Western Railroad Discussion > Dry Canyon Trestle before and after

A picture posted on Friday of the trestle repair was taken just about the same location as one I took in the late 1990's. It will be awhile till the forest returns.

Robert Morris
Dunsmuir, CA
Robert Morris Photography

---

---

Lots of good timber---wasted.  It will be a hundred years before that area looks anything like photo #1.

1. Most of us thought this would take forever, cause we were expecting that pretty much the whole bridge would have to be replaced.
It is amazing (to me anyway), that they were able to remaove the deck girders, re-temper them, and put them back.  Also none of the piers had to be replaced.  I beloeve a minimal amount of new steel was needed in the repair.

2. Was this always a ballasted deck bridge?   Seems most of these type steel bridges ive seen have the ties directly on the steel girders.
I remember reading somewhere, that studies years ago showed that ballasted decks were much better for a number of reasons, and that some bridges were being converted to ballasted deck.  (And new ones built were ballasted deck)

thx

SP standard constructiom. I mentioned the bridge at Woodford on the Tehachapi line having wood tubs that dated
from the fifties. That was standard construction, it allowed the shock of the passing train to be transferred into the
ballast tub rather than directly on the bridge. Woodford got steel but those were fabricated to the wood tub dimensions
and were done well ahead of the work. Hotlum didn't have the luxury of the time. 

Out 

First train heading south to Dunsmuir now, so line must be open.
Good sources say the SP historical society magazine "Trainline"" will have an article on this 2,398,277 pound bridge 
https://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?1,5297924



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/01/21 13:16 by dmaffei.

---

One good rain and that area will turn green again just with less trees. Hats off to the union pacific B and B dept.

Proud Foamer
OAKLEY, CA

Badorder Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> One good rain and that area will turn green again
> just with less trees.

A couple of days ago we had about a half an inch of warm rain in that area, the combined run off and USGS says meltwater from the Glacier ran down into Whitney creek where it crosses hiway 97. Whatever it was filled the old streambed with about 10 feet of silt, the water overflowed onto the roadway, CHP closed 97 for the day. They've since put an excavator on the job digging out some room where the stream should be. Not sure of the specific but that's what happens on that side of the mountain. Haven't been back to the RR crossing of the 'creek' since that happened but would expect something similar, although it's about five 40 ft spans wide.

Agree. amazing how it turned out:

Hats off to the union
> pacific B and B dept.

Re: Pacific Northwest forest regeneration; thinking it will take a hundred years to get back to Bob's photo does not reflect reality.  The original photo shows a forest that is itself regenerated at least once and probably two or three times since the era of original logging.  The Douglas firs which make up the majority of the regrowing forest can grow three feet a year; I have myself observed trees well over three feet in diameter and 160 feet in height that were only six decades old.  The trees behind the trestle are nowhere near that old.

And depending on ownership, the trees killed by fire seen in the background will be harvested and made into lumber or other products and the area replanted in very short order.  I have hiked and hunted in the area devastated by the 1980 Mt. St. Helens eruption.  The areas part of the National Monument were not harvested nor replanted and have regenerated with mixed species.  But even more the areas owned by Weyerhauser were harvested, replanted (they pioneered that work) and now have trees over 28" in diameter and passing 100 feet in height and last time I was there were already providing green boughs for Christmas decorations.  In fact I parked at the site of one of the famous photos taken at the time of the eruption showing complete devastation and didn't recognize it until later.

It is important to have a realistic understanding of forests, fire and regeneration or no good management decisions can be made.  The aftermath of such a fire, while appearing ugly to those wanting only "green" forest, is ultimately not a "tragedy" in ecological terms in the big picture of the forest environment over time.

Timothy



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/01/21 15:03 by heatermason.

Badorder Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> One good rain and that area will turn green again
> just with less trees. Hats off to the union
> pacific B and B dept.

Erosion and siltation will be a problem, probably for a couple of years--until "pioneer" vegetation established itself on the burn area.  Then the natural succession of vegetation will ensue.  Truly natural forests are always in some level of sucession, all the way from pioneering species to "climax"  species.  Eventually, of course, a fire or other event will damage or destroy the climax forest, and the process will begin again.  It's just one more cycle of life that is ongoing on our planet.  

As for the railroad, the quick repair of the bridge is indicative of how things can work when a critical route is damaged.  Thankfully, there are still some "old head" experienced MOW and B&B people out there who know how to field engineer and get problems fixed quickly and efficiently.  Sadly, in more and more American industries, that kind of knowledge, resourcefulness, and "get it done" attitude is literally dying off.  As the saying goes, "The problem with common sense today is that it's not common, anymore."

