Now that the September issue is on the horizon, let’s set a few things straight about that “All-Time” Cajon Pass map in the August issue before it gets tucked away. Starting at the top…
Alray was not a “former passing siding removed 2008.” The passing siding was removed in 1972. All that remained until 2008 was a short set-out spur.
Just east of the former tunnels, Main 1 is labeled as Main 2. No doubt just a copy-paste of text from the nearby Main 2 tag that simply got left unchanged.
Stein’s Hill is actually located about 1/4 mile north-northwest of the Hwy 138 marker. It’s a hilltop you can actually drive onto, with a high-tension tower standing overhead. From there, you have a view to the northeast of trains snaking down the 3 percent of Main 3 under I-15, as originally made famous by Richard Steinheimer in the September 1974 issue (back when Main 3 was still the South Track). As shown in that issue, Stein’s hill also affords views to the northwest of trains weaving through that broad S-bend near the Mormon Rocks.
The line relocation near the Mormon Rocks was, according to Chard Walker’s first book on Cajon Pass, in 1976, not 1972.
The Sullivan’s Curve relocation was in 1977.
Not shown at all is the 1939 line relocation between Cajon and Cozy Dell (shown as Cajon Camp on the Trains map). Devastating floods in 1938 prompted ATSF to move its railroad from the east side of the creek to the west side. If you’ve ever wandered among the weeds and brush in that area, you’d notice faint traces of the old right of way.
Blue Cut is shown on USGS maps as being almost 1/4 mile further northwest. All historical railroad reference in both writing and photography puts Blue Cut at the point where the creek out of Lone Pine Canyon passes under ATSF (now BNSF) at the famous concrete arch that’s photographed from the turnout where Cajon Blvd. briefly swings up closest to the railroad.
On the track chart, the connection between BNSF and UP at Si
More likely they were both 1977? (A change on the south track may have been around that same time.)
Considering all the RRs that were built single track and eventually doubled, you’d think there would be lots of places where the added second track shifted to the other side of the original single track, producing a slight S in the new double track. I think we saw some on the SP in Nevada, and maybe there’s still one on the SP at Webster, between Davis and Sacramento. But can’t think of many others.
I assume the Trains diagram got the mileposting wrong on tracks 1-2 between Cajon and Summit-- the RR didn’t get rid of the X-mileposts, did they?
I was fascinated by the map and spent a couple of hours (along with Google Maps) reviewing the area. I have never been to Cajon and probably wont, but like many others have been mesmerized by the photos and the Trains coverage from the 70’s.
Is there a definative book on Cajon? Would it be Chard Walker’s book? Is there a modern upgrade to this fascinating section of real estate?
Thanks for your kind words about the Cajon map of the month.
You’re right - there were a lot of sources and information to digest.
Like many of the Maps of the Month we put together, some of those sources wind up conflicting. When that occurs, we rely on experts in the area to help us resolve those conflicts.
In the case of the Cajon Pass map, we were fortunate to have cooperation from both railroads, so I have to take issue with your assertion that we did not run the map by people familiar with the area who had “boots on the ground” (as you put it).
Railroaders and others familiar with the area looked at the map, the dates, and the track chart. They gave us some valuable information and suggestions for correction before the final map went to press.
By the way, I really like your idea of preparing a construction diagram showing where exactly the third main track was placed in relation to the other two tracks. That would be fascinating. As you correctly observe, the Trains map was not intended to be that kind of diagram. But I’d look forward to doing a diagram like that someday as well.
Anyone know if it’s true all the mileposts on tracks 1-2 Cajon to Summit are 1.4 miles apart? If a bridge is 1.1 miles west of MP 57, what do they call its milepost location?
Cajon Pass is basically my turf (and not too far from home), and I rejoiced at knowing TRAINS made a ‘local’ map. Personal matters have been preventing me from studying the map in detail, but this thread stunned me, and time for further review of the map will be set aside in a few days.
I think part of the problem Bruce Kelly found is that so many of the old timers have died off, and known and willing sources of verification are limited and drying up fast. And, the railroads has been so skeletonized that the sense of the past (and comprehending of it) is fast becoming nonexistent.
Chard Walker (I actually heard him lecture once) would be absolutely shocked if he saw the map in TRAINS. For him, maybe TRAINS in a couple of years will run a totally accurate similar presentation (and larger) that is thoroughly verified (BEFORE the rest of the old fogies - including me – die off too).
A Few Places Mr. Kelly Mentioned or that Were Brought Up in this Thread …
This is THE real Blue Cut.
In the above photo, note the highway overlook walling on the lower right. Also, the view has so much plant and tree growth it is currently difficult to take a photo that does justice to the scene.
In that growth is that bridging that is synonymous with the name Blue Cut.
That shot of the abutment abandoned after the 1938 flood damage is especially appreciated. There don’t seem to be too many details available about that bit of route change. (For those not familiar with local history, the water damage that year is sort of legendary. It also wreaked havoc on UP’s main line through Afton Canyon, and spelled the end to the southernmost part of the Tonopah & Tidewater on the Mojave Desert. It is my understanding that the 1938 soaking led to the big push for flood control in Southern California, without which the 1969 rains would have been an even bigger disaster.)
As for those miles being 7,370’ long, don’t you love it? Only in railroading! Sailors may have their nautical miles (one minute of latitude each, and all that); fliers may need to differentiate between land miles and air miles; but only on the rails do they get this long. [:)]
I do not have the ETT’s at my desk, but I do have some approximate numbers: what about the note in a CSX TT to the effect that it is about 0.1 miles from MP A768 to A771 (this is in Florida), and the note in a Rio Grande TT to the effect that it is about 0.7 miles from MP 393 to MP 395? (The TT numbers are in feet).
