Hoping to post some pix from a recent trip to Texas on I-10, much of which
parallels I-20. Having issues with photos. Sorry.
John Timm
longhorn1969 (7-17):
It is hibernation time for me, and I don’t like being woke up! GROWL!
Kidding aside, it is super questionable that anyone will answer your question here at the forum, at least not authoritatively. Top speeds are 79 M.P.H. for passenger, and 70 M.P.H. for freight, at least from Los Angeles, CA to El Paso, TX. The problem is that there are all kinds of speed restrictions in between. Take for example the going over the Colorado River Bridge between Arizona and California. That stretch is limited to 25 M.P.H. for both passenger and freight. So, while your question is a good one, it is almost impossible to answer.
You may want to get a ‘Railfan Timetable,’ as what you want is often in such. Old employee timetables sometimes can be purchased, or maybe a railroad employee that you might know can be of help.
Glad you had a safe trip,
K.P.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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.
Just finished a road trip from Texas to Arizona rountrip, and I notice a number of UP stack and manifest trains from El Paso to just north of Tuscon. What is the speed limit for stacks and manifests on the UP on this stretch?
I know this UP's transcon route, and the number trains moving right behind each other was impressive. Looked to be a three or four mile separation.
Interesting to see UP run a unit or two on the rear of even lowly manifest trains.
jmonier (7-15):
What you were trying to say is becoming clearer and clearer.
Just a thought on the Pomona Diversion and Temple Ave.: Temple Ave. was not the only grade crossing eliminated. The one at Pomona Ave. was eliminated too, though the vehicle traffic flow thereon is much, much less, two lanes vs. six.
One of the things I encourage is for posters to be theme conscious. In other words, what is brought up should, in this thread’s case, be related to two-tracking of the Sunset Route in some way. Admittedly, I stretch things sometimes, but when I do I try to explain or make a connection to the theme. Such was the case in reviewing the signals off the Sunset Route on the Mojave Sub, and the new and old type masts recently installed thereon and what they may mean. In Arizona, the new type signals are likewise being installed. But, in that case, equilateral switches seem (“seem”) to be being replaced with standard turnouts, switch types more to UP’s liking. The connection to the overall theme of two-tracking is that that does not bode well for further two-tracking in Arizona, but we will have to see what develops, if anything.
From Pomona to Los Angeles on the Alhambra Sub, CTC sidings are often occupied with Intermodal cars or whatever. So, it seems UP would have little interest in that line, especially now. This past Sunday I was trackside in the Bassett-City of Industry area. Below is a photo of the Basset siding occupied with engineless freight cars, those freight cars were cut for a grade crossing or two way in the background.
(More of this past Sunday K.P. photos of the City of Industry area, the “Up and Over,” and the San Gabriel Trench are elsewhere on the Internet.)
The Walnut siding likewise had engineless cars in it, this time Intermodal well-cars. I did not see the El Monte siding, so am unaware if it too was occupied or not.
Whatever we post, theme consciousness goes a long way towards promoting peace and harmony at the forum.
MikeF90:
I think it was you that brought up perhaps making the abandoned shoofly right-of-way for the San Gabriel Trench a walkway-bike path. When I was there Sunday, I photographed the shootfly right-of-way west of Walnut Grove Ave., and it was blocked with fencing or made impractical with slanted dirt so it could not be used as a walkway-bike path.
Hibernation
I’m going into hibernation for a while at this forum.
Take care all,
KP: Well, you're certainly right about people seeing things differently. I'm really at a loss to understand how you could possibly think that ANYONE who frequents this forum could confuse the Sunset Route with the Coast Line. Actually, I don't even understand the context in which the Sunset Route is applicable to this discussion (other than the fact that the Alhambra Sub is part of the historical Sunset Route).
As far as traffic on the Coast Route, you might be surprised. Certainly through traffic is mostly limited to the Oil Cans and auto rack repos (both of which would not use the Alhambra Sub). But, I said LOCAL traffic.
There is actually quite a bit of local traffic, especially from the Port Hueneme/Oxnard area with a daily local (it might surprise you to know that Port Hueneme is a major port-of-entry for automobiles from both Europe and Asia). There is also a 3 times-a-week local that goes as far as Guadalupe.
I did not mean to imply that this traffic is a major part of the Alhambra Sub traffic, but even one train a day that has to wait for long periods at CP Main St (Yuma Jct) for access to the East Bank (if the Alhambra Sub is not available) can add significantly to the congestion in the area. (Note that 50 Metrolink trains a day either cross the East Bank line or use it for its' entire length.)
Looks like the bridge has been decorated ...
jmonier (7-12):
Now, that was a good explanation, and it made so much sense. Thanks. I more or less agree with you.
About “Coast” traffic, I sense we might be thinking about two different things. My reference to Coast traffic was the UP LINE up through Ventura, Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo, and up to the Bay Area, traditionally understood among western railroaders and railfans as the Coast Line. There is very, very little freight traffic on it. That traffic is inconsequential to activity in downtown Los Angeles. I suspect you were thinking of traffic on the southern corridor, or the Sunset Route, like through El Paso, Tucson, Los Angeles and its ports, and not as described in the paragraph above.
My intention was NOT in any way meant to be condescending, but when things don’t make sense to me I’ve found so often that people are seeing things under different definitions and meanings. It is amazing how unity comes when everyone is thinking alike and has the same definitions.
Take care,
KP: I'm sorry, but you seem to have missed the point completely. My original post was in response to a post that implied that taxpayer money was wasted because the 4th track is not being put in. I was attempting to point out that there was no connection between the 4th track and the taxpayer involvement.
I don't know exactly how the design process proceeded and how the 4th track fit into that, but I DO know that there was no thought of a 4th track as the project was initially conceived.
I was trying to make the point that, as originally conceived, this was NOT a multi-tracking project. It was a GRADE CROSSING ELIMINATION project to eliminate a grade crossing at Temple Ave on the Alhambra Sub.
Normally this would have been done by building a bridge over (or under) the tracks at Temple Ave. But, someone figured out that the Alhambra Sub was quite close to the LA Sub where there was already a bridge at Temple Ave, and that the same objective could be achieved, at a lower cost, by moving the Alhambra Sub track to be adjacent to the LA Sub. Note that this really not a 3rd track for the LA Sub because it is actually still the Alhambra Sub. So far the taxpayers are getting what they paid for and the only thing that the UP gets is one less grade crossing to maintain.
Now, when the UP decides that it wants an additional track (over and above those adready mentioned) that is really a separate project paid for by the UP and is only combined with the original project because of the cost savings. So, even though construction of the two projects was integrated, financially they are separate, with the taxpayers paying for one roadbed and the UP paying for the other. Thus, if the UP decides not to lay the additional (4th) track, it's their money and the taxpayers do not lose (or gain) anything by that decision.
As far as routing Coast traffic (which is actually fairly substantial), I found your response to be condescending, in that you gave no thought to the idea that I might already know that it was possible to route via the East Bank. If you are familiar with that area, you will know that it can be quite congested (especially with the Metrolink SB Line crossing it many times every day) and thus there are considerable advantages to going via the Alhambra Sub.
It looks from the photo like there were containers in the middle of trailers before and behind the trailers.
Not sure if that means anything. Just an observation.
jmonier (7-10):
Thanks for getting back to me quickly, but that getting back left me just as confused as before.
Let me convey a scenario and perhaps you could tell me if I interpreted correctly what you were trying to say.
The Pomona Diversion was originally designed to be structurally WIDE enough for four tracks, though only three tracks would actually be laid in it, two for the Los Angeles Sub (LA&SL) and one for the Alhambra Sub (SP).
Then, a light came on in someone’s head at UP, and they figured they would lay a fourth track. UNFORTUNATELY, while the Diversion was built wide enough for four tracks, if UP laid a fourth track they would have NO access road for maintenance-of-way type vehicles. So, in recent times they went back to the original idea, and went with three tracks.
