In the November 2021 issue of Trains Magazine, there was a feature article called “Going Long: BNSF’s Own Strategy for Megatrains”. While I recognize my posting is seven months after the article showed up in Trains Magazine, I wanted to respond to it when I had the evidence to back-up my concerns regarding this article.
In railfanning, I significantly focus on train lengths. When I see a train, I always count the number of cars that follow the locomotives. I have been counting trains since September 2000 and have journalized the vast majority of trains I have seen in my life. I am currently on my fourth journal.
Over the last few years, the major railroads have heavily adopted Precision Railroading, which has led to increasingly longer trains. Here in Canada, it has very apparent with CN and CP over the past decade (in CN’s case, over two decades now). With Union Pacific, it is also very apparent. In BNSF’s case, the railroad has been slower (and less interested based on service risk I believe among other factors) in adopting this strategy.
In November 2021, writer Bill Stephens wrote an article on BNSF’s strategy in moving freight on longer trains. Even before I read this article, I found it rather strange that they would focus on the railroad that was least likely to run trains of at least 10,000 feet or almost two miles long. Having railfanned BNSF in the Pacific Northwest since 2002, seeing trains that long was extremely rare. Seeing trains, in fact, at least 130 cars, was also very rare. They are just not that long throughout the region.
The article discusses in length on how BNSF has combined trains to make them “Megatrains” throughout their network, including the Pacific Northwest. Since my railfanning revolves heavily around train car counts, I was excit
I went back and reread Bill Stephens’ article on “Going Long” at the BNSF.
I see his writing as accurate and truthful. If you want to see BNSF mega trains watch the Ft. Madison, Iowa Virtual Railfan camera. Not all BNSF trains through Ft. Madison are mega trains, but some certainly are.
Stephens pretty much explains BNSF’s operations as meeting customer expectations while reducing costs. That’s the way to run a business.
An example he cites is an eastbound stack train from Los Angeles being combined with eastbound ethanol empties. There’s no reason not to do that. At some point, maybe Kansas City, the trains are split with the containers going on to Chicago and the tank cars going to the ethanol plant. In between the BNSF saved train miles and crew miles. That’s good business efficiency.
Another example Stephens cites is the operation of a stack train from Chicago to LA being combined with a domestic Q train to northern California. The trains are split at Barstow, CA. But between Chicago and Barstow the BNSF saved a lot of train miles and crew miles.
I reason that what you’re personally watching is the very busy Pacific Northwest portion of the BNSF. This is generally single-track territory with relatively short passing sidings. BNSF isn’t about to create congestion by running many mega trains that don’t fit the sidings. (They do run some.)
BNSF has just spent $2 billion to buy out the lease to the MRL. They’re hitting capacity on the Great Northern route and Stephens has pointed out in another article that they’ve added about all the capacity they reasonably can on that route. So, the next best option was to get the old Northern Pacific back.
I watch the Ft Madison, Iowa webcam daily. Yesterday I watched a double stack megatrain. Three engines up front and another three midtrain. Did not count the cars, but when the mid train DPU locomotives passed the Ft Madison station the rear portion of train was still crossing the Mississippi river with cars on the east side of the river.
I went back and reread Bill Stephens’ article on “Going Long” at the BNSF.
I see his writing as accurate and truthful. If you want to see BNSF mega trains watch the Ft. Madison, Iowa Virtual Railfan camera. Not all BNSF trains through Ft. Madison are mega trains, but some certainly are.
Stephens pretty much explains BNSF’s operations as meeting customer expectations while reducing costs. That’s the way to run a business.
An example he cites is an eastbound stack train from Los Angeles being combined with eastbound ethanol empties. There’s no reason not to do that. At some point, maybe Kansas City, the trains are split with the containers going on to Chicago and the tank cars going to the ethanol plant. In between the BNSF saved train miles and crew miles. That’s good business efficiency.
Another example Stephens cites is the operation of a stack train from Chicago to LA being combined with a domestic Q train to northern California. The trains are split at Barstow, CA. But between Chicago and Barstow the BNSF saved a lot of train miles and crew miles.
I reason that what you’re personally watching is the very busy Pacific Northwest portion of the BNSF. This is generally single-track territory with relatively short passing sidings. BNSF isn’t about to create congestion by running many mega trains that don’t fit the sidings. (They do run some.)
