Western Railroad Discussion > San Bernardino’s Mt. Vernon Ave viaduct closes

San Bernardino’s Mt. Vernon Ave viaduct over the old Santa Fe yards and the BNSF/UP/Amtrak transcon mainline, and by the historic Santa Fe smokestack and Depot, is being replaced. It has been a roadway since 1918 and was remodeled in 1934. Closed to traffic now, it will be replaced over the next few years without major interruption of trains passing below, at up to 4 times per hour, including Metrolink! (1st pic 1930's, last pic, Santa Fe 3751 cold move west in 1986.)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/22/21 08:06 by Spikes.

---

---

---

It was built new in 1934 -- not a remo.

California highways and public works (archive.org)

An earlier Issue (1933?) has a map of the older viaduct.

The guy without the shirt looks like a Railfan from the area. Anyone recognize him? That bridge was a great picture spot.

Valleyman

The demo work has been going on for over a month now. I was out there about two weeks ago and they were removing the concrete roadway one section at a time starting from the south or third street side.

timz Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It was built new in 1934 -- not a remo.
> California highways and public works
> (archive.org)
> An earlier Issue (1933?) has a map of the older
> viaduct.
-----  We have a photo of the original un-remodeled bridge of 1917 to 1934, with a sharp turn on south end. Trying to post but It fails.

PHall Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The demo work has been going on for over a month
> now. I was out there about two weeks ago and they
> were removing the concrete roadway one section at
> a time starting from the south or third street
> side.

Thet's about how long the Form B has been in effect there. PITA.

Interesting about the bridge replacement: IF BNSF is keeping San Bernardino as the intermodal ramp, it would make sense (and probably cost in the same general range, + storm water pump station/piping) to do a cut-and-cover tunnel under the yard for the street. That would provide BNSF with unobstructed access from end-to-end for the Mi-Jacks. Similar to Sepulveda Blvd at LAX, or Spring Street at Long Beach Airport, Sherman Way at Van Nuys, etc. But that would make too much sense...  

The shot below is from UP's Global I; not a problem at all to design the cover to carry the Mi-Jacks, even with impact live loads for lifts. 

Bruce

 



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/22/21 15:35 by StStephen.

---

Spikes Wrote:
We have a photo of the original
> un-remodeled bridge of 1917 to 1934, with a sharp
> turn on south end. Trying to post but It fails.

I did some research on Historic Aerials and a couple other map sources - it looks like Mt Vernon was about a full block west of the current location when the original bridge was built.
When the state built the 1934 bridge, did they move Mt Vernon east?

Two more aerials for comparison. First is August, 1982. Second shot is January 1999. Big difference.

---

---

2-10-2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Spikes Wrote:
> We have a photo of the original
> > un-remodeled bridge of 1917 to 1934, with a
> sharp
> > turn on south end. Trying to post but It fails.
>
> I did some research on Historic Aerials and a
> couple other map sources - it looks like Mt Vernon
> was about a full block west of the current
> location when the original bridge was built.
> When the state built the 1934 bridge, did they
> move Mt Vernon east?
---- I read that a 1907 bridge was a block east of today's, and there was a walking bridge about a block east near 1907, but I doubt if any bridge could have been west of today's bridge that began in 1917. Thanks.

StStephen Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Interesting about the bridge replacement: IF BNSF
> is keeping San Bernardino as the intermodal ramp,
> it would make sense (and probably cost in the same
> general range, + storm water pump station/piping)
> to do a cut-and-cover tunnel under the yard for
> the street. That would provide BNSF with
> unobstructed access from end-to-end for the
> Mi-Jacks. Similar to Sepulveda Blvd at LAX, or
> Spring Street at Long Beach Airport, Sherman Way
> at Van Nuys, etc. But that would make too much
> sense...  
>
> The shot below is from UP's Global I; not a
> problem at all to design the cover to carry the
> Mi-Jacks, even with impact live loads for
> lifts. 
>
> Bruce
>
>  

Sure, if you had an unlimited budget and you didn't mind closing the mains and the yard for a while while you dig the trench to put Mt Vernon Ave in.

Here's a crude pano from my Brownie Hawkeye looking east from the bridge in the late 60s.

---

PHall Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> StStephen Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Interesting about the bridge replacement: IF
> BNSF
> > is keeping San Bernardino as the intermodal
> ramp,
> > it would make sense (and probably cost in the
> same
> > general range, + storm water pump
> station/piping)
> > to do a cut-and-cover tunnel under the yard for
> > the street. That would provide BNSF with
> > unobstructed access from end-to-end for the
> > Mi-Jacks. Similar to Sepulveda Blvd at LAX, or
> > Spring Street at Long Beach Airport, Sherman
> Way
> > at Van Nuys, etc. But that would make too much
> > sense...  
> >
> > The shot below is from UP's Global I; not a
> > problem at all to design the cover to carry the
> > Mi-Jacks, even with impact live loads for
> > lifts. 
> >
> > Bruce
> >
> >  
>
> Sure, if you had an unlimited budget and you
> didn't mind closing the mains and the yard for a
> while while you dig the trench to put Mt Vernon
> Ave in.

Unlimited budget: not necessary. As noted, costs would be more but within +/- 15% to 20%, and BNSF gets full, unobstructed movement by cranes.

Closing the mains and the yard: shooflys in an A-B-C-A-B-C pattern; work area would be about 25% more in width than the bridge itself. No need for more than one section to be closed off at a time. Same general principle, on a larger scale, than when new concrete storm channels are installed under a yard. Conceptually close to when the upgraded concrete storm channel was installed west of Riverside Avenue at West Colton. Different scale? Of course. Engineering impossibility? Of course not. Highway builders do it all the time.

Bruce

I saw this cut and cover used to put an underpass beneath a mainline, a passing track and three yard tracks where no road had been before. Take one track at a time out of service, run on the others while construction is done on that track, put it back in service take out the next, all while maintaining traffic levels. It can be done, don't know that they are going to, but it can be done.

Alco251 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Two more aerials for comparison. First is August,
> 1982. Second shot is January 1999. Big difference.

I spot a wb Santa Fe coal train in the 1982 photo; maybe the York Canyon to Kaiser Steel.

Allen

Posted from Android

bradleymckay Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Alco251 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Two more aerials for comparison. First is
> August,
> > 1982. Second shot is January 1999. Big
> difference.
>
> I spot a wb Santa Fe coal train in the 1982 photo;
> maybe the York Canyon to Kaiser Steel.
>
> Allen
>
> Posted from Android

That's a pretty good possibility.

It seems the pre-1934 viaduct was in line with
Mt Vernon Ave but didn't connect straight to it

California highways and public works (archive.org)