice. And in section 647(h) itself, we read
As used in this subdivision, “loiter” means to delay or linger without a lawful purpose for being on the property and for the purpose of committing a crime as opportunity may be discovered.
Note that this says "and" and not "or", a very significant word. In other words, if no actual criminal intent is present, an attempt to eject KP -- let alone issue him an actionable Notice of Violation (which I take to be a similar euphemism to 'citation' or 'summons') -- for being on the platform doing railfan photography will result only in KP being able to file charges against the employee(s) involved in particular, and Metro in general...
I look forward to your interpretation of section 640 and the other applicable provisions of other codes, and MTA title 6. In the meantime, do you have a link to a copy of the 'Metro penalty schedule' referenced in Admin Code 6-05-240(C)(2) et seq.?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.