BNSF has just spent $2 billion to buy out the lease to the MRL. They’re hitting capacity on the Great Northern route and Stephens has pointed out in another article that they’ve added about all the capacity they reasonably can on that route. So, the next best option was to get the old Northern
That’s not quite true of the routes being completely single tracked in the region. There are significant sections of double-track on the Lakeside Sub. Providence Hill is part of a double-track section that is around 15 miles long. There are also other double-track sections easily capable of handling 10,000 foot trains, including west of Spokane; east of Ritzville; Connell; and east of Pasco. The Funnel is also mostly double-tracked between Spokane and Sandpoint, Idaho (there are at least two short sections that are still single, one of which is being double-tracked right now). There are also significant sections of double-track (despite these capacity constraints that hinder expansion along the Kootnai River, which is a very short stretch) east of Sandpoint, Idaho into Montana and North Dakota. Overall, I believe there is more double-track on BNSF’s Northern Transcon than there is on CP’s Transcon between Vancouver and Moose Jaw (and CP frequently run trains over 10,000 feet). It just doesn’t make sense to me that they would not run them this short in the Pacific Northwest. It would be nice (and I am hoping a commenter refers this to me) to provide an updated timetable of the subdivisions that comprise BNSF’s Pacific Northwest mainline, then I would determine further on many sections can currently handle 10,000 foot trains.
Also, it does make business sense to run longer trains in the Pacific Northwest. It saves train start-ups and also makes crews more available for BNSF, among other reasons. Since Stevens Pass is primarily for empty commodity trains, it would make sense to combine oil/coal or oil/grain or grain/coal into one. Even Stampede since that is exclusively now reserved for empty commodity trains as well. Westbound trains could be combined from Spokane to Vancouver, Tacoma, and Seattle via the Columbia Gorge. In fact, westbound loaded trains only use the Columbia Gorge and do not traverse Stampede or Stevens. They could then split the trains at another point to send them t
I see Waynoka is in Oklahoma. I am not sure where Mendota is. Where’s that?
To any event, I found it odd that the double-tracking combination would occur in Oklahoma, where are no significant rail yards, as compared to Barstow, Belen, Amarillo, Kansas City, or Galesburg which major rail yards reside. It sounds like there is too many authorities involved in setting up the “Megatrains” that run on BNSF. I agree that the strategy described there doesn’t sound that efficient and logical.
There is a “Mendota” in north central Illinois on the old CB&Q line through Galesburg, IL to the Mississippi River crossing at Burlington, IA. The BNSF has two “Two Main Track” lines between Chicago and the river crossings.
Barstow, Belen, Amarillo, Kansas City, and Galesburg are already on Two Main Track routes. In fact, Galesburg is on two two main track routes.
Yes I agree “generally”. Still with the double-track sections available, they could run quite a few more 10,000 foot trains, although I would like to have the timetables with siding and double-track lengths to better assess.
BNSF has created southern Transcon infrastructure that provides the ability to manage mega trains.
They have four main tracks at crew change locations: Barstow, Needles, Winslow, Belen, Clovis, Amarillo and of course Kansas City. They have double tracked the southern Transcon with high-speed crossovers spaced ten miles ± apart which allows higher speed trains (Including Amtrak 3&4) to overtake slower trains.
Those who drive I-40 can witness this efficiency at many locations. And, if riding Amtrak 3 or 4, you can experience it.
The number of double-length eastbound empty “mega trains” (combined grain, coal, or oil trains) that BNSF operates in the Pacific Northwest are clearly in the minority. Often only a half-dozen or less per day through Spokane. There were more of them running during the fall rush/peak season late last year when BNSF in the Northwest was heavy with traffic but light on available crews. Double-length westbound loaded coal and grain trains have fallen somewhat out of favor after some of the operational headaches they’ve experienced, but I now hear that the combining of eastbound loaded coal trains has recently been tried in North Dakota. Double-length intermodals, vehicle trains, and intermodal-manifest comboes are still an occasional thing.
Where the article in question makes the assertion that “…BNSF launched a blended train that included both intermodal and carload business” to serve its PNW-Texas lane, it misses the point that this new service was in fact initially launched as a purely intermodal run, the Q-PTLALT and Q-ALTPTL.
The first runs of Q-PTLALT were incredibly short trains, just two units and a few hundred feet of Swift and/or JB Hunt doublestacked containers, continuing eastward onto MRL without any pick-ups of manifest carloads. BNSF’s stated goal was to attract perishables business from Northwest growers, most of whom would have to truck their loads over the Cascades to reach rail terminals in either Portland or South Seattle. As it turned out, the first runs of Q-PTLALT typically left Portland with just a handful of cars, if that, and filled out at South Seattle.