IF (“if”) that is what happened, someone really screwed up big time, because the Diversion should have been built FIVE tracks wide, for four tracks and a maintenance-of-way road!
Was that the scenario you were trying to say, jmonier?
For your information, jmonier, the little train traffic there is on the Coast has TWO routes east (like to West Colton Yard), the Alhambra Sub and the Los Angeles Sub to Pomona. UP NO LONGER OWNS the short section in Los Angeles between the Alhambra Sub and the Los Angeles Sub, SO, there is little incentive to improve the Alhambra Sub. And, what is seen visually bares that out: The Alhambra Sub sidings are often stuffed with stored intermodal cars for days at a time. Metrolink down the 10 Freeway between El Monte and Los Angeles (that UP has trackage rights on) can’t realistically two-track its line, so K.P. envision Metrolink buying part of the Alhamba Sub someday and laying another track, like through the San Gabriel trench. Time will tell, though
Since the beginning of the Pomona Diversion, there have been FOUR assembled turnouts sitting trackside, by CP C028 SPADRA. Two wood tied, two concrete tied. The two wood tied ones are in service now with the reroute in effect. The two concrete tied ones are still uninstalled trackside. Maybe they will just replace the two wood tied ones when the Alhambra Sub in the Pomona area is converted to concrete ties (in the Diversion). OR, as MikeF90 brought up previously, the Los Angeles Sub might be triple-tracked, and a fourth branching off track will shoot off the “C” Track as the “D” track on the Alhambra Sub. Now, that would be a radical departure from what we have expected for years now.
The CP to watch now is CP AL514 HAMILTON at the east end of the Diversion, in downtown Pomona. The present NEW arrangement there will have yet super radical changes to it in the future. Things surely will become much clearer as those super radical changes present themselves!
To All:
For the followers of this thread, except for replying to a few loose ends (like this post), I’ve basically gone elsewhere on the Internet. I’ll probably be back every once and a while, though. Searching the Internet for “Sunset Route Two-Tracking Updates” and the word “railroad” one might come across this Sunset Route two-tracking updater … Otherwise, I hope everyone stays safe and healthy!
Best,
KP: As a result of your reply, I realized that what I wrote was confusing and sent a somewhat different message than what I was intending.
Changes (sometimes major changes) are made to contracts such as this during construction without requiring the stoppage of construction or complete redrawing of the plans. But, I realize that I had no basis for saying that this change DID occur during actual construction (although it may have).
What I do know is that the project was initially drawn up as strictly a grade crossing elimination project. As such, the railroad operational benefit was minor and no different than any other project of the sort. This would be reflected in the railroad financial participation which would be minimal (typically 10% for projects of this sort).
Basically, in the original concept, the track arrangement did not change operationally at all. The Alhambra Sub track would simply be adjacent to the 2 LA Sub tracks rather than a little north of them. The ACE project was never justified on the basis of any railroad operational benefit.
Sometime while or after the original project went into detailed design the UP must have realized that it would provide an opportunity for them to get a fourth track in this area for only the incremental cost of adding it to the project, and that it was worthwhile for them to spend that money now, rather spending quite a bit more money in the future. So that was not part of any immediate plan for the area, just some intelligent forethought (and I realize that the railroads are not known for doing this normally).
The original concept for the project was to put in a roadbed for the Alhambra Sub track next to the 2 LA Sub tracks. There was no provision for the 4th track in the original project. That was only added (and paid for by) the UP and consisted of the roadbed construction and trackwork, not just "signals and other electrical matters". I must emphasize this since you seem to be assuming that it was a 4 track project from the beginning and that is simply not true.
So, I think that in speculating what this project means in terms of UP near and far term planning you're reading too much into it .
I also believe that the Alhambra Sub has a place in the future, not only for traffic from LATC, but from local traffic off the Coast going to West Colton and beyond.
K. P. HarrierPersonally, I think UP is gravitating away from the Alhambra Sub, and will eventually triple-track the Los Angeles Sub.
