Many here do not know or remember but… A few years ago the SP was having to fight the rising great salt rising. The possible flooding of its tracks that crossed on the tressel was a concern. SP had to raise the tracks several feet with every day AWWs to install more height. Now that the lake has receeded so much is UP having any problems keeping the track properly surfaced and aligned ? Seem to recall that the fill is sitting on rather unstable land.
I saw video of a small dam failure a few years ago. Once the water dropped, the shoreline started to collapse, as the water was actually part of the “structure” of the shoreline.
Reportedly in the past the UP has investigated the possibility of a ~34 mile cutoff bypassing the GSL crossing. In this era of PSR driven low OR it is unlikely they will spend any capital on this project.
If UP were to abandon the crossing, enviornmentally, I suspect they would also be required to remove all the material that was dumped into the lake to construct the causeway that allows the crossing. I have no idea what that costs of that removal would be - but it would be considerable.
As it stands now, the WP route around the south edge of the lake runs directly to Salt Lake City and is a direct connection to the former Rio Grande. Connecting with the Overland Route would entail a jog to the north to Ogden. Abandonment of the former SP route seems unlikely since it has the direct connection at Ogden.
Very doubtful. The mountains, especially the Silver Zone pass, are a formidable maintenance obstacle and require a lot more mileage than the ex-SP route.
The material used in the second phase of the crossing was rock, not sure that this would require removal. The initial building used wood pilings which, it turned out, were very valuable since they were well preserved by the extremely salty water.
The lake has been cut in two by the crossing - the water enviornment on each side of the crossing is totally different as far as salinity and life forms.
From my persepective, the crossing has totally trashed the ecology of the lake.
For the new connecting bridge to be effective, they would have had to excavate the causeway down to lake bottom level. Salt water/fresh water flow is by density. For fresh water to flow north, there would have to be a corresponding underflow of the denser salt water to the south. There may also be circulation patterns in the lake, so at least a second bridge would need to be built. Even then, a couple of 200 ft bridges in a 20 mile (100,000+ ft) causeway will hardly return the lake to its natural state.
The northwest part of the lake was lower than the southern part. When the 180 foot bridge was built in 2016, water flowed from the southern part into the northwest part. In six
BaltACD
The lake has been cut in two by the crossing - the water enviornment on each side of the crossing is totally different as far as salinity and life forms.
I doubt that a single opening between the different sides of the lake will put a serious dent in reestablishing the lake to its original condition.
For the new connecting bridge to be effective, they would have had to excavate the causeway down to lake bottom level. Salt water/fresh water flow is by density. For fresh water to flow north, there would have to be a corresponding underflow of the denser salt water to the south. There may also be circulation patterns in the lake, so at least a second bridge would need to be built. Even then, a couple of 200 ft bridges in a 20 mile (100,000+ ft) causeway will hardly return the lake to its natural state.
After the UP-WP merger, UP went from Ogden to SLC and the WP route west. They even built an Ogden bypass.
There is track along the west side of the Salt Lake basin from the ex-WP, north to Rowley about 1/3 the distance to the UP at Lakeside. Completing the line the rest of the way to Lakeside would give them a lake bypass while still utilizing all of the ex-SP west of the lake.