Western Railroad Discussion > Stockton tower flyover?

When construction of the UP/BNSF Stockton tower flyover began, wouldn't it be a good idea to reroute lower priority trains like baretables, repos and manifest down the coast to keep traffic more fluid during those long work windows. You wouldn't want to delay any Z-trains, auto trains or the UPS northbay trains. Intermodal pays the bills so why risk pissing off the customers with a construction traffic jam.


 

Proud Foamer
OAKLEY, CA

Why are you trying to use Logic? You know it's not allowed...

Are they really gonna build it? I've only been suggesting it for 18 years...

Problem with Coast Route would be lack of qualified crews.

I've seen two concept drawings, one has the UP on top and the other the BNSF on top, be interesting to see what
the final decision looks like. It would make sense to put the UP on the bottom to avoid the Northbound pull out of
Stockton yard but hey sense? Ha! 

Out

callum_out Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I've seen two concept drawings, one has the UP on
> top and the other the BNSF on top, be interesting
> to see what
> the final decision looks like. It would make sense
> to put the UP on the bottom to avoid the
> Northbound pull out of
> Stockton yard but hey sense? Ha! 
>
> Out
Isn't the BNSF yard fairly close to the crossing, also?

As to Coast Line crews, considering the length of the construction project, they would just qualify crews if they wanted to use the route..
 

Yes John, that's the idea of the project, to reduce the delays by the BNSF crossing the UP or vice versa. Having the BNSF up top would
seem to be the better idea as they've got a nice straight run at the crossing. They could lower the BNSF line but  would probably hit the
water table line pretty quickly.

Out 

The EIR shows the UP on top, more or less on what was the alignment of the WP. The new alignment is to avoid service disruption during construction. A search for "Stockton Diamond" will lead to the EIR.

PHall Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why are you trying to use Logic? You know it's not
> allowed...

Surprised you didn't call him out on the fact that UP has recent experience doing this sort of stuff, and there were no major detours necessary for the West Colton flyover. EIR (mentioned by joemagruder) for the Stockton Flyover plan seems to imply UP plans to do the same at Stockton?

cchan006 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> PHall Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Why are you trying to use Logic? You know it's
> not
> > allowed...
>
> Surprised you didn't call him out on the fact that
> UP has recent experience doing this sort of stuff,
> and there were no major detours necessary for the
> West Colton flyover. EIR (mentioned by
> joemagruder) for the Stockton Flyover plan seems
> to imply UP plans to do the same at Stockton?

I figured logic would be enough.

cchan006 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> PHall Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Why are you trying to use Logic? You know it's
> not
> > allowed...
>
> Surprised you didn't call him out on the fact that
> UP has recent experience doing this sort of stuff,
> and there were no major detours necessary for the
> West Colton flyover. EIR (mentioned by
> joemagruder) for the Stockton Flyover plan seems
> to imply UP plans to do the same at Stockton?


This is NOT being done by UP or BNSF. It is ACE that wants to do the project
 

uprrman156 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This is NOT being done by UP or BNSF. It is ACE
> that wants to do the project

That's how I understood it, too, based on past discussions, that this is primarily to help ACE trains.

It seems using the ex-WP alignment would be similar to what UP did at Colton, where the elevated section was built parellel instead of on top of the old alignment?

I suppose they (whoever is "in charge" of the project) can re-invent the wheel and disrupt traffic and satisfy the foamer wish of having unnecessary detours.

Why would they be using the ex-WP alignment if it's for ACE?  ACE uses the ex-SP station a couple of blocks north.
 

And some where in the mix, they want to move the Amtrak station  to the ACE (wp) station.This offers a straight shot to Sacramento OK, but not for Oakland.  But do not get me started on the High speed project in the area.