IMO they have 'gravitated' away from the Alhambra sub since the SP merger. However, since UP still originates and terminates freights at COI and LATC yards they have incentive to keep the Al sub in good shape. With all of the grade crossings adding a second main in some areas would work better than the current runt sidings.
In the 'more bang for the buck' category I agree that more high speed turnouts for CP Hamilton are long overdue. Likewise, adding a second MT between CP North Ontario and CP Sierra would be near the top of my list. We'll see .....
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! ***
ccltrains and Answers about the Trusses!
In response to ccltrain’s inquiry about the truss bridges’ tops on the BNSF Line in the Grand Terrance, CA area (the alternate Sunset Route), on Saturday, July 7, 2018 K.P. had a dispatch deep into Riverside County, and passed those trusses twice while on the I-215 Freeway, the second time he actually sought out a photo area and took photos. Those trusses now have thin wire-like railings, so presumably the railings are for walkways for personnel. The only logical reason K.P. envisions for personnel being on such walkways would be for inspection of a derailment, or to check the structural status of the bridge itself. But, yet there are so many wires seemingly going every which way.
Thanks, ccltrains, for bringing the matter up. Now we all have a photo of what is actually there.
jmonier (7-8): I Don’t Know about That!
Your post, jmonier, was a mouthful, with all kinds of implications. You said: “The fourth track was added during construction at the request of (and paid for by) UP.” “During” suggests that construction stopped for redrawing the blue prints. Did it? The Diversion wasn’t originally three-tracks wide, was it? What you may be saying is that UP decided to add a second-track to the Alhambra Sub during the Diversion’s construction because it was constructed four-tracks wide. Through the passage of time, UP may have come to other construction conclusions, hence, is forgoing a fourth track, at least for now.
UP’s financial contribution to projects seems (“seems”) to be signals and other electrical matters, so if they take contributed signals down, they own them anyway and can do such.
At the Metrolink station stop to the west on the LA&SL, underpass bridging supports are for a north side additional track. That has confused this contributor, because ANOTHER track could be laid in the Spadra area on either the Los Angeles Sub (LA&SL) or the Alhambra Sub (SP). Personally, I think UP is gravitating away from the Alhambra Sub, and will eventually triple-track the Los Angeles Sub. Do you, jmonier, know anything about these possibilities? Curious minds want to know …
Note that the "taxpayer share" was for the original project which was strictly to eliminate the grade crossings at Pomona Blvd and Temple Ave. The fourth track was added during construction at the request of (and paid for by) the UP.
So the "taxpayer share" was not wasted, although they had to wait 8 years to get the benefits due to the complications that arose due to the fourth track.
I want to thank K.P. for posting the above preview of the Al sub diversion status; it diverted me from traveling to Pomona tomorrow where the forecast temp is >110 degrees F !!! (but it's a dry heat ......). I look forward to seeing the new (?) track layout at CP Hamilton.
K. P. HarrierBut, alarmingly, THE RIGHTMOST SIGNAL, for the FOURTH track (our Track D, un-laid), HAS BEEN REMOVED! Thus, there are NO Track D signals anymore, suggesting there won’t be a Track D.
I kinda expected the deferral of installing the fourth track, since the need was forecast over 15 years ago when UP traffic was growing by leaps and bounds; the Great Recession put an end to that. Arguably the taxpayer share spent via the ACE project was wasted, as the benefit of the now closed grade crossings near Cal Poly Pomona is now available.
K. P. HarrierIn investigating other forum outlets, a rather abhorrent posting process at railroad.net was found, where the posting of photos was generally by links. Links? Yes, by links!
No savings whatsoever to end user bandwidth consumption. Only the forum benefits by not resizing and displaying the picture inline. I say continue with the usual forum image 'preview' link, where possible.
Update as of Wednesday, July 4, 2018
The SP-side of the Diversion is Open!
… but there is a Very, Very Bad Omen to it!
Pomona, CA
Part IV (of I-IV)
The old CP AL513 POMONA west eastbound signal still stood while all the other old area signals had been taken down.
From Hamilton Blvd., looking west, a telephoto. Note the SP-track (foreground right) still jogs in the background right.
