I’m reading a book about the construction of the Central Pacific and was wondering if Theodore Judah (the line’s chief engineer initially) knew about the passage that the WP would adopt as its own 40 years later. Did Judah reject that routing in favor of the one ultimately chosen or was it unknown to him?
The Feather River locations were known to Judah (and others), and rejected for cause. The wagon-road location used by Judah was judged cheapest, fastest, best. The Big Four as financiers of the CP had last word, and agreed with Judah’s selection of location. People back then had a very good handle on lay of the land, they didn’t need GPS, LIDAR, and fancy consultants to figure this out – their maps were crude and their results had no polish, but they met the need of the time and on budget most of the time, too. The Army surveys that greatly preceded Judah and the CP set the basis for the routes that the UP-CP took and most of the other transcons, too.
RWM
Other than the Feather River route, north or south of the Donner pass there is no way to get over Sierra Nevada mountains without VERY expensive tunnels and bridges. There are no really good passes in either direction to facilitate a railraod.
Thanks for the comments…since UP owns both lines now…how do they rationalize their use? .i.e do they prefer one over the other?.etc.
I’m also curious as to why the WP route is arguably the better route yet the last one to be constructed (1903).
UP has publicaly stated they intend to route most/all traffic over Donner after tunnel clearances and track capacity are improved.
There have been arguments about which route is superior, but I know of no consensus even in the old days. First, one has to decide what the goals are, then the routes can be compared against those goals. For example, if the only goal is never have to shovel snow, then you’d choose the FRC. If the only goal is to never have to shovel mud, then you’d choose Donner. And so forth.
RWM
I guess from a cost effectiveness point of view then Donner appears to be the favorite… which begs the question why did UP buy WP then? To eventually marginalize the FR route or to sell it off? In many respects the WP was the FR route…that road didn’t have much else in the way of competitive advantage. I would think it would be in UP’s best interest to hang on to it and therefore to use it…selling it off would simply invite competition.
The Feather River route is longer and is prone to washouts. It does not have tunnels so it is good for double stacks, etc and is an easier grade than the Donner pass route… When the UP improves the line over Donner Pass, it will be superior because it is double track and a shorter route. The WP was the last to try to get to San Francisco (early 1900’s i believe), so they had to take what was left.
From what I remember UP bought WP to improve their Nor Cal presence.
Before UP purchased Western Pacific, the only way it could reach the Bay Area and Central Valley was via its friendly connection with SP at Ogden and another connection with WP at Salt Lake City. BUT NOT OVER ITS OWN TRACKS! It did reach Southern California and the Pacific Northwest (Portland) over its own rails (it reached Puget Sound on trackage rights, and when the Milwaukee Road entered Chapter 11, it swiftly glommed onto the MILW line from Portland to Puget). But for UP, getting into Central/Northern California was strictly a bridge proposition, meaning UP was the guy in the middle, the intermediate carrier which neither originated nor terminated squat. To the lads at 1416 Dodge Street (UP Omaha HQ), direct access to the Bay area and the fertile agricultural lands of the Central Valley would be A GOOD THING, and would nicely fill out the portfolio of western destinations that their own rails reached. And so they looked at, and then rejected, SP (the pre-DRGW SP) on the grounds that it was, commercially speaking, over the hill: no coal mines; no auto plants, a deteriorating commercial franchise. Then there was WP – much smaller, historically an unfriendly UP connection (WP’s friendly connection for transcon traffic was DRGW over Salt Lake City), but little unwanted operating baggage in terms of places they really had no interest in serving.
SIDEBAR. To a railroad, the position of greatest commercial leverage on interline traffic is that of originating carrier. In such an instance, the shipper HAS TO deal with you, and to some extent, your connections must kowtow to you. Plus you usually command a few extra bucks in the
-
John Kenefick, CEO of UP at the time of the UP-MP-WP merger, has been explicit in his public statements that UP purchased the WP because (a) it could (b) it was practically free (c) it ensured UP would not lose the access to Northern California markets it already had. WP had since its first years had preferred its UP connection in Salt Lake City to the D&RGW, as the UP offered better service to its customers. In a rate-regulated world where a boxcar of canned tomatoes carried the identical rate to Kansas City whether routed WP-UP or WP-D&RGW-MP, but a much different level of service, the WP and its shippers preferentially chose UP. UP’s concern was that WP was thinly capitalized, had a small shipper base, and a high-risk physical plant through the Feather River Canyon, all of which made loss of capability a significant risk. In other words, the WP could have entered into a long, slow decline of physical plant quality due to poor cash flow, slowly removing its capability to compete, and leaving SP with a more dominant position vis a vis UP at the Ogden Gateway. WP’s physical plant in fact was in fairly poor condition at the time of the merger. I did some looks at it in Nevada and Utah at that time, and the track/subgrade condition was not good to poor.
