Talk:Cajon Pass

Still a stub
This article is still only 5 sentences long. In my view, that is a stub, so I've restored the stub templates onto the article. I know there is a ton of information that could be added to this article on the railroad significance alone (entire books have been written on this subject alone, such as Chard Walker's 1978 volume Railroading through Cajon Pass ASIN B0006CZTKI). A quick Amazon search shows 26 different books with "Cajon Pass" in the title. slambo 13:47, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Sandy & John Hockaday's book, The Man Who Built Camp Cajon (1996, 2004), has some very good information in it also, especially pertaining to William Bristol. - Walter Feller (still learning about editing)

"Cajon Pass" Isn't
What's commonly referred to as the Cajon Pass, through which I-15 passes, is Cajon Summit. The actual Cajon Pass lies southeast of Cajon Summit, along CA-138. See, e.g.,

http://terraserver.microsoft.com/image.aspx?T=2&S=14&Z=11&X=143&Y=1187&W=2

Look SE of "Cajon Summit" (along I-15) to find "Cajon Pass."

http://www.westcoastroads.com/california/ca-138.html

Exceprt from the second link:

"Cajon Pass, not to be confused with Cajon Summit, is located along California 138 east of Interstate 15. While the freeway passes over Cajon Summit, California 138 takes a winding route to reach the Cajon Pass summit."

Do any of the primary contributors to this article care to deal with this distinction?

--Dmjames 20:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Sullivan's Curve
Is there a reason for a link to the Sullivan's Curve page if it simply redirects back to the Cajon Pass page? 71.131.211.106 18:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Eventually, it will be an article on its own; until then, a redirect to this article is appropriate. However, we can probably delink it from within this article since it is basically a circular redirect at this point.  Sullivan's Curve is a popular location on the pass for railfan photography; it is named after a photographer who made the location famous (details are in Cajon: Rail Passage to the Pacific [ISBN 0870460722]; I just can't find my copy of the book right now). Slambo (Speak)  13:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The former SP Line
Is there a reason that I find nothing about the 1966 / 1967 built SP - today UP - line between West Colton and Palmdale - the so called Palmdale Cutoff. There is also no word that the old line (today BNSF) between the Stations Cajon and Summit is, with a maximum of 3.2%, the heaviest gradient in a main line in the USA. --Bigboy4015 12:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The charts do show a maximum of 3.4% for maybe 250 feet of railroad, but that bit may not actually exist; if it does it's insignificant, since the grade a train is feeling is the average over the length of the train-- which on Cajon will never exceed 3.0% by much. Assuming Raton Pass (on the BNSF, former AT&SF, line from Colorado into New Mexico) is still a main line, it's the steepest one in the country that's still in use. Tim Zukas (talk) 21:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * A good reason would be that editors with reliable sources about it haven't had a chance to work on it yet. I've got a couple books that talk about SP's line, but I haven't had the time to work through them myself.  On the sharpest grade question, isn't Sand Patch still in use with a higher grade?  I've seen conflicting reports on that line.  Slambo (Speak)  15:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

You must be thinking of some other line-- Sand Patch has never been a contender for steepest main line in the country. Tim Zukas (talk) 21:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Dump it
I don't know what group of anonymous idiots wrote this page, but this is load of crap. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.254.135.244 (talk • contribs) 22:27, October 21, 2007


 * Sounds rather trollish to me. One anonymous editors "load of crap" is another editor's start-class article.  Slambo (Speak)  11:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Height of Cajon Pass and Cajon Summit
This site says: Cajon Pass = 1,169 m (3,835 ft) instead of 1,277 m (4,190 ft) which are mentioned here. So what's fact? --79.218.100.6 (talk) 12:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Addition to (my) posts from 17 February 2009:
 * The height of Cajon Pass (along CA-138) is 1,169 m (3,835 ft)
 * The height of Cajon Summit (along I-15) is 1,277 m (4,190 ft). That's fact? --79.218.107.37 (talk) 19:15, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Discussion about this at Reference desk/Science. Looks to me that precisely speaking I-15 does not directly cross Cajon Pass but rather an area a mile or so northwest labeled "Cajon Summit" on USGS maps. Cajon Pass is crossed by highway 138 and some railroad tracks, at a max elevation of 3822 feet. Perhaps this article ought to focus on Cajon Pass instead of Cajon Summit, or ought to explain that the term Cajon Pass is loosely used for the whole area? Pfly (talk) 17:26, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I attempted to address these issues in the article. I'm not sure how best to deal with the confused distinctions between Cajon Pass itself, Cajon Summit, and the whole area, usually also called Cajon Pass. Made a stab at clarifying things though, hopefully not too confusingly! Pfly (talk) 20:49, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

