Join the discussion on the following article:
Bakken oil increase shifts other traffic around BNSF
Can Montana Rail Link handle doubles through its tunnels?
Can someone tell us about how many additional trains per day this may envolve on the old CB&Q?
BNSF may want to consider increasing capacity for the long term. Sometime after 2016 the economy may pick up and the railroad will want to be prepared. That is, unless sometime after 2016, the government which bows down to eco-terrorists and believes in junk science, is replaced by a much more intelligent and economically savvy government, which decides a pipeline may be a good idea.
bnsf to buy ackmans soo to handle additional oil traffic???
Maybe BNSF and CP could increase capacity by running directionally with all trains of both railroads using one carrier’s line eastbound and the other westbound between Minot and Minneapolis. This type of arrangement has shown benefits elsewhere.
The rerouting of these stack trains is an excellent opportunity for Union Pacific to steal this business from BNSF. Because BNSF has failed invest in adequate infrastructure to handle all the traffic that needs to route over the superior profile of its “Northern Transcontinental” route, it is routing these trains via a longer, steeper, slower route that requires many more crews. Additionally, this route is now longer, steeper, slower and requires more crews than the competing UP routing between Chicago and Portland. Coal traffic is down on UP, too, so the UP route in the Midwest would be all the more fluid and able to accommodate this addiional traffic and best the running time of BNSF.
Example: Eastbound, on BNSF’s Northern Transcontinental route, the maximum grade from Marias Pass atop the Continental Divide in Northwest Montana to Chicago is .8 percent; on the “new” route via the coal corridor, after cresting the Continental Divide at Mullan Pass west of Helena, Montana, there are grades in excess of 1 percent over Bozeman Pass (1.8), Parkman Hill (1.3), Sheridan (1.6), several other locations between Sheridan and Gillette, and Crawford Hill (1.6). While UP’s crossing of the Blue Mountains is challenging, its last grade over 1 percent eastbound is the vicinity of Glenns Ferry, Idaho.
BNSF has by far the superior route between Chicago and the Pacific Northwest, especially when it opts to send trains (as it does) along the Columbia River rather than over the Cascades. Maybe after it is unable to remain price-competitive with UP for some of this business, investment in infrastructure in the Bakken Shale area will be forthcoming to enable BNSF to handle all the traffic that needs to go that way, not just the crude oil traffic that has no other choice.
Is there any thought of increasing traffic over the former Milwaukee Road line from western Minnesota, across northern South Dakota (through Aberdeen and Mobridge) to southeastern Montana where it can link over the MRL to the west?
UP won’t get diddly from this re-route.
Although pro-railroad in most respects, I admittingly don’t have the time to follow the happenings around the entire railroad world. I will admit, Bakken Oil may be the big ticket now, but the political and economic future may change that in 4 years. I still believe in strong coal traffic, but attribute the recent down slide to our governments push towards cleaner energy. Exporting more to China may help for now, but as more folks start concerning themselves with the enviromental impact, this may continue to bode against the future of coal. I aplaud todays railroad leaders for taking chances in an uncertain enviroment!
Mr. Guse, here’s some food for thought on your comment regarding BNSF need in increasing capacity: there is a recent article in the Friends of BNSF website stating how the company has made tremendous capacity improvements in the Bakken Shale they can transport 1 million barrels of crude daily to markets utilizing rail’s flexibility throughout their network.
As far as the pipeline, even when the Keystone XL is in operation, it’s daily maximum capacity with stand around half a million barrels. Both oil and pipeline companies are beginning to realize the flexibility benefits rail provides in getting crude to markets upon demand. Recently, Valero announced an investment in purchasing 2,000 tank cars for unit train service. Perhaps a little more focus on research will make your comments less hasty-generalized and more intelligent.
Oh sure, get the state of Iowa to pay for track upgrades to speed up Amtrak, then shift the freight onto the line. Same thing UP is doing with the old GM&O in Illinois.
The MRL lines have excess capacity to handle all the BNSF would need in the foreseeable future, however; no doublestack over Mullen Pass. So gas, grain, coal, all fit perfectly on the MRL. The only downside is trackage and car count fees.
I believe that the comment on the decline of the coal traffic is more significant than the increase in the crude oil business. The thought of running other traffic, including merchandise traffic over the “coal corridor” was almost unthinkable at one time.
BNSF has several options to route additional traffic including:
- The former Milwaukee line (previously mentioned).
- The route from Minot to Fargo via Grand Forks used by Amtrak’s Empire Builder
- Negotiate a directional running agreement with CP, which could use additional capacity also.
However, the article states that there is a crew shortage in North Dakota, and there are crews available on the central corridor. In the short term, it probably makes sense to utilize the crew availability and track capacity of the central corridor rather than hire or relocate crews. According to the article on Willow Springs in Trains magazine, international containers were handled at the new Joliet facility on the former Santa Fe and operated through Galesburg. Once in Galesburg it may not be much farther to go via Lincoln than via Minneapolis.
If coal traffic rebounds and oil traffic continues, BNSF may have to consider other options.
BNSF has several options for utilizing capacity on the northern route
BNSF has several options for utilizing capacity on the northern route
Coal has a big potential for shipment to China as there are two major tran-shipment terminals proposed in WA state, Bellingham and Vancouver. The only fly in that ointment are the collection of Enviro-Nazies of the EPA, the Sierra Club and the host of hungry lawyers who are in opposition. It will take several years as thing now stand for the BNSF to clear these hurtles, if ever. It is for certain the EPA will do all in its power to block development of more export coal.
Mr. Dicenso, I have seen many double stack trains go out of Helena, as I have family that lives there. Even though this traffic has slowed down in recent years, the tunnels are able to clear them still.