-
No one has said UP intends to sell the Feather River Canyon line, but so what if they do? Who wants to buy a second-choice route with very thin local traffic that would connect to no
Actually there are more tunnels in the Canyon than Donner, if one is comparing single-track to single-track on either the original CP alignment or the later Harriman-era and later second track, and looking at cumulative footage. There are 34 of them in the FRC, with a cumulative length in excess of 8 miles, beginning at #4 just west of James and ending at #37 beneath Beckwourth Pass.
Ruling grade on the WP is 1%; on the SP 2.2%.
You’re correct that WP was built late – it along with the Milwaukee Road, SPLA&SL, and Moffat Road was in the last blossoming of the transcon construction era in the first decade of the 1900s before the Panic of 1906 ended the availability of low-cost capital, what A.C. Kalmbach called the Golden Age of railroad construction.
RWM
The auto plant that is now NUMMI appears to be along the SP tracks. It looks like there are now crossovers from the WP tracks to the SP tracks. I do not know if WP had access to the plant. The only references to a WP served auto plant I have found are to the Ford plant at Milpitas. Ironically, it closed the year UP bought WP.
As for perishables, the writing was on the wall by 1980. Refrigerated perishable traffic had dropped dramatically during the 1970s. See “Got Carrots?” (Novemver 2001 Trains), “Fields of Dreams” (December 2004 Trains), “The Golden Empire Came Crashing Down” (March 2005 Trains). The WP served part of the Central Valley today does seem to produce more processed foods shipped in bunkerless cars, whereas the data seems to follow mechanical reefers and TIV. Unless UP thought they could regain traffic WP could not, and do it profitably, or canned traffic did not drop was much as fresh traffic, I do not see why they would want to buy WP for that reason.
Amtrak uses one section of the WP: the Coast Starlight uses the WP from Binney Jct., at Marysville, to Haggin, in Sacramento. Thus, the passenger train does not get in the way of freights that run between the Pacific Northwest and Roseville on their way east.
Johnny
Speaking of double track over Donner Pass, is the restoration of same in the works?
Last time I read anything about it, there was still a stretch near the summit which remained reduced to one track after part of the original (1868) line had the rails taken up, maybe 20 years ago, as a cost-saving measure.
Is business good enough (I hope) to jusify it?
They removed two pieces of double track on Donner-- maybe six miles over the original summit, and about seven miles further down the west slope. Rumors are constant that replacement of the latter stretch is just around the corner; it’s been just around the corner for some years. The summit stretch isn’t just around the corner-- it’s probably nowhere in sight even after we turn the corner. But AFAIK there are no insurmountable problems if UP did consider replacing both.
? If UP did restore a secont track on Donner would they restore the original grade or ad track on the existing line ???
At least in the areas where those tunnels go through solid rock, UP would almost certainly re-use the exisitng grade (perhaps with some work to increase clearances).
In the open stretches, there might be some changes to the old alignment.
The original grade and the existing line are the same thing, are they not? Or, perhaps when you say “original” you are thinking of the CP alignment at the summit of the pass rather than later second-main track alignment that burrows under the mountains in Tunnel 41? Anyway TimZ answered affirmatively earlier, but to elaborate, there are at present two sections of single-track on Donner Pass:
-
Switch 9 (MP 171) to Shed 10 (MP 179) – Main #1, the outside or northernmost track, was the one removed, in 1994.
-
East Norden (MP 193.45) to Shed 47 (MP 196.27) – the outside or northernmost track, was the one removed, in 1993.
UP’s publicly released plans at this date call for replacing Main #1 between Switch 9 and Shed 10 only. This would be relaid directly on the embankment from which it was removed. Some minor realignment of Main #2 (now renamed Main #1 between those two points, ahem) would be required, because when old Main #1 was pulled up, some of the curves on old Main #2 were eased, encroaching on where Main #1 used to rest.
UP has not issued any public plans at this date calling for replacing the removed main track between East Norden and Shed 47.
RWM
For those who aren’t familiar, maybe we should clarify that they removed more than 2.82 miles over the top of Donner. Presumably that’s about the length of single track now, but the removed track was a couple miles longer between those two points.
The summit on the old main was about 128 ft higher than on the remaining track, but the remaining summit tunnel was built for eastward trains and is 1.95 (?) miles of continuous 1.47% climbing westward. The ruling grade westward is more than that (maybe 1.9%) but it seems a train that can just stagger up the ruling grade below the present tunnel isn’t guaranteed to make it thru the tunnel-- cooling may be too much of a problem. The old line may have an advantage there.
Yes, I was thinking of the summit. Thanks for the info.