It is very likely that many forested areas that have recently burned will not return to forest because of climate warming, precipitation changes, increasing insect damage, invasive weeds, soil destruction, increasing frequency of fires, etc. And as far as reforestation..who pays? The value of the timber may not justify the effort.

Posted from Android

         Mother Nature will take care of herself in a LOT less than 100 years. If man will stay out of the way.

While this area is broadly in the "Pacific Northwest" this is not western Washington. There is a reason it is called "Dry Creek." This is in the rain shadow of Mount Shasta and is basically high desert and no way are trees growing three feet a year in this area. This is a region of microclimates and unless one really knows the specifics of an area....you don't really know what you are talking about. The issue is that, due to fire supression and blind luck it had been 100 years since the last fire in that area, an unnatural human caused situation which resulted in a catastrophic stand replacing fire. This is not just natural regeneration....and the forest in that area will not look anything like it did in Photo Bob's photo in any of our lifetimes.

heatermason Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Re: Pacific Northwest forest regeneration;
> thinking it will take a hundred years to get back
 

Never have so many known so little.

I can stand corrected!  Siskiyou County is not Eureka and I do not live near the trestle.

However, for further research: 
     -this area gets on the average at least 20 inches of rain a year (Edgewood) which is enough to support a forest and has (sources: California precipatiation data and maps, studies for the reservoir projects built nearby, Bob's photo, etc.).  It has certainly burned before and that relatively recently (the centuries oldwestern  forests are in locations to which fires do not have ready access, this is not one). 
     -Dry Creek has seasonal flow variation but was most probably named "Dry" because that was the observation of those traveling in the summer (makes rebuilding the trestle easier, too).  It is not dry all year (source: research in California place names).
     -all the research indicates that proactive management will result in a quicker return on tree regeneration (google the issue; 
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/58c6f8a01e5b6c87cd960db9/t/59b303b08dd04187fcdc88ed/1504904134456/After+Fire%2C+Forests+Grow+Back+Naturally.pdf; 
"Conifer Regeneration in the Klamath-Siskiyous: How Much, How Soon?")
     -friends owning and managing forest lands of similar characteristics in southern Oregon have experienced much faster regeneration of Douglas fir forest than "centuries".  I have been on their ground, saw it logged and watched it regenerate.  Similarly at other "dry" sites in Eastern Oregon, Eastern Washington, Idaho, Northern California, etc.  

Best,

Timothy

 



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/01/21 20:25 by heatermason.

Soo715 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The issue is that, due to
> fire supression and blind luck it had been 100
> years since the last fire in that area, an
> unnatural human caused situation which resulted in
> a catastrophic stand replacing fire. This is not
> just natural regeneration....and the forest in
> that area will not look anything like it did in
> Photo Bob's photo in any of our lifetimes.
>
It is very likely that this forest will not look anything like it did in Photo Bob's photos for the better part of a century, if not more.  The fire is the very predictable and natural result of tree overcrowding caused by a century-plus  of fire suppression.  Fluctuating climate conditions can increase wildfire starts and stimulate stronger fire behavior, but the primary cause of the increasing number of Western wildfires is that century-plus of forest management policy that has turned many Western forests into timderboxes ripe for ignition.  As another of my forester friends put it, "these are fuel-loaded forests that are just ripe to burn and that are just waiting for an ignition source--and sooner or later they will find one."

Ballasted deck allows the profile and alignment to be "fine tuned" as on ground-supported track, which is particularly helpful at bridge approaches where the ground tends to settle more than the bridge abutments. Also, with any curve superelevation is easier to achieve. With an open deck (ties attached to the bridge structure), adjustments to profile, cross-level (and superelevation), and alignment require removing (or at least loosening) bolts and shimming under ties, which is awkward. The main disadvantage with ballasted bridges is the added weight.

photobob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A picture posted on Friday of the trestle repair
> was taken just about the same location as one I
> took in the late 1990's. It will be awhile till
> the forest returns.

Thanks for the comparison! It might not be appropriate to feel "positive" after a devastation, but I can't help it when "Photobob SP shot" is included.

> Sadly, in more and more American industries, that
> kind of knowledge, resourcefulness, and "get it
> done" attitude is literally dying off.  As the
> saying goes, "The problem with common sense today
> is that it's not common, anymore."

Huh?

Posted from Android

Let's hope that the UP keeps a nice wide tree-free zone beneath this and their other bridges.

Chicodepot Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It is very likely that many forested areas that
> have recently burned will not return to forest
> because of climate warming, precipitation changes,
> increasing insect damage, invasive weeds, soil
> destruction, increasing frequency of fires, etc.
> And as far as reforestation..who pays? The value
> of the timber may not justify the effort.
>
> Posted from Android


What? It'll all take care of itself.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/01/21 22:22 by SPbird.