18 months ago my wife and I took a weekend trip to Tehachapi to see the trains and just get away from the LA basin. Had a good time.
While there we engaged in a favorite activity of ours when traveling. At dinner we get copies of all the local newpapers, dailies and weeklies alike. When we get back to our room we read them before bed to get the flavor of the local community. This time we had a bonus as our room had a balcony from which one could watch the trains topping the pass as we read.
I read a column in which the writer asked the question: “Why did the RR go down the Tehachapi Creek canyon?” He had read accounts of pre-RR times in which it was stated that Oak Creek Canyon, somewhat to the south, was the preferred route by horse and wagon.
I remembered this column recently and looked at some maps that showed topology. Granted they had no contour lines but it did appear feasible to go that way by heading directly west from Mojave instead of veering north to Tehachapi. The route I saw would come out into the San Joaquin Valley by way of Tejon Creek south of Arvin.
If we were building the route from Mojave to Bakersfield today we might prefer to go up Oak Creek, dig a longish tunnel under the crest of the Tehachapis, and go down Tejon Creek to Arvin
I would like an answer from someone familiar with the history of Tehachapi: Why did the builders of the route that includes the Loop not go from Mojave by way of Oak and Tejon Creeks? It looks straighter and more direct, but that might conceal unacceptable gradients. A horse, or horse and wagon, can go up a gradient that would defeat a train. That might explain why the horse route favored Oak Creek.
I understand that the Santa Fe surveyed several routes before they settled on getting trackage rights from Mojave to Bakersfield. A sensible decision even if a better but difficult route was still unused.
Current right-of-way routings are still primarily those routes layed out 150 yrs ago w/ comparatively primative survey instruments. Why not use satellite, laser, etc technology to re-map the routes and determine if more optimal alternative exist (straighter, easier grades, less rise and fall, etc). If better routes exist, why not reconfigure, at least in sections where there is a significantly better route available? Given that the new route would basically be used “forever” there should be a payback period there.
… Or, by not doing this, do we conceed that the early surveyors were close enough to optimal that there isn’t an economic payback available to relay lines?
There will be people who will try to stop any rerouting of the tracks. Look at DME. Also, it seems like BNSF had a fight just to add another track along side an existing one somewhere in New Mexico recently. Out here, BNSF wanted to extend a siding, a bunch of NIMBYs came out of the woodwork to protest it.
From what Jack wrote, it sounds like the other route over the Tehachapis would be a completely different route. Even if the railroads decided, the probably, billions of dollars would be worth it, then they would have to contend with NIMBYs, environmentalists, and lawsuits.
Railroads have realigned sections of track in the past. However, I think it will be considerably more difficult to do so in the future. Also, I doubt that a significant realignment will ever happen again.
I think the key words in the original post are, “Dig a longish tunnel…”
When rails were originally laid over the Tehachapi route, tunneling was avoided as much as possible. Yes, there are tunnels on the present route - absolutely the least that could be arranged. Today, the tunneling contractor would bring in a TBM and cut more tunnel in a day than picks, steam drills and dynamite could dig in a fortnight - at a per-foot cost of considerably less (compensated for inflation.)
As for changing at this late date, somebody (other than the railroad) owns the land - and would probably be loath to sell it. Also, there’s more than a little bit of, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it,” thinking involved.
Rerouting of any ground transportation route involves much more than just the technical skill to improve upon the original engineers/surveyors.
Chief among these are the costs of obtaining new right of way. Not just monetary, either. The environmental concerns are wide ranging. Even adding trackage within existing right of way involves mitigating drainage issues, endangered species, noise, etc.
The four great reconnaisance surveys across the West to determine the first transcon route tended to follow game trails and what became wagon roads. Ironically, the later national highways (such as Route 66) and the Interstate freeways tend to follow the successful rail lines.
As to the original Tehachapi routing, it would be worth investigation. I would guess, as with all things engineering, economics dictate. A longer trackline equates lower controlling grades. The old steam power was definitely a factor as far as tractive effort goes. Construction access and maintenance play into the equation as well.
The first survey for a possible railroad between the San Joaquin Valley and the LA Basin was undertaken by Lt. Williamson of the Army Corps of Engineers in 1853. He identified 5 possible routes that could be built. From East to West they are, Walker Pass, Tehachapi Pass, Oak Creek Pass, Tejon Pass, and San Emidio Pass. He reported that Tehachapi would be the easiest to construct. William Hood surveyed Tehachapi in 1868 and again in 1872, before the final layout was completed in 1875. The final layout was dictated by General Colton’s location of the town of Caliente and the insistence that the railroad locate a station in the town, rather than on the hillside above it, as favored by William Hood the Chief Engineer.
