 |
Re: more Rail Line Relocation Projects
Author: Bob L
Date: 03-08-2007 - 17:09
hepkema Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's interesting that many/most line relocations
> are made to reduce curvature and/or shorten a
> route. When the Western Pacific was built, it was
> actually about 3-4 miles shorter than it's
> pre-Oroville line change length of 928 miles from
> San Fran. to Salt Lake City. Both of its present
> "loops" (Williams--the helix in the F.R.C. and
> Arnold--the horseshoe at Silver Zone Pass, NV)
> were originally by-passed with short segments of
> 2+percent grades but since the W.P.'s construction
> bonds specified that the route would have a 1
> percent maximum grade, the current alignments were
> constructed as part of the final and approved
> route. Why the UP has still not put back in the
> Williams by-pass, I can't figure out. That plan
> was done in '84 and was actually budgeted (but
> later cut) a year or so later. I have an ancient
> photo at home that shows the old by-pass track
> still in place after the loop was built. Williams
> Loop is dang near exactly 1 mile around.
Why would the UP put back the Williams by-pass with it's steeper grade? Certainly not to save a mile of track but maybe to decrease maintenance cost of the loop?
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's interesting that many/most line relocations
> are made to reduce curvature and/or shorten a
> route. When the Western Pacific was built, it was
> actually about 3-4 miles shorter than it's
> pre-Oroville line change length of 928 miles from
> San Fran. to Salt Lake City. Both of its present
> "loops" (Williams--the helix in the F.R.C. and
> Arnold--the horseshoe at Silver Zone Pass, NV)
> were originally by-passed with short segments of
> 2+percent grades but since the W.P.'s construction
> bonds specified that the route would have a 1
> percent maximum grade, the current alignments were
> constructed as part of the final and approved
> route. Why the UP has still not put back in the
> Williams by-pass, I can't figure out. That plan
> was done in '84 and was actually budgeted (but
> later cut) a year or so later. I have an ancient
> photo at home that shows the old by-pass track
> still in place after the loop was built. Williams
> Loop is dang near exactly 1 mile around.
Why would the UP put back the Williams by-pass with it's steeper grade? Certainly not to save a mile of track but maybe to decrease maintenance cost of the loop?
