Western Railroad Discussion > Proposed Niles Canyon Expansion by UPRR

Wouldn't using the old Mococco line be a better choice rather than continue using the ex-WP line over Altamont Pass and into Tracy?

In the past, there has been issues with the ex-WP ROW having to deal with soggy ground that shifts the rails out-of-alignment vs. the Mococco line that is basically flat. Bot get to Tracy. Both have to be accessed over a circuitous routing. Both directions have multiple tracks up to the point of the new route. Both lines have no traffic seeing that both lines traverse a barren terrain aside from farming tracts. Lathrop from either line is doable.

And as for the NCRY continued existence should UP move forward with its expansion ideas, I would think that UP would grant the NCRY plenty of time on the newly refurbished ROW and making sure ACE only runs their weekend & holiday trains on the existing ex-WP line they currently use. Yes, using some parts of the old ex-SP ROW to add capacity at various points along the way out to the valley and into the BA would be good, but just upgrading one line and doing nothing of creating additional routing over an already congested line east of Pleasanton doesn't seem like good planning on UP's part. If greater line capacity is what is driving the idea of refurbishing & upgrading the NCRY line to give the Niles Canyon more flexibility and capacity, how is not extending the idea of capacity expansion any good when a "choke" point still exists east of the proposed Verona Road intertie?

Why not just re-lay the tracks across Altamont Pass using the old ex-SP ROW and only have to deal with a small "choke" point at Verona Road? Doing things this way would provide a higher and greater line capacity flexibility because stuff happens and should the AP once again experience a soggy & unstable ground putting the ex-WP line at risk like it has had to deal with in the past, having an alternative access point is better than nothing, is it not?

All,

hat I find so interesting about these threads is that the choke points are not in Altamont Pass or Niles Canyon. They are on either end of those lines. Would relaying the SP over Altamont help? I guess so but it is an up and down line. Would reopening the Mococo line help? Probably much more. The Up's issues are terminal issues at Oakland, Newark/SanJose and Lathrop/Stockton.

J.

It might be less expensive to add a track to the WP route over Altamont rather than open, repair, and enlarge the old SP tunnel.

Mike you better pass on the 2nd trip on WP route.

I keep mentioning this in other venues. People keep talking about "mainline capicity," and yes, it's important. But the TRUE chokepoints of today are the TERMINALS. Terminal throughput, terminal velocity. Doesn't matter how fast you can get from Terminal A to Terminal B--if only one northbound/one southbound (or one eastbound/one westbound) can work Terminal B, it doesn't matter a Tinker's Damn if a train ran on All Clears and the crew had a "great trip" only to sit outside of "Terminal B," often their Home Terminal, for LONGER than they were on duty running on the road. Right fellow rails, both still working and retired? As you know the drill.

And the answer? To buy up often trashed out "tract housing" alongside yards (while it is still classified as such...it will not always be this way!!!) and build bypass tracks for those trains that do not have to "work these yards." So that the intermodals and Z-Trains, grain trains and Crude-by-Rail Trains, and any other type of through train can get PAST the usual "Terminal Quagmire" placed generally every 130 miles or so. So the RRs can do it now--pay for that property now--or, wait until that day when said property is so prohibitively expensive that they'll never be able to lay their fingers on it!

Answer: "Buy the SLUM HOUSING!!!" And do it now, dumbasses!!!

Red Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I keep mentioning this in other venues. People
> keep talking about "mainline capicity," and yes,
> it's important. But the TRUE chokepoints of today
> are the TERMINALS. Terminal throughput, terminal
> velocity. Doesn't matter how fast you can get from
> Terminal A to Terminal B--if only one
> northbound/one southbound (or one eastbound/one
> westbound) can work Terminal B, it doesn't matter
> a Tinker's Damn if a train ran on All Clears and
> the crew had a "great trip" only to sit outside of
> "Terminal B," often their Home Terminal, for
> LONGER than they were on duty running on the road.
> Right fellow rails, both still working and
> retired? As you know the drill.
>
> And the answer? To buy up often trashed out "tract
> housing" alongside yards (while it is still
> classified as such...it will not always be this
> way!!!) and build bypass tracks for those trains
> that do not have to "work these yards." So that
> the intermodals and Z-Trains, grain trains and
> Crude-by-Rail Trains, and any other type of
> through train can get PAST the usual "Terminal
> Quagmire" placed generally every 130 miles or so.
> So the RRs can do it now--pay for that property
> now--or, wait until that day when said property is
> so prohibitively expensive that they'll never be
> able to lay their fingers on it!
>
> Answer: "Buy the SLUM HOUSING!!!" And do it now,
> dumbasses!!!