More ag customers probably would have jumped onboard had this new service been originated out of or offered a pick-up at Quincy, WA, on the east side of the Cas
Thank you for the in depth insight and makes the article from Trains Magazine even more of a letdown. One of my major issues with this article is it is two years premature. This would have been more appropriate probably in 2023 or 2024, when BNSF would have a better understanding of a 10,000 foot train or longer, especially in the Pacific Northwest. The intermodal insight from you is pretty disappointing in that they are forgoing business opportunities. Quincy is a good place to setup an intermodal facility for BNSF in Central Washington. I guess that could be also said for Pasco as well as I don’t believe there is an intermodal facility in that region either (I didn’t see one in either April or May). Both could attract new business.
I did not include this in my analysis, but both trips to Washington in April and May netted no international stack trains (one train was international stacks with autoracks, but still no straight international intermodal trains). I assume much of the traffic towards Tacoma and Seattle (which was noted in an October 2020 issue of Trains Magazine) is now going through the BC ports of Vancouver and Prince Rupert via the Canadian railroads. I find it odd, even with these capacity issues they are experiencing, for BNSF not to relocate intermodal from their Southern Transcon to the Pacific Northwest, especially given the ports’ closer proximity to Asia and the fact they are not plagued by crime.
Since you seem fairly knowledgable, if you have insight on this as well, I would really be interested?
You shouldn’t let the Trains story feel like a “letdown.” It presented a pretty good overview of the development of BNSF’s double-length or comboed “super trains,” and the story made it abundantly clear that BNSF was implementing them only on a limited basis, at least for the time being.
There are definitely other people who are better informed and more closely in-touch with BNSF traffic flow than me. Especially so during the past several months, which have had much of my attention diverted elsewhere. But my gut instinct – based on more than a quarter century of living within visual range of the Spokane-Sandpoint Funnel, photographing it, monitoring it, seeing its lineups, and so forth, coupled with the seasonal fluctuations in both export bulk traffic and import intermodal, and now the widespread reductions in factory output in China – tells me that your early spring visits this year were at a time of comparatively less international container movement by rail, at least on the Northern Transcon.
Had you spent more time between Seattle and Spokane, you would have stood a much better chance of seeing BNSF stack trains handling foreign containers than down on the Lakeside or Fallbridge Subs. But exactly how many S-symbols are running east of Seattle/Tacoma on an average day right now, I can not say.
Few things about the Northwest Seaport Alliance which makes up the Ports of Seattle and Tacoma…
While NSA is closer to Asia… The terminals are small with limited footprint including shallower draft compared to Vancouver, and Prince Rupert B.C… As well both Canadian Ports have made accommodations for future growth. Giving them facilites that are more efficient with room to expand accordingly. SEATAC does not have this option at the moment and would be prohibitively expensive.
The Ports of LA/LB will always be the leading Westcoast port for a few reasons.
One is of all the Ports on the WC. None have a surrounding population of 20+Million residents. POLA/POLB give instant access to a massive consumer base.
POLA/POLB port infrastructure allows it to maintain its position due to volume and berthing capabilites.
Transload. The POLA/POLB is situated right next to largest Warehousing and DC square footage in the world in the Inland Empire. This includes the municipalities of; Ontario, Chino, San Bernardino, and Bloomington… Just to name a few. Transload save importers money by reshuffling freight out of 40’ ISO containers into doemstic 53’s. The ratio is 4=3(4x40’=160’, 3x53’=159’) This eliminates an extra box move. BCO’s (Benificial Cargo Owner the receiver of freight) can have freight mixed together. As well it al
What about the Tulsa yard which is a flat yard. Not exactly small. I counted at least 52 tracks, not as large as Galesburg of course, which one of BNSFs’ hump yards, but it is not small either.
BNSF has intermodal yards in Portland, OR, Seattle, Wa, South Seattle, WA and Tacoma, WA. Information from the BNSF website so it is correct.
BNSF runs a number of intermodal trains to and from the pacific northwest. Here are a few examples pof intermodal train that they run, the QCHESSE (Ciscero, IL to South Seattle, WA high priority intermodal train, the SDENTAC (Denver, CO, to Tacoma, WA) stack train and the ZCHESSE (Cicero, IL to South Seattle train).