posted
Major fire in Cajon Pass today, I-15 shut in both directions as bushfire "jumped" the freeway and took out numerous vehicles in the process. It looks a bit apocalyptic! 3,500 acres burnt so far, uncontained, high winds, several houses lost, but no reported injuries.
The railroad tracks are nearby but so far seem unaffected and in fact #4 (17) left San Bernadino a few minutes ago and is heading up towards the fire. Looking on the dispatcher-style feeds it's quite busy in the pass with six trains between the summit and San Bernadino, including Amtrak. I don't know if any traffic was stopped at any time.
Looks like those passengers on #4 will be getting quite a view nonetheless - and they've got green signals all the way to Victorville 30 miles ahead, which is quite impressive!
Probably going to be (or already was) a non-event as far as rail goes but may be of interest. A photo
Gilbert B Norman Member # 1541
posted
Mr.Mayo, if this wildfire spreads to affect railroad operations, the BNSF is simply "out of business" into the LA Basin. No reasonable and practical detours come to mind, but I of course defer to you on this point.
So far as highway traffic goes, I guess CA14 will be the only way "outta Dodge". That will be "problematic" for those off to The Meadows to part ways with their paycheck.
CBS Radio News reported that I-15 through Cajon could be closed for several days.
Vincent206 Member # 15447
posted
This will be an epic year for western wildfires. Everywhere west of the continental divide has had a winter, spring and summer of drought and high temperatures.
Geoff Mayo Member # 153
posted
CA-14 to CA-138/18 to I-5 north is a 2-lane road at its narrowest; same for the CA-58 further to the north. I've been along the 138/18 on a Friday before and it's been slow and heavy. I dread to think what it might have been like last night. Suffice to say I think Vegas will be a little quieter this weekend.
As far as I can tell, the fire happened just to the north of where the northbound and southbound carriageways split to take different routes up the mountains. Just a half mile to the south of that, from north to south, the UP line, two of the BNSF mains, then another half mile to the south, the 3rd BNSF main all cross under the freeway. The wind was blowing towards the north-east so I guess the RRs got lucky both for fire and for smoke.
Latest I've heard is that all 4 lanes of I-15 northbound are open, but only 1 southbound due to road damage from the burning vehicles, plus 3000ft of guard rail needs repair. Wooden posts for the guardrail? Not the best idea!
Alternatives for road: 2-hour diversion roughly on all 3 of the closest alternatives. For rail, had it closed: UP can get to Lancaster via the Antelope Valley but that's a busy route with Metrolink. BNSF: Sorry, better luck next time.
For fun: which way could the Southwest Chief go if Cajon was blocked and they really wanted to go to Chicago? Looks to me like it would have to be UP on the Sunset route to Deming, NM, then head north on the "El Paso sub" to rejoin BNSF at Albuquerque. Or Antelope Valley via Palmdale to Mojave, reverse, "Mojave sub" to Barstow to rejoin the route.
Gilbert B Norman Member # 1541
posted
A little bit of "postwar" history so far as Cajon goes.
The first line through there was the ATSF/BNSF over which the traditional UP had trackage rights. That line was two tracked and maybe three in some places, and adequately handled the freight and passenger traffic of both roads. Even into the CLASSIC TRAINS era, there were many more of the former and a lot less of the latter. Lest we forget, we made our own stuff back then.
The SP/UP did not lay their own track over Cajon until the 1960's. Their objective was to bypass traffic off the San Joaquin Route to the Sunset Route and v.v. around LA. At the time it was built, the SP was still a viable railroad property - just a road that saw the writing on the wall regarding passengers much earlier than other Western roads.
At the time SP opened their route, which was really non competitive with ATSF or UP, I don't think there was even any kind of physical connection, obviously there is today and benefits both roads.
Vincent206 Member # 15447
posted
How vulnerable are railroads to wildfires? Most rights-of-way are already fairly clear of timber and vegetation that would cause major damage to the infrastructure. Wooden bridges and trestles would likely be heavily defended by fire fighting crews and are likely already fire-proofed to some degree. A fire that passes over the tracks might cause some damage to the wooden ties or the signal system, but those items would be replaceable within a few days of the fire. I can think of some spots on the western side of the Cascades Mountains where there are some thick forests along the BNSF rail line, but I don't think that this season's wildfires will cause long-term damage to railroad operations. Of course, that probably won't stop Wall Street traders from thinking that "western wildfires" is yet another reason to dump UNP stock.
Geoff Mayo Member # 153
posted
Wooden trestles are highly vulnerable, even with fire proofing. Fire crews couldn't do anything about this one. There are also many tiny bridges over culverts or small streams that use lumber for support. I've seen lots of grade crossings for minor roads use wooden planks between the rails as well.
I was on a steam train in the UK once when the sleepers (ties) under the engine caught fire. For some reason the fireman (of the shovelling coal variety) felt the need to dump the fire. Onto wooden sleepers. <bang head against wall>
PullmanCo Member # 1138
posted
An alternate is to have UP and BNSF cooperate on Truckee Pass and the WP route, up to capacity of the UP (ex-SP) in eastern Nevada/Western Utah. As I recall, UP and SP shared trackage from SLC west to some point in NV.
The other way is to share trackage on the historic Sunset Route.
That said, both UP out of LA to LV and BNSF out of LA on the historic ATSF are in between a rock and a hard place if the fire shuts them down for a bit.
Force majeure, anyone?
Gilbert B Norman Member # 1541
posted
Mr. Pullman, the greatest concern is that the Port of LA could lose relevance at a greater rate than expected in a Post PANAMAX shipping environment. Dependence upon one railroad is that rock and a hard place that shippers don't like - and if zero alt-route BNSF was out of business for any length of time, the Port of LA would be at UP's mercy.
Memories of the SP's monopoly philosophy are slow to fade; force majeure saying "all bets off" on any performance provisions would apply, but that would be the least of concerns.
PullmanCo Member # 1138
posted
Frankly, if I'm a shipper from the Orient, my greater concern is not whether or not I'm limited to one carrier at a port, rather, I want to get my cargo as close to its destination as I can before I change modes.
This of course presumes the cost of a single mode is less expensive than changing to a smaller mode. A 150 car doublestack can only carry 600 TEUs, so that current 5000 TEU ship needs 9 trains to get the cargo onto land.
To that end, shipping to the East Coast or the Gulf Coast, vice bringing it to California and railing it out, is a superior solution.
Gilbert B Norman Member # 1541
posted
Well Mr. Pullman, that of course is what the Panamanians and a host of East Coast port authorities are placing their bets upon. Somehow I doubt if same enthusiasm is shared on Lou Menk Drive and on Dodge St.
Top twenty ports with international trade: Port of South Louisiana 2 Port of Houston, Texas 3 Port of New York and New Jersey Port Newark 4 Port of New Orleans, Louisiana 5 Port of Beaumont, Texas 6 Port of Long Beach, California 7 Hampton Roads, Virginia 8 Port of Corpus Christi, Texas 9 Port of Los Angeles, California 10 Baton Rouge, Louisiana 59,992,818 11 Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana 12 Port of Texas City, Texas 13 Port of Mobile, Alabama 14 Port of Lake Charles, Louisiana 16 Helen Delich Bentley Port of Baltimore, Maryland 19 Twin Ports of Duluth, Minnesota and Superior, Wisconsin 34,672,105 20 Port of Savannah, Georgia 21 Pascagoula, Mississippi 22 Port of Tampa Bay, Florida 23 Port of Port Arthur, Texas
Ditto on the disclaimer.
Gilbert B Norman Member # 1541
posted
Once again, figures don't lie but a Wikiliar doth figure.
First, Los Angeles and Long Beach are essentially a co-terminal. Think Hickam AFB and Honolulu International and until fairly recently Rhein-Main AB and Frankfurt International. Combine their tonnage and there is a port greater in size than New York.
Secondly, I have to wonder if the $$$$, €€€€, ¥¥¥¥, whatever, value of the tonnage is a more reflective measurement of activity. All too many of the top 20 reported by Mr. Pullman handle products of mines or agriculture. For example, the Port of South Louisiana comprises a number of grain terminals along Ol' Man River from Baton Rouge to immediately North of New Orleans.
