posted
Both No. 5 and No. 6 were trapped in the snowy Sierras yesterday near Donner Pass for many hours when snow removal equipment toppled and blocked the tracks. Shades of January 13-16, 1952, when the Southern Pacific's City of San Francisco became marooned for days in almost the same place!
This current incident was the lead CBS Radio News story aired by WBBM 780 during the 5AM hour.
birdchops Member # 6669
posted
oh heck why couldnt I have been on the train, sounds like a great reason to call in ...*cough*...sick...
Julie
CG96 Member # 1408
posted
Perhaps it is time to re-route the CZ on to the ex-WP route through the Sierras. Would they be able to keep up the speeds ? Was the WP historically a faster, or slower, route across the Sierras? How much congestion would the CZ encounter, and where would the speed restrictions be ?
ehbowen Member # 4317
posted
A major problem with rerouting the CZ is that the historic WP route bypassed Reno, which is easily the largest city between Sacramento and Salt Lake. (WP did have a branch line into Reno, but it would be a very roundabout detour).
The two lines diverged at Winnemucca and ran their separate ways until joining again at Sacramento. It does appear that historically the passenger train times were comparable; I have a 1969 City of SF timetable and a 1970 CZ timetable posted and it appears that in 1970 the WP route actually had an edge in the speed department; from Winnemucca to Sacramento the CZ covered 387 timetable miles in 8:15 while the City of SF took 8:29 to cover 327 timetable miles.
I have no current information as to the status of these lines, so someone else will have to comment on current congestion and speed limits. But I thought the audience might find this info helpful.
Gilbert B Norman Member # 1541
posted
The only merit for a reroute over the Western Pscific Sacramento-Winnemucca would be to allow for a more efficient flow of traffic. Owing to considerably more favorable EB grades, UP routes EB traffic over the WP; WB over the SP. This is how the single tracking of the SP was justified.
I might have expected UP to propose such a reroute of #6 and providing a bus from Portola to Reno at their expense. Running a (ostensibly) timetabled passenger train against the flow of traffic does "not exactly" enhance efficient operations.
rresor Member # 128
posted
Historically, the WP route was always the slower. If you go back to the 1950s, the "City of San Francisco" was on a 40-hour schedule CHI - OAK. The "Zephyr" always took much longer.
Gilbert, I had not heard about UP "directional" routing between Winemucca and Sacramento. With new connections at Binney Junction (north/east of SAC) it would be possible, though, because trains off the WP could use the connections to get to/from Roseville Yard. If in fact UP is directionally routing trains, it would be of considerable benefit to Amtrak to go along with the plan, and use a bus or something to serve Reno.
BTW, the single tracking over Donner was done long before the UP/SP merger, by Ed Moyers, king of single tracking on the IC. I had heard that UP restored at least some of the double track after the merger.
Gilbert B Norman Member # 1541
posted
Possibly I need to stand corrected, Mr. Resor, but I was lead to believe from postings at Trainorders (before I got kicked out) that WP was used Eastward for freight traffic and SP was WW.
It sure made sense to me; I knew of the enhanced physical interchange at Sacramento. From having ridden the "real deal CZ" in this life, it appeared that WP Sac-Oak all too much resembled Toonerville Trolley - and a circuituous one at that!
Jim Beckwurth knew a lot more about 'the lay of the land" and that there was a river with a very favorable gradient almost up to a far lower Summit, but 'The Boy's Club', save Judah to the extent he was even part of such, "had all the answers' - just ask 'em.
I don't think Ambrose gave Beckwurth his "due', but there is material at the Sacramento Rail Museum that does.
posted
The WP is signifcantly longer. Between Oakland and the point in Sacramento where the lines cross, Hagin, it is 90 miles via the SP route and 140 miles via the WP route. At Weso, the west end of the shared tracks (near Winnemucca NV for those not familiar), the ex SP milepost is 420 and the ex WP milepost is 536, so even between Sacramento and Winnemucca, the WP route is 76 miles longer than the SP route.
There are no passenger train speed limits shown on the WP route across the Sierra, but we can compare freight train speed limits. Speeds are similar, but the extra distance makes a huge difference because the speeds are low. The WP line has 72 miles limited to 25 mph and another 23 to 30 mph. For the SP route, the freight limit is also 25 mph for most of about 85 miles, but with some parts allowing 30 mph. Generally, passenger limits are 5 mph above the freight limit on this line.
RRRICH Member # 1418
posted
George - does UP still directionally run AMTRAK's CZ in Nevada between Winnemucca and..... Elko, is it? I know the Zephyr used to run one direction on the former WP and the other on the former SP -- I assume it still does?
George Harris Member # 2077
posted
quote:Originally posted by RRRICH: George - does UP still directionally run AMTRAK's CZ in Nevada between Winnemucca and..... Elko, is it? I know the Zephyr used to run one direction on the former WP and the other on the former SP -- I assume it still does?
Have no information on this. Presumably so, and the 2001 or thereabouts ETT that I have has them on the same page listed as Track 1 and Track 2, withi passenger train speed limits on both.
mr williams Member # 1928
posted
I always wondered what the alternative route was because I have seen a Winnemucca - Sacramento timetable from the 1960s which didn't go through Reno.
So my question (as a devotee of Reno) is, of course, what did serve Reno at that time or was it temporarily bereft of passenger service?
Gilbert B Norman Member # 1541
posted
Mr. Williams, that was the Western Pacific that possibly all we have referred to here in the discussion is as the WP.
I'm not sure what the motivation was to build it beyond providing a competitive routing to the Southern Pacific, which essentially had a stranglehold on all railroad transportation to Northern and Central California, but it was built during the 20th century and without and public assistance such as land grants.
WP was always a "limp along' weak sister of a road, but it DID have one big 'ace in the hole' and that was the railroad's California Zephyr. WP (the 'Weepie", the "Wobbly') ran the Zephyr Salt Lake Oakland, even though the SP (Amtrak) had the most direct and most scenic route. But the WP was responsible for marketing the train (they also employed all of the train hostesses - young women with the same appearance standards as airlines imposed upon their "public contact" hires back then) , and in the days when one train had a national advertising program, there was the Western Pacific's name for the whole world to see.
However, as both Mr. Resor and myself have noted, the best asset in a day when railroad capacity is "maxed out" the WP has is its quite favorable (albeit less scenic, but freight is "not exactly looking out the window) gradients to the Sierras summit. Why the "first kid on the block", the Central Pacific did not choose that route is complex, but suffice it involves the dark side of humankind including greed, ego, and bigotry.
you will see that the ex Southern Pacific line over Donner pass shows a high elevation of 6,887 feet at Norden CA, milepost 192.50 and the ex Western Pacific line through the Feather River Canyon shows a high elevation of 5,011 feet at Reno Junction CA, mp 340.44. Therefore, for the freight, not only are the grades easier, there is 1,876 feet less elevation to climb on the former WP route.
posted