hepkema Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I'll have to check the CA regs on track spacing.
> They might be 13 feet and SP Fresno was at 12, but
> in any case, they might have been grandfathered.
> As I recall it, the tracks were in really bad
> shape, so the SP went in and did some repairs. If
> they would have just fixed one part of the track
> (i.e. changed the rail) they would have been OK.
> The problem was that they did at least a couple of
> things--something like rail AND ties. When they
> did that, it constituted a rebuild, which
> triggered the new standards.

You raise a valid point. Frankly, too much time has gone by and I really don't remember what the specific measurements were, but as you say, the CPUC's position was that the scope of the work was that it was a rebuild and not just maintenance, thus triggering the wider spacing requirements. The CPUC felt that SP's Engineering Department knew that was the case, and should've handled the project accordingly. SP and the CPUC were having a lot of toepath and bridge walkway issues during that period of time (the 1980's).