There you have it. Back then, you not only didn’t have to deal with NIMBY, but towns could dictate location of access to rail transport. Remember Rock Ridge from Blazing Saddles?
For any of you who like reading about such matters, I recommend John R. Signor’s book Tehachapi. As is typical of his other works, the author does a lot of nice research and includes some great maps.
Page 28 shows an 1897 survey of a proposed crossing at Brite’s Summit (a little west of Tehachapi), on a routing which would have run south of the SP line.
Page 59 maps out a 1923 proposal for ATSF’s own route all the way from the edge of the San Joaquin Valley, through the surveyed crossing mentioned above, then south to a routing in Elizabeth Lake Canyon to Castaic, south across the SP Santa Paula branch (near Saugus), then onward all the way to beautiful downtown Burbank!
Pages 188-189 cover some 1940’s proposals for massive rail tunneling between Wheeler Ridge and Castaic (somewhat east of where I-5 runs).
Just for a chaser, page 229 maps out a 1928 proposal for an Barstow cutoff, whereby ATSF trains could run directly from Oro Grande to Kramer on their way between northern and southern California.
This isn’t in relation to the original post, but to the second. In Canada, there are three mainline rail passes over the Rockies. They were surveyed between the 1870s and the early 1900s, and in that section there are only four roads that go over the Rockies, and three of them follow the rail lines, the fourth is only a fairly short section between two rail lines and I wouldn’t like to see a rail line driven down that route! CP chose Kicking Horse Pass over the easier Yellowhead Pass, now operated by CN, and CN has not changed their alignment since the GTP/CNoR merger. CP, on the other hand, has had 5 or so new grades layed for heavy westbound trains to bypass grades. There are no major alignments possible that would better the grades, so they lay new stretches of between 5 and 25 miles to reduce the grade. Incidentally, this line was chosen as a bit of a compromise between serving the interior of the Canadian prairies and protecting Canada from the possible encorachment of the US (Via possibly GN).
Something tells me Tehachapi didn’t have invading Canadians to consider, but I hope I shed some light on some parts of railway mentality!
One additional factor to consider regarding construction in the late 19th and early 20th centuries: finances were scarce, sometimes due to chicanery, but mostly because of the risk financiers saw. So even the illustrious locating engineers MC mentions could not spend the time or money to fine tune their work; hence the many line changes, large and small, which have occurred on those lines which have proven to be so prominent today. The subject would require much more space than we should use in this venue but perhaps TRAINS would wish to begin a series of stories with focus on individual lines which are so prominent today.
All this is just my understanding, since I’m not burdened with any actual technical knowledge. MC or anyone else with such knowledge, feel free to correct/amplify/rebut/whatever.
Usually in mountainous territory there are at least two alternative routings available: (1) low cost to build, high cost to operate; and (2) high cost to build, low cost to operate. (1) is the alternative with steep grades, lots of curves and minimal earth moved, slow speeds, and (2) is the version with much earth moved, flatter profile, fewer curves, and higher speed. Examples of (1) are Northern Pacific and B&O along the Potomac, and examples of (2) are SP&S and Western Maryland along the Potomac.
I don’t think it was a lack of time to polish their work that caused the eminent locating engineers to make some of the decisions they did, but lack of funding for the initial construction. Everything built for private industry has to be built to a budget, and I’m guessing those guys did the best they could with the money they had. In some cases, the state of earthmoving and blasting technology had an impact - the lines built later (Milwaukee, SP&S) tended to be built to higher standards because the state of the art had advanced, and building to hi
…Wouldn’t it be great to have a transcon built across our great country with cost not an issue…{within reason}, just using the best route engineering could devise to get the tracks across with the typical desired alignment…Not having to put it in on a less expensive, less desirable route.
I wonder how “good” would be the end result…Gradients across the Rocky Mtns…and Alleghenies, and so on…? How much straight track…min. curving…Tunnels kept to a min in length, to keep down trouble spots…Just wonder.
BEAULIEU AND WARREN have pretty much pinned the rationale down for thplacement of the line. To attempt to realign an existing R.O.W. or to construct a totally new one would require a major expenditure, more so in the placement of a totally new location.
In particular, in the Southwest were there is so much housing in ‘senic’ areas… One only has to look at the convoluted process that D&ME has gone thru to just get the rights to build, let alone actually start construction of their new railroad. All is just an invitation for the NIMBYs to “pile on.”
A recent article, I read. mentioned the problem that there was with the existing wind farms in the passes of California; new housing subs were being built in the vicinity of those existing wind farms. The people who moved into those new homes/subdivisions were complaining about the locations of the wind farms, and how they affected the values/esthetics/quality of life in relation