Dr Zarkoff Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Acording to my sources in the UP engineering
> department and other knowlegeable people who
> sometimes post on these forums: Switch 9 to Shed
> 10, maybe; Norden to Shed 47, NEVER. The reason
> for NEVER is the frost heaves in winter; they make
> the track too expensive to maintain. When people
> complain about Moyers, why are there no comments
> about all the DT he ripped out East of Perth, NV?
> How about what he did to the IC?
>
> Besides, the modern UP mentality is to rip out all
> "unused" yard tracks. As a consequence, when there
> are a lot of trains, there's no place to park them
> clear of the main lines when the availiblity of
> crews is short. So why spend a lot of money to
> increase traffic density on the main lines only to
> have things jam up in the vicinity of the yard and
> tie up those very same main lines?

I don't believe Moyer had any input in the eliminatioin of the double track between Perth and Rose Ck. This decision was made by the SP because of the track condition on the Westbound track due to the many miles of 1936 112 lb. rail layed new in 1936 and had all the WW2 unaccounted tonnage across it. It was showing an unaccetbale detector car failure rate. That is why the remaining 132 HF rail in the eastbound was infield holland welded to CWR. The second track was scrapped.
The UP never maintained the No. 1 track in either the summer or the winter and it was gone before their acquisition so I am curious about the statement that the track was too expensive to maintain due to frost heave. The SP opoeraed over this railraod for over 120 years and it was not any more troublesome than T-41 or track in any of the Snow Sheds.
If the UP was to have a derailment at SP mountain MP 194.3 the No.1 track would look mighty good.