I've posted one picture, taken from here. There are four additional pictures at the link. Yikes!
Attachments
Images (1)
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
There didn't seem to be any information as to which railroad this used to be.
That sure looks like the D&RGW/UP Moffet Tunnel Route west from Denver.
ChipR
It's an Amtrak line leased from UP, according to the original poster.
I was wondering why I saw a UP train scheduled from Salt Lake City to Denver routed through Laramie, WY and Kansas City before heading for Denver!
Danl
Is there a rare mileage opportunity for California Zephyr riders, or was the train cancelled.
As information, it is definitely not Amtrak's track. It's UPRR -- former D&RGW -- and Amtrak normally runs the CZ, one train each way, daily. BNSF has trackage rights, but runs only a small number of trains each month.
Tis type of washout is a really bad deal, because, the signal system can still provide green signals if the rail is intact. Sometimes there are detectors in fills where there is risk of washouts.
The BNSF (former Colorado & Southern) between Denver and Cheyenne is washed out in so many places that iit is not yet possible to tell when the service might be restored. It normally has a lot of daily coal trains. The UPRR line between Denver and Cheyenne is in a better location relative to the front range of the Rockies, and I wonder if it is currently intact?
Actually the BNSF runs as many trains as the UP does on the old Moffat line. They run at a higher track speed than the UP to 'zig-zag' around the UP trains. Between the Moffat line (now called UP's tunnel district) and the BNSF's old C&S line north to Billings,MT, Rail service in Denver sure is a mess right now.
In the discussion on Reddit, the original poster's friend works for Amtrak and took the pictures - another individual in the thread posted an additional picture from his father, an Amtrak engineer. They've confirmed it's an Amtrak route.
Here's a link, but be warned - Reddit is quite a different world than what you may be accustomed to on the O Gauge Forum:
Originally Posted by ams:
In the discussion on Reddit, the original poster's friend works for Amtrak and took the pictures - another individual in the thread posted an additional picture from his father, an Amtrak engineer. They've confirmed it's an Amtrak route.
Correct. It is an "Amtrak route", over the former D&RGW, then SP, and now Union Pacific. It is not however, "leased from the UP".
Right. I misread Number 90's emphasis in his post, and it was a poor choice of words on my part.
Another web site reports that it is in Jefferson county and that is tunnel #2 in the background. About 10 miles as the crow flies from my house.
And I was feeling bad about the ballast being washed out in parts of my G scale layout in the backyard.
That's one heck of a hole to have to fill in! And I'm sure there are other areas along those Colorado rail lines that are just as bad, or worse. Really a bad situation for folks living in that neck of the woods.
Lost Bogie would be an apt name especially if they tried to run a passenger train over that "virtual trestle" 
Saw a parade of rock/ballast trains this morning, so I guess the work to repair has begun.
That is Tunnel 2 on the UP Moffat sub. The damaged area used to have a wooden trestle known as Bull Gulch trestle which was filled in about 70 years ago with earth. The damage in the canyons and plains out here to both roads and rail lines is astounding. A lot of areas will take months at the least to repair.
I hope someone provides photos once the work is complete. I would love to see how they handle such a major repair effort.
Thanks for the link.....I think!!!! While interesting info.....sure am more happy with the way things are run here
Originally Posted by drgwdavid:
That is Tunnel 2 on the UP Moffat sub. The damaged area used to have a wooden trestle known as Bull Gulch trestle which was filled in about 70 years ago with earth.
It appears they should have stayed with a trestle.
Originally Posted by breezinup:
Originally Posted by drgwdavid:
That is Tunnel 2 on the UP Moffat sub. The damaged area used to have a wooden trestle known as Bull Gulch trestle which was filled in about 70 years ago with earth.
It appears they should have stayed with a trestle.
I sure don't think that a trestle would have withstood THAT flood either.
Just drove on CO 93 and there were a LOT of trucks on Plainview Dr. This road crosses the railroad at Plainview. It looks to me that it is the nearest road access.
ChipR
Originally Posted by Hot Water:
I sure don't think that a trestle would have withstood THAT flood either.
Something with vertical support columns, perhaps not. A bridge at this location might be warranted. That's a lot more expense, of course. Presumably there was a culvert of some kind under the fill.
Originally Posted by breezinup:
Originally Posted by Hot Water:
I sure don't think that a trestle would have withstood THAT flood either.
Something with vertical support columns, perhaps not. A bridge at this location might be warranted. That's a lot more expense, of course. Presumably there was a culvert of some kind under the fill.
Given the degree of flooding, it's impossible to predict what would have withstood the force of the water.
Mother Nature takes great pleasure in proving mankind wrong...
Rusty
Originally Posted by Rusty Traque:
Given the degree of flooding, it's impossible to predict what would have withstood the force of the water.
Mother Nature takes great pleasure in proving mankind wrong...
Rusty
Not impossible; they would be able to determine a solution with engineering studies. However, a bridge will probably be ruled out due to expense (including the cost of re-routing traffic during construction). If it is determined that this flooding occurrence was a once in a hundred year event - or more (which it seems it was, but with global warming who knows what the future is)- then filling it in the way it was before is probably the solution that will be used. Just a useless guess by me, of course.
There are several quarries within a few miles of this site, including one with rail service.
Originally Posted by breezinup:
Originally Posted by Rusty Traque:
Given the degree of flooding, it's impossible to predict what would have withstood the force of the water.
Mother Nature takes great pleasure in proving mankind wrong...
Rusty
Not impossible; they would be able to determine a solution with engineering studies. However, a bridge will probably be ruled out due to expense (including the cost of re-routing traffic during construction). If it is determined that this flooding occurrence was a once in a hundred year event - or more (which it seems it was, but with global warming who knows what the future is)- then filling it in the way it was before is probably the solution that will be used. Just a useless guess by me, of course.
In 1951, the Santa Fe parked 10 steam locomotives on a bridge over the flooding Kansas River in order to try to save the bridge from being washed out.
It didn't work.
It's not nice to fool with Mother Nature...
Rusty
Too much weight.
Without a doubt zero engineering studies were used for that fiasco. 
I'm pretty sure that unless the Santa Fe lifted the bridge sections away with a Zeppelin, the Kaw River bridge was probably doomed in that 1951 flood.
Rusty
Attachments
Images (1)
Originally Posted by Rusty Traque:
I'm pretty sure that unless the Santa Fe lifted the bridge sections away with a Zeppelin, the Kaw River bridge was probably doomed in that 1951 flood.
Rusty
That's a pretty low bridge - lots of examples of those washing out. If the bridge spans a deep gouge, different story. See the Kate Shelly bridge below (which I've crossed). Quite a view! Rather extreme example, but the subject ravine in Colorado appears deep enough that a bridge could span floodwaters successfully. Perhaps a design like the second picture. Something more modest. But I'm not an engineer (of either kind!).