The problem in that area is that allot of the yards in the area were reduced in size, or removed totally. Then he excess land was sold for the latest and greatest Yuppieland condo/commercial/light industrial/ all in one development.

KI6WDX Wrote:

> Wouldn't using the old Mococco line be a better
> choice rather than continue using the ex-WP line
> over Altamont Pass and into Tracy?

Getting freights from Oakland to the Mococo Line means traversing the Cal-P between Oakland and Martinez, a line that already sees some UP freight, BNSF freight between Richmond and Oakland, and more daily passenger trains than the Centerville line would see even if ACE gets its 10 daily round trips. You would be trading one bottleneck for another.

The NIMBY forces opposing a revival of the Mococco Line are quite strong.

Best regards,

Rob L.

I don't see an opeming post to this thread reporting any official consideration of expansion by U.P., so presume this is all speculative foamer chat about how to run a railroad?

Steve Donaldson
Pacific Grove, CA

Scroll down farther to the ACE Forward thread.



SteveD Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't see an opeming post to this thread
> reporting any official consideration of expansion
> by U.P., so presume this is all speculative foamer
> chat about how to run a railroad?

Interesting to note what BNSF has done with their new double track leading into and around terminals, they park trains on it in a single file. The trains that do get on the road all fleet in one direction, suppose it works better for scheduling crews that way as well.

See the PDFs on the following thread.
http://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?1,3580332

espee1998 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> See the PDFs on the following thread.
> http://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?1,3
> 580332


I missed that discussion, the maps are in the second set of pdf's. Interesting how ACE is filling in the gap for the CA-HSR over Altamont route.

Obviously, there's money to be bounced around trying to plow through the Golf Course than there is for the end around on the old Mococo line. After all, it's all about money.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/20/14 11:21 by TCnR.

rob_l Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The NIMBY forces opposing a revival of the Mococco
> Line are quite strong.
>


Do you know what legal tools might be available for homeowners to prevent UP from re-activating the line? And would this be a Federal issue since the UP never legally abandoned the right-of-way?

Also, why isn't the line in service as a commuter route? It seems it would have potential.

Thanks,

Brad

There is one point everyone seems to forget in this entire discussion.

No source of funding - local, State or Federal - has been identified for any such project.

No bucks, no Buck Rogers.

Until that happens, and it is an extremely low priority as projects go, all talk is moot.

The pdf's are from a report or study, somebody got paid, somebody shelled out some bucks, guess who.
Ch-ching, cha-ching. Leaky wallet.

-------------------------------------------------------
> There is one point everyone seems to forget in
> this entire discussion.
>
> No source of funding - local, State or Federal -
> has been identified for any such project.
>
> No bucks, no Buck Rogers.
>
> Until that happens, and it is an extremely low
> priority as projects go, all talk is moot.

Studies are cheap. Keep the staff employed. Easily paid for by some agency.

Real projects that make changes? Oh so expensive...

I say do both, reopen the MOCOCO line & expand the ALTAMONT/NILES route. Nothing like having multible options. Also don't forget the MELROSE to NILES route. The CTC is still turn on on that route.

It seems the everyone is ignoring the engineering standards that the SP line (NCRY) and the WP line (UP) were built to. The SP line was designed to 1860's standards for wood burning 4-4-0 locos pulling short trains. It is remarkable that SP's Cab Forward locos could negotiate the curves, but at reduced speeds. When SP acquired the WP line, they quickly moved traffic to the WP line, which was engineered to early 1900's standards with two tunnels to straighten out the line.

Alameda County owns the SP line and they are quite happy with NCRY. UP has no legal interest in the line. So why would they want to spend dollars in re-railing and installing new ties in the face of opposition from Plesenton and Livermore Nimby's? Forget Altamont Pass, it's been severed in many places.

Norm O.