Sure, nothing unusual about railroad “miles” being much more or less than a mile-- any time you realign the RR and change its length there will have to be a short or a long mile somewhere, unless you redo the mileposts for the whole RR. But it naturally seems crazy to have four long “miles” in a row. What’s the advantage, compared to the old (pre-2008?) mileposting on the North Track?
Another puzzle: the map says the old mileposts started from zero at the Barstow depot and the new ones start from zero a half-mile east of Barstow-- suggesting the line is a half-mile shorter than it was before 1972. But far as I can see it isn’t a half-mile shorter-- it may not be shorter at all. The new line around Barstow yard is about the same length as the old, the Summit line change didn’t shorten the line much if any, not much change at Alray, and the line thru Sullivan’s Curve is a bit longer than it was. Can anyone explain that one?
You brought up two matters, both dealing with mileposts. It is hoped the below explanations will be satisfying, though of an unofficial nature.
ISSUE #1: LONG MILEPOSTS
It appears BNSF has gone to “long miles” for Mains 1 and 2 between Summit and Cajon to avoid confusion. Previously, in the olden days, a westbound train on Main 1 (North Track) would pass a marker with 64.4X on it right across from 62.4 (South Track). Then, pass 63 and 64 markers. Conceivably, a trainman could get mixed up in a crisis and request an emergency response to M.P. 64 while meaning M.P. 64X, delaying responding assistance when minutes could be critical. With a non-confusing system of long miles, there is no confusion, including for the DS who has an overview of the whole subdivision track layout.
HOWEVER … Mains 1 and 2 presently don’t seem to have milepost markers. Whoever heard of mileposts without milepost markers? The situation suggests to this forumist that the long miles is a continuing experiment, which experiment may or may not eventually prove successful, hence, long miles may or may not be permanent.
ISSUE #2: MILEPOST 0.0
The TRAINS Magazine circa 1951 section of the vertical diagramming indicated M.P. 0.0 was at the Barstow depot. The 2010 diagram part, on the other hand, showed M.P. 0.0 was 0.5 miles further east. The inconsistency has nothing to do with the 1972 line relocation at Summit in Cajon Pass, some 56 miles railroad west of Barstow. I think you, timz, will find that the following may be a satisfying explanation for the differ
A reasonable theory, until you look at the map. Turns out the new alignment isn’t a half-mile shorter than the old one-- quite likely it isn’t any shorter.
This railroad from San Bernardino to Barstow was opened for operation in 1885 and was listed at that time as 80.73 miles. We do not know the location in San Bernardino where the MP 80.73 would be but the MP 0 was at Barstow and was very likely where the THEN EXISTING depot was situated. The present depot was constructed several years later and probably has no relationship to the MP 0.
The June 1986 Santa Fe Los Angeles Division track chart shows MP 0 on the First District being equivalent to MP 746 + 1364 feet on the Needles District.
That puts the zero milepost in Barstow at MP 746.258333333(let’s not go to infinity). The TT that I have (it’s upstairs in a box, and I not going to get it to see how old it is) shows the change from one division to another at MP 746.4. Oh, well.
In 1940-1970 the empl TT showed Barstow as MP 0 and San Bernardino as MP 81.3, but 80.8 miles between them on the westward track. So looks like there had been a half-mile worth of line changes by 1940; maybe circa 2008 BNSF decided to remilepost the whole line, leaving San Bernardino (or someplace) unchanged and marking off 5280-foot miles east from there along the south track until they got to a new Milepost Zero a half-mile east of Barstow.
By the way: starting in 1975 the empl TT showed 81.3 miles Barstow to San Bernardino on the former-westward track, instead of 80.8. Don’t try to account for that-- odds are it’s just a mistake.
Take another look. Comparing the 1966 and 1986 track charts the new main around Barstow Yard seems to be 18.4 feet shorter than the old line.
diningcar:
San Bernardino to Barstow was opened for operation in 1885 and was listed at that time as 80.73 miles.
In 1940-1970 the empl TT showed Barstow as MP 0 and San Bernardino as MP 81.3, but 80.8 miles between them on the westward track. So looks like there had been a half-mile worth of line changes by 1940; maybe circa 2008 BNSF decided to remilepost the whole line, leaving San Bernardino (or someplace) unchanged and marking off 5280-foot miles east from there along the south track until they got to a new Milepost Zero a half-mile east of Barstow.
By the way: starting in 1975 the empl TT showed 81.3 miles Barstow to San Bernardino on the former-westward track, instead of 80.8. Don’t try to account for that-- odds are it’s just a mistake.
diningcar:
The June 1986 Santa Fe Los Angeles Division track chart shows MP 0 on the First District being equivalent to MP 746 + 1364 feet on the Needles District.
Take another look. Comparing the 1966 and 1986 track charts the new main around Barstow Yard seems to be 18.4 feet shorter than the old line.
As my posting stipulated, it is not determined where in San Bernardino the 80.73 miles of new construction tied into the track(s) then existing. However 80.73 is the exact mileage reported when Santa Fe made its 1916 report to the Interstate Commerce Commission regarding this construction.
I suspect the only way this minor quandry can be resolved is to have access to the original maps created at the 1885 construction date, or their subsequent officially updated.versions…
Mileage in ETT’s is the location chosen to pay train crews for their trips. it has no significant relationship to the accurate