If "Cajon Pass" means the lowest path from the LA Basin to the Mojave Desert, then that's the BNSF (former AT&SF) Railway. The post-1972 track charts show its peak elevation as 3775 ft, compared to 3823 ft until 1972. The authoritative word on the pre-1972 elevation can be found by looking up survey mark EV2096 at http://www.ngs.noaa.gov (click on "datasheets", search for that PID, and check the box "Include destroyed marks"). The benchmark is shown on the USGS topo map (elevation 3827) and the datasheet explains that it's set into the step of the Summit depot; numerous pictures of the depot indicate that that's within a foot or two of the top of the rail.

(More recently NGS has redefined sea level, so if that benchmark still existed they would call it 3829.4 ft above sea level. EV2092 is a post-1972 benchmark at 3777 ft above new sea level; it's 1.3 ft below "track level").

Then there's the UP (former SP) railroad at just over 3850 ft elevation. Tim Zukas (talk) 01:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi, I recently reverted an edit that changed the elevation--if that was you, sorry! I was just going by the source cited (which I added a while ago and admit is not the best looking source in the world, and is certainly not as authoritative as an NGS benchmark): http://northamericanrails.com/bnsf_transcon_-_cajon_pass, which says 3,822 feet at the summit, if I'm reading it right. If there's a better source then by all means it should be used instead of this one. I looked at the NGS datasheets you mentioned, and USGS topos, and so on, but am not sure exactly what to make of it all. Feel free to make changes--but please change the source citation too. Or I could make the changes, if I can figure out how to source what you are saying. For what it's worth here's some links:
 * The Reference Desk discussion I mentioned above is archived now. I think this archive link will work: Reference desk/Archives/Science/2010 July 10.
 * The NGS benchmark datasheets you mention can be found here I think:, and . The EV2096 benchmark was destroyed in 1978. The EV2092 benchmark says 3772.2 feet or 3776.97 feet "readjusted". I assume the readjusted elevation would be the one to use? Perhaps this is what you meant by "NGS has redefined sea level"?
 * I put the benchmark coordinates in ACME Mapper for viewing on USGS topo maps: EV2096, and EV2092. On the topo map the newer EV2092 benchmark doesn't look like it's at the summit, but the NGS datasheet seems to say it is. The older EV2096 benchmark's coordinates put it right on the elevation benchmark shown on the topo map, which makes sense.
 * Then there's the GNIS entry: . The elevation given there is 3,835 feet, but I've never trusted GNIS elevations. Their coordinates map like this: Cajon Pass in GNIS. The elevation contours are 40 feet, so by that map the summit elevation looks to be between 3760 and 3800 feet. But, given that the old benchmark is shown and the new one isn't, I'd guess the map hasn't been updated since at least the 1970s. The GNIS entry doesn't seem useful for elevation, but does show where the USGS places "Cajon Pass". There's a different entry for, where I-5 crosses. Here it is in ACME Mapper's topos.
 * Hmm, having written all of this, it seems that the best source would be the NGS EV2092 benchmark, saying 3,777 feet. Does that make sense? Should the page be changed to say 3,777 feet? Or have I just confused myself? It seems to me that the page could say elevation 3,777 ft, with a cite to the NGS EV2092 datasheet. All of this would only be for one of the elevations mentioned, the one GNIS calls Cajon Pass. I tried to explain how Cajon Summit is slightly different, and gave its elevation with another less than authoritative source. Perhaps there's an NGS benchmark there too. I'm not sure how to find out, except those mentioned on topo maps. I suppose the EV2096 datasheet could be used as a source for the pre-1972 elevation. Anyway, thoughts? Pfly (talk) 04:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * On second thought, I'm thinking about this too hard. I'll just change it to 3777. Pfly (talk) 06:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)