The present old SP Alhambra Sub 40 M.P.H. half of the universal crossovers, looking west:
The other old half, looking east:
All these switches in the above photo are wood tied, even the 50 M.P.H. far background new one, and likely are all temporary. This CP, when finished, should look very different from what is presently there now.
And, that bad omen, those sudden headless stems … K.P. is uncertain if things have turned for the worse, or another track got delayed, whether on the SP-side or LA&SL-side.
This will conclude the series.
Part III (of I-IV)
South on Humane Way, over the LA&SL and now the new SP, westward views:
Just above, note the stem that once held up a signal head on the right. The wire cabling is still present.
Looking east, the now headless Track D stems, with a utility truck on the never laid Track D alignment:
The once old LA&SL Spada siding (left), now the SP main track in the Diversion reroute, the trackless Main D alignment, and the now SP milepost sign number 512.
Continued in Part IV
Part II (of I-IV)
At Temple Ave. on the joint LA&SL-SP now, a few blown up views:
Just above, the now headless stems are just right of center on both horizon structure bars.
On the old SP-side at Humane Way, an eastbound view of the old west end of the Pomona siding, with the signals now turned aside.
Continued in Part III
Part I (of I-IV)
We start at the far western part of the Diversion, where the SP track gets rerouted over to the LA&SL alignment. The lower left track is the OLD SP line, now severed.
Above, note the LA&SL double-stack train in the background.
Even though it was a Fourth of July Holiday, workers and utility trucks were all over the SP track in Pomona.
This is the old line that was severed, looking eastbound at Pomona Ave.
Note that because of the severed track and broken circuits, the target signals are lit and display red.
Continued in Part II
K.P. Yes my idea of bird proofing the bridge is odd. Usually bird spikes are closer together and only 4-6 inches high. Who knows what the reason for these. Pidgeon droppings tend to whitewash everything and are very corrosive. Maybe they have supersized pidgeons here.
A contact indicated the SP-side of the Diversion in Pomona had been opened to service, as of July 1, 2018. K.P. took advantage of the July 4th holiday, and visited the Diversion to see what had transpired. It was felt the most significant location would be the Temple Ave. overpass, where a westward overlook view of the new CP C028 SPADRA could plainly be seen.
Above, the third track FROM the left, our Track C, is the new SP Alhambra Sub alignment. But, alarmingly, THE RIGHTMOST SIGNAL, for the FOURTH track (our Track D, un-laid), HAS BEEN REMOVED! Thus, there are NO Track D signals anymore, suggesting there won’t be a Track D. But, yet, there are uninstalled concrete tied switches laying trackside right of center in the photo.
Unbelievably, there were plenty of UP track workers working on the July 4th Holiday!
Only 35 photos were taken during the several hours K.P. was in Pomona. He hopes to put together a postings report on his findings. At this point it is unknown if the report can be put together and posted by Friday morning, or if it will have to wait till around 7 A.M. Monday morning (Pacific Daylight Time) for approval.
In Other Matters … Your Opinion Please …
In investigating other forum outlets, a rather abhorrent posting process at railroad.net was found, where the posting of photos was generally by links. Links? Yes, by links! But, the more that approach was contemplated it started sounding more and more logical.
That approach is thus being tried in this post, with the same photo as above … What do you think of the method for seeing photos?
LINK (that you can click on):
https://s26.postimg.cc/er3ehzrax/2018-0704-01.jpg
As you know, past posted photos on a page of 30 posts at trainsmag.com ALL are accessed at the same time, and it takes TIME for all those photos to load and appear. IF ALL photos were mere links instead (as just above), posts would appear almost immediately, and you could access only the photos you wanted to see. I would image such would also cut down on bandwidth being used, which likely would benefit this TRAINS website.
Your opinion on all this, please!
[quote user="Deggesty"]
K.P., it is good to see you back; may all of your privileges be soon restored. {quote]
+1. Looking forward to more K. P.
K.P., it is good to see you back; may all of your privileges be soon restored.
Johnny
Reverse Order Replies
matthewsaggie (7-2): Very Bad Timing
Thank you for your kind words.
As you may know, I’m on restricted posting. So, there is little incentive to go out of one’s way to post something right away when something happens when posts need to be approved, sometimes waiting for days, like during a weekend.
The forum may be shocked to learn a colleague received word that the Diversion in Pomona, CA appears to have been cut in THIS past weekend. So, the old SP Pomona Ave. and Temple Ave. grade crossings may be NO more!
Unfortunately, I learned about it too late to do anything about it yesterday. I’ve elected to not pursue documenting it with photos because that documenting can’t be posted in a timely way. I’ve been approved for unrestricted posting at another forum, but too many things are going crazy right now to work on it, and it is hard to figure out why everything is hitting me right now. One troublesome problem is that my GMAIL account has gone crazy and I can’t email or read emails from anyone. Did I say too many things are going crazy?
Wasn’t there a salt slogan ‘when it rains it pours’?
ccltrains (6-29):
You know, ccltrains, as absurd as your speculation sounded to me, you may have something there! Initially, it was thought they were walkway wire hand supports, but none of my many photos show such wiring between those uprights. Thus, the only logical conclusion seems to be uprights as a scarecrow type effect. The area has been known to have terrible dropping problems from pigeons, so maybe the uprights are an effort to ward off such a problem on the truss bridges.
Three July 16, 2014 views, in all cases no protective wire railings are seen between top uprights:
The above latter two photos were at the WEST construction site. Below, from near the EAST construction site a “bridge” was in position (left) for installation over the freeway. Photo dated April 3, 2014. It did NOT yet have those top uprights.
In a 2015 photo those uprights are still present on all sections of the all the trusses.
Some spots for miles around have had a terrible pigeon dropping problem. Store owners have been known to fire several rifle shots each morning. So, I would say, ccltrains, your guess is probably right on, as illogical as it initially sounded. I personally see no other logical explanation for such vertical pointer type things.
In the area, about a mile northeast of the now in place truss bridges, is the 1960 era Barton Road two-lane overpass over the I-215 Freeway in Grand Terrace. It is currently being replaced with a wider structure. WEST of there, and NORTH of the truss bridges, is the 1936 built curved Barton Road overpass over the BNSF Transcon. K.P. still has heard of NO replacement plans for that bridge, which prevents BNSF from triple-tracking its Transcon there, which section is the alternate Sunset Route, which sees many Sunset Route trains to or from Arizona and New Mexico traversing it.
At this point in time K.P. has no plans on visiting Arizona, except loosely perhaps in 2019 around June or July. K.P. suspects (“suspects”) after the Golden Spike celebration at Promontory, UT with steamer UP 4-8-8-4 No. 4014, out of appreciation for Pomona, CA giving up that steamers, No. 4014 may (“MAY”) travel the LA&SL to Los Angeles, maybe to Pomona itself. To display the steamer there would be a nightmare, but UP figures things out. If No. 4014 visits Pomona, maybe (“maybe”) it will travel the Sunset Route to El Paso, TX soon afterward, and give us Sunset Route Two-Tracking followers a thrill. THAT is just conjecture and speculation, but it would seem Pomona would be early visited.
OK … Enough speculation, from the tops of truss bridges to steamer No. 4014 …
Best to everyone,
KP, a big thanks for all your efforts and postings. You are missed by me and many others when your not posting updates. Be safe and hope to hear from you soon.
ccltrains What are the spikes on top of the BNSF bridge for? Are they to keep birds away?
What are the spikes on top of the BNSF bridge for? Are they to keep birds away?
They were there for construction. I believe they were for worker protection and removed when the bridge was completed.
From the InMaricopa website: http://www.inmaricopa.com/weekend-weather-includes-scorching-heat-air-quality-warning/
It looks like work is moving forward on the SR 347 bridge project in Maricopa. You will recall that the UP wanted it to be wide enough to accomodate four tracks. On one of the cooler days down the road (like maybe September), I'll journey down that way to verify and take some photos of my own.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.