 |
Re: Slauson clearane and needs grade separation....
Author: jst3751
Date: 11-08-2018 - 11:22
BOB2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As I said there are clearance issues, here. But,
> I still wouldn't want "go down" here. Where
> you're at "water level" next to the river, in the
> overflow flood plain, with high ground water in
> this area. So you'd need a lot of pumping
> infrastructure and possibly even a flood
> protection system.
>
> "Going down" generally costs significant more than
> piling up dirt and "going over, which is maybe why
> so many get chosen....where higher costs generally
> will equal higher profits for the
> contractors...under our system of free
> enterprise...and "our" choices in these often
> political decisions....
>
> I'd actually look at the cost to replace and raise
> the fairly old Slauson Bridge, which has a lot of
> clearance now (just not enough for both lines),
> which has long approaches presenting gradients
> that could easily meet the clearance, and still go
> up and over with the choo-choo line. I'd look as
> that as an alternative to "going down" under, and
> see how each of those alternatives pencil out.
The problem with raising the Slauson bridge first what by 20' is that would be one heck of a grade from the Slauson Ave 605 underpass and the SB 605 Slauson Ave off ramp and the peak of the bridge only 500 feet away.
I fully understand about the ground water concerns.
My overall thought and opinion is that any benefit for separating the UP and BNSF at grade crossing based upon the amount of traffic on the UP line and the cost and problems associated with separating the at grade crossing is by far too small to warrant such a grade separation.
NOW one thing I do see as beneficial to the entire situation is that BNSF demands and UP agrees to the following 3 stipulations: A) Max speed of 10 MPH across the junction. B) Max train length of 2,500'. C) Max trains of 4 total per day.
Just trying to look at this from a practical standpoint for all parties involved.
-------------------------------------------------------
> As I said there are clearance issues, here. But,
> I still wouldn't want "go down" here. Where
> you're at "water level" next to the river, in the
> overflow flood plain, with high ground water in
> this area. So you'd need a lot of pumping
> infrastructure and possibly even a flood
> protection system.
>
> "Going down" generally costs significant more than
> piling up dirt and "going over, which is maybe why
> so many get chosen....where higher costs generally
> will equal higher profits for the
> contractors...under our system of free
> enterprise...and "our" choices in these often
> political decisions....
>
> I'd actually look at the cost to replace and raise
> the fairly old Slauson Bridge, which has a lot of
> clearance now (just not enough for both lines),
> which has long approaches presenting gradients
> that could easily meet the clearance, and still go
> up and over with the choo-choo line. I'd look as
> that as an alternative to "going down" under, and
> see how each of those alternatives pencil out.
The problem with raising the Slauson bridge first what by 20' is that would be one heck of a grade from the Slauson Ave 605 underpass and the SB 605 Slauson Ave off ramp and the peak of the bridge only 500 feet away.
I fully understand about the ground water concerns.
My overall thought and opinion is that any benefit for separating the UP and BNSF at grade crossing based upon the amount of traffic on the UP line and the cost and problems associated with separating the at grade crossing is by far too small to warrant such a grade separation.
NOW one thing I do see as beneficial to the entire situation is that BNSF demands and UP agrees to the following 3 stipulations: A) Max speed of 10 MPH across the junction. B) Max train length of 2,500'. C) Max trains of 4 total per day.
Just trying to look at this from a practical standpoint for all parties involved.
