The purpose of this thread is for railroaders and railfans alike that desire awareness of news developments about two-tracking Tehachapi Pass (west slope) and related matters to find that awareness short of actually being there.
In August 2012 the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) issued an excellent environmental impact report (EIR) on the two-tracking of Tehachapi Pass, and it gives much official insight on the project. The 24.48 MB document (270 pages) can be downloaded for viewing, or saved to your computer.
In the above document, pages 1-16 will be of special interest to the average railroader or railfan.
The environmental impact report shows the project encompasses a territory of 25.23 miles, mostly of single-track (Ilmon-Caliente was already two-tracked under Southern Pacific a couple of decades ago), BUT ONLY 8.34 MILES will actually see new two-tracking in the two-tracking project.
The EIR that references BNSF material gives the following technical data and sequence information:
FIRST: Connect the Walong (M.P. 352.07) and Marcel (353.08) sidings – 1.01 miles (2013-2014). For those unfamiliar with Tehachapi Pass, the circular Walong main and siding is the famed Tehachapi Loop. The Walong siding is only 4800 feet long and hardly p
The environmental impact report had several drawings in its Part II section that would be of interest to many railroaders and railfans. K.P. took cropped photos of some of those very wide illustrations, and they are shown below.
Tunnel 10 before and after:
Tunnel 2 before and after:
Sometime soon, photo based posts will be forthcoming from the December 7, 2012 limited visit to Tehachapi Pass. That visit documented some of the signaling upgrades that have and are currently taking place there, and that will be connected to the two-tracking. A broad overview is hoped to be presented also, with material from the “Sun
Did not know Tehachapi Pass was being double tracked…Great images…What a surprise to me. Makes one wonder why the tunnels were considered less expensive when originally completed. Perhaps the limitations were earth moving equipment.
Only the paperwork [^o)]; the referenced EIR is one of the first steps. The EIR was funded by BNSF and the state gov’t Trade Corridor Improvement Fund. Since the state is broker than broke, don’t expect rapid progress ala the Sunset Route or Cajon Pass corridors.
Subject to further confirmation, I suspect that the terrain ‘cuts’ planned for the second track will be less disruptive to ongoing operations and ultimately less expensive than daylighting the existing tunnels. Anyone interested in geology and construction [Y] will find the details in the EIR a good read.
Atleast the Tahachapi loop is a little closer than Arizona and New Mexico when you cronicaled the Sunset route. This will be an interesting one to follow for me. We lived in Bakersfield from 1970-72 and explored the loop several times. It will bring back good memories. May I suggest the Wool Growers Cafe across the street from the SP depot in Bakersfield? Great place we would often go for lunch. Rode the last SP passenger train from Bakersfield to Tahachapi the day before Amtrak started. The SP’s usual consist was one coach. This day they had 5-6 coaches (forget the exact number).
So single-track lines are never first class… probably lots of double-track lines are second class or worse… how about triple track? If he had made it three tracks all the way from Lathrop to LA would it have maybe qualified as first class? With lower-quadrant semaphores on signal bridges? Or would he need four tracks?
Interesting questions … If BNSF funded the survey then they may be the ones with the need. If UP is happy with the way things are, or are spending their capital budget on the Sunset they may be have told BNSF to feel free to double-track their line.
In regards to day-lighting the tunnels, BNSF did this in Cajon without much disruption so it can be done, but would they pay to do it on a UP line?
If they did foot the bill for this, could we end up with a joint-line situation?
Since you ask, he boasted that he upgraded all railroads he brought into to first class, well not every day, but certainly a couple of times a week. In fact, when he did become President of the Southern Pacific it was in very good repair and well organized and it was making a profit.
Exactly! Previously the BNSF paid to have most (all?) of the tunnels lowered to support double stackers. UP can’t run any unless they reimburse BNSF for part of this cost. And they haven’t yet AFAIK.
IMO the situation is not the same. Cajon was already 2MT and trains could be diverted around some timed construction events. OTOH the Tehachapi bottlenecks are single track with worse construction access; traffic would have to stop for some events with more impact on BNSF.
I don’t see how - BNSF doesn’t own any part of this line or a parallel second track, nor do they have enough business to build their own track [:O] . I think that UP wants to hang onto it for some counter leverage on their important (Cajon and elsewhere) trackage rights over BNSF.
As Arte Johnson used to say, 'Very Interesting … ’
Here I sat, fat, dumb and happy, and suddenly, with warning, a most unexpected and welcome Christmas present dropped into my lap in the form of this thread. Wow! And many thanks.
Two brief observations: I’ve always wondered whether it would make sense to extend the siding at Walong through the underpass to connect with the next siding, a distance of something like a mile or two. The “tunnel” under the tracks at Walong has to be a bottleneck, and lies at a point where train speeds are already restricted by grade and curvature.
Also, I’m guessing BNSF will be picking up the tab for this one, since the growth in traffic seems to be mostly theirs. The operant payment model seems to be, “You grows it, then you pays for it.”
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year from one of your most avid readers.
Thanks for starting the new thread, K.P.! It would seem like quite an accounting chore just to determine how UP and BNSF will allocate these new costs, since the latter already paid for the lowered floors in the exisitng tunnels, etc.
I took that link to see the government document. At first, it seemed crazy that there had to be so much red tape for simply going to double track on the same route. Then I remembered all the hassle that BNSF endured for wanting to put a second track through Abo Canyon, N.M. Some of the complaints and proposed alternate plans in that case were absurd, but that didn’t keep them from being thrown at BNSF. By comparison, this dog-and-pony show looks easy. Maybe the carriers will get off lighter on this project, or maybe the enviros just haven’t gotten around to coming up with their grievances yet.
Narration will be on a west (north) to east (south) basis, and put in an imaginary trip sequence context. The intent was to start at Sandcut and head east, but the back road was closed and barricaded for an unknown reason. Thus, we start at the first intermediate signal set railroad north of Caliente.
Above, the right signal is for the track that junctions into single-track at Caliente, hence, with the new color light signals, it only has a top two-bulb head for a yellow over dark, yellow over yellow, or red over dark.
Unlike most signals on Tehachapi’s North Slope, the LOWER head has three bulbs (with a green) instead of just two.
From CP SP331 ILMON (M.P. 330.6) (to the railroad north) to CP SP335 CALIENTE (M.P. 335.4), a distance of 4.8 miles, in past target signal days there was ONE intermediate set between those two CP’s. Contacts have indicated there are now with color light signals TWO intermediate sets. Hence, the three-bulb lower head in the just above signal photo. The third photo in Part A, right signal, supports that two intermediate sets thought.
