 |
Re: A reason to keep CORP Siskiyou Line functioning!
Author: Goatboat
Date: 01-21-2008 - 18:06
WAF Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Back in the SP days, omly 50 foot XM boxcars and
> bulkhead and regular flat cars were allowed south
> of Medford. Today's cars are too tall for the
> Siskiyou Line. Also the locomotives present a
> problem too with their flares
In a way, the Cascade slide is another nail in the coffin for the south end of the Siskiyou line. If the clearances weren't such an issue, I suspect that UP would probably be running a few detour trains each day on the Siskiyou, somewhat like the 1997 Modoc detours. Since the Siskiyou does not have the clearances for 'normal' train operations, it is useless as a detour route. Clearly, it isn't worthwhile for UP to mess around building a detour train of freight cars that will fit through the Siskiyous. Throw in the fact that the south end of the Siskiyou isn't economic for the remaining on-line traffic, and there isn't much reason to keep it in place.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Back in the SP days, omly 50 foot XM boxcars and
> bulkhead and regular flat cars were allowed south
> of Medford. Today's cars are too tall for the
> Siskiyou Line. Also the locomotives present a
> problem too with their flares
In a way, the Cascade slide is another nail in the coffin for the south end of the Siskiyou line. If the clearances weren't such an issue, I suspect that UP would probably be running a few detour trains each day on the Siskiyou, somewhat like the 1997 Modoc detours. Since the Siskiyou does not have the clearances for 'normal' train operations, it is useless as a detour route. Clearly, it isn't worthwhile for UP to mess around building a detour train of freight cars that will fit through the Siskiyous. Throw in the fact that the south end of the Siskiyou isn't economic for the remaining on-line traffic, and there isn't much reason to keep it in place.
