Western Railroad Discussion > Salt Lake Causeway Breached

On December 2, 2016, Union Pacific removed the earthen berm that blocked the flow of Great Salt Lake waters from the south arm to the north arm of the lake.

1) Looking south at the breach. South arm at the top, water flowing into the north arm.

2) Looking north at the breach. North arm at the top.

3) Looking east showing the location of the breach in relation to the causeway.

All three photos by Salt Lake Tribune photographers.

More information, photos and comment here on TO on Nov. 21st.

http://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?1,4165313,4165313#msg-4165313

Don Strack

---

---

---

It looks like the causeway was re-routed, I'm curious if this was under the UP or Southern Pacific. Does anyone know?

This should definitely help the grunion migration.

Out

Flew over this last night on the way back to Spokane about 3:30 and saw what appeared to be UP widening out one of the breaches. Is this an ongoing process or are they pretty much wrapped up?

BB

Posted from iPhone

That happened when SP replaced the original trestle with the causeway to the left in 1959.

The portion going straight was the original alignment, which crossed the lake on a long trestle. The original trestle was abandoned many years ago.
rrpreservation Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It looks like the causeway was re-routed, I'm
> curious if this was under the UP or Southern
> Pacific. Does anyone know?

The "Fill" was offset to the north to give the barges and dredges sea room to work without risking hitting the trestle or having the weight of the new material displace the trestle.

saw the trestle in the 80s-  good view from the SFZ

Thanks for the update. Is UP going to do another breach of the causeway east of this location over towards Promontory Point or just the one?

In looking at and comparing the photos, you can really see the erosion damage on the north side of the causeway caused by the heavy salt-water wave pounding.  Look at the top edge of the causeway on the south side, and you see an almost straight line of rip-rap fill and dirt cover.  Look at the north side, and the entire edge is ragged, jagged, uneven, worn away and damaged, showing the constant need for replacement work.  If you look farther out onto the causeway in the distance, you can see the whitewater of the waves crashing over the roadbed.  As we've read and seen in previous posts, this stretch of track can be downright frightening in a bad storm.  Out in the middle of nowhere on a thin piece of dirt with Mother Nature trying to destroy it...

It seems adding more water to the north side will be good environmentally, but now with more water, the waves may breach higher and hit harder.  Makes me wonder if going back to the original route via Promotory would be better in the long run.  Large cost of maintaining this causeway = how much in operational and fuel savings??  Does it really benefit UP to keep this crossing?  I'd love to see the numbers.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/03/16 18:40 by coach.

Thanks Don.  I appreciate the follow up report.
Tim Costello

coach Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In looking at and comparing the photos, you can
> really see the erosion damage on the north side of
> the causeway caused by the heavy salt-water wave
> pounding.  Look at the top edge of the causeway
> on the south side, and you see an almost straight
> line of rip-rap fill and dirt cover.  Look at the
> north side, and the entire edge is ragged, jagged,
> uneven, worn away and damaged, showing the
> constant need for replacement work.  If you look
> farther out onto the causeway in the distance, you
> can see the whitewater of the waves crashing over
> the roadbed.  As we've read and seen in previous
> posts, this stretch of track can be downright
> frightening in a bad storm.  Out in the middle of
> nowhere on a thin piece of dirt with Mother Nature
> trying to destroy it...
>
> It seems adding more water to the north side will
> be good environmentally, but now with more water,
> the waves may breach higher and hit harder.
>  Makes me wonder if going back to the original
> route via Promotory would be better in the long
> run.  Large cost of maintaining this causeway =
> how much in operational and fuel savings??  Does
> it really benefit UP to keep this crossing?  I'd
> love to see the numbers.

You should perhaps take a peak at some topo maps of the old
route and some of the geography surrounding it.  Not only is it
much longer, the grades are something else, so it's also
more time-consuming to go that way.

I wonder why they don't, or if they will, establish some breakwaters
on the north side of the causeway, to take some of the force out of
the waves before they hit the causeway itself.

Realist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> coach Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > In looking at and comparing the photos, you can
> > really see the erosion damage on the north side
> of
> > the causeway caused by the heavy salt-water
> wave
> > pounding.  Look at the top edge of the
> causeway
> > on the south side, and you see an almost
> straight
> > line of rip-rap fill and dirt cover.  Look at
> the
> > north side, and the entire edge is ragged,
> jagged,
> > uneven, worn away and damaged, showing the
> > constant need for replacement work.  If you
> look
> > farther out onto the causeway in the distance,
> you
> > can see the whitewater of the waves crashing
> over
> > the roadbed.  As we've read and seen in
> previous
> > posts, this stretch of track can be downright
> > frightening in a bad storm.  Out in the middle
> of
> > nowhere on a thin piece of dirt with Mother
> Nature
> > trying to destroy it...
> >
> > It seems adding more water to the north side
> will
> > be good environmentally, but now with more
> water,
> > the waves may breach higher and hit harder.
> >  Makes me wonder if going back to the original
> > route via Promotory would be better in the long
> > run.  Large cost of maintaining this causeway
> =
> > how much in operational and fuel savings??
>  Does
> > it really benefit UP to keep this crossing?
>  I'd
> > love to see the numbers.
>
> You should perhaps take a peak at some topo maps
> of the old
> route and some of the geography surrounding it. 
> Not only is it
> much longer, the grades are something else, so
> it's also
> more time-consuming to go that way.
>
> I wonder why they don't, or if they will,
> establish some breakwaters
> on the north side of the causeway, to take some of
> the force out of
> the waves before they hit the causeway itself.

I wonder why the UP put their new "Breech Bridge" so far east oh the Rambo Fill instead of locating it out at around Midlake?

They're (UP) the experts :-(

WAF Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> They're (UP) the experts :-(

WAF
You and I and RTB all three know why..
Maybe some new experts can tell us.