All told, I think that so far as high value manufactured goods, i.e. the stuff we used to make back during the last century, are concerned, the Port of LA/LB will be at the top of the rankings - and short of a blockage along the Alameda Corridor (pretty sure there is an LE presence there 24/7), could be at the mercy of one railroad.
disclaimer; ibid
Vincent206 Member # 15447
posted
Port of South Louisiana is a huge barge transfer port, as are most ports along the Mississippi River delta. Port of Houston is a large petroleum transfer facility and pipelines are more preferred than railcars. The 10 busiest container ports in the US are Los Angeles, Long Beach, PANYNJ, Savannah, Oakland, Virginia, Houston, Tacoma, Charleston, Seattle.
Container shipping rates have dropped significantly over the past few years due to the global recession and an oversupply of shipping capacity. It's cheaper these days to maximize the amount of distance travelled at sea and minimize the distance travelled on land. The new PANAMAX ships are very efficient if they are fully loaded, but like the airlines that used to offer L-1011 service between LA and SF or London and Paris, when the loads are less than full, the economics aren't as profitable.
Gilbert B Norman Member # 1541
posted
That sums it up quite succinctly, Mr. Vincent.
No wonder my UNP is down 19.9% (my "biggest loser") compared with a flat S&P. If "we" know it, so do they on Dodge St.
Can't say they're exactly cheering at 500 Water; that is down 9.9%. Whatever gains that CSX and NS will see post-PANAMAX, they will be more than offset by losses in Coal traffic.
No wonder I've unloaded KSU and NSC (also BNI to Warren), made some nice $$$ on all of 'em however.
George Harris Member # 2077
posted
And while we are talking about all this and the discussion that where possible economics virtually always say float it to where you want it or to as close to it as you can get, let it tell us how absolutely silly or living in fantasyland or whatever you want to call it are those getting all worked up about the possibility of a Bering Strait tunnel and railroads to connect it up to the world.
Quite a few years ago on one of my trans-Pacific flights I got a good view of said strait and adjacent countryside from the window of a 747. The tunnel is the cheap and simple part of it. the land on either side consists of some of the most empty and inhospitible, and on the Siberian side, at least, also appeared to be rugged, country on this planet. There is no "there" there.
quote:Tourists and workers in Glacier National Park were scurrying to find places to stay Tuesday night as a rapidly growing wildfire shut down most of the park’s iconic Going-to-the-Sun Road, and the motel and campground at Rising Sun were evacuated.
Iron Mountain Member # 12411
posted
I did not realize until fairly recently that fires, brush and others, were such a threat to rail traffic. Several years ago I was traveling east out of Kansas City and I believe it was just west of Independence or might have been Lee's Summit we came to an abrupt stop. The conductor announced that there was a fire around the tracks. After a delay of 45 minutes or so we proceeded. The fire was a combination of some old buildings and brush. Fire equipment had to enter the right-of-way to get at the fire. Lots of smoke and fire engines. Of course this was nothing like the fires out west. But interesting nonetheless.
yukon11 Member # 2997
posted
I've been trying to keep up with the number of forest fires, especially in Montana, which threaten BNSF tracks and the Empire Builder
A couple of days ago, I read that a fire got close to Marias pass. However, BNSF trains and the EB were allowed to go through.
Currently, a fire is threatening the tracks about 1/4 mile outside of Essex. BNSF is attempting to protect trestles and snow sheds with sprinkling systems and nearby water tanks.
In July, while headed to Whitefish on the EB, our train was held up for 2 hrs in Bingen-White Salmon due to a fire, crossing the tracks, a few miles to the east.
Anyone hear further news?
Richard
Vincent206 Member # 15447
posted
The number fires in MT is actually rather low. According to The Los Angeles Times less than 50,000 acres have burned in MT while over 600,000 acres have already burned in WA with several huge fires still burning out of control. On Sunday, Seattle was completely covered in thick brown smoke from nearby wildfires.
I flew from Billings to Seattle recently and we could see some of the fires from the plane--large areas of smoky, glowing red on the mountainsides as we cruised over at 25,000 feet. Some summers the western wildfires generate intense national news coverage--even when the fires are relatively small. But this summer, when the forest fires are massive, the media seem to be more interested in other stories--like the dumpster fire GOP primaries and the wildfire stock market meltdown.
So far, none of the major rail lines in WA have been damaged by the recent fires.
edit: I highly recommend taking a look at the slide show within the LA Times link.
yukon11 Member # 2997
posted
Well, Vincent, maybe a fire near the perimeter of Glacier Park is of greater interest to the media. From the following chart it does show the state of Washington getting the worst of it. This an up-to-date account of current forest fires:
posted