Story from the SeattlePost-Intelligencer: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/219312_portrail08.html
I’ll believe it when I see the equipment up there.
I took the 4449 up there a few years ago, and that is a beautiful ride. I hope that they do more trips up there and to Bend, Or. I wasn’t up in Oregon the last time they went to Bend, and I would love to do it sometime, so hopefully they do it again in the next few years.
Brad
They bought the line back as a capacity overflow in 1996 to handle everything but the stack trains. The ex-NP line was upgraded to handle just about anything with the exception of the tunnel and they did serious work on the tunnel 1998-2001. We got to work on it between Pasco-Richmond and CleElum.
Start sending the non-stack trains via that route to free-up room for Stevens Pass…Or is somebody just trying to annoy the NIMBY’s in Auburn/Kent?
Yeah, Mudchicken, I recall a story in 1997 in one of the smaller regional dailies about this couple that bought a new house in Covington/Kent. Their property’s backline adjoined the Stampede Pass line. They were upset that trains were actually running on the track. I paraphrase: “Uh, gee, uh, we didn’t know the railroad would really run trains again. It’s not fair.”
Quote of the story:
“Historically, railroads have paid for their own infrastructure improvements. But given the scope of rail upgrades necessary, Melonas said, his company wants to talk with the state government and the ports about a partnership in funding.”
So, the railroads, incapable of approaching a decent return on capital even with the mega mergers and historic capacity retrenchment, now want the taxpayers to help fund their virtual monopoly. Not necessarily all that suprising, but if this so-called “best railroad system in the world” (as one forum participant put it regarding the “benefits” of the U.S. closed access rail system) by it’s own admission cannot pay for it’s desired upgrades without government aid, why is that example of government involvement in railroading considered beneficial while the idea of government involvement in the development of an all comers rail system is a detriment?
Can it not be said that this one example is a microcosm of the whole rail oligarchy’s inability to stay ahead of the demand scale? Granted, if the railroads manage to pull of this con of taxpayer’s fund, railroad stock will be a tremendous value. I guess this is one way to approach infrastructure funding equalization.
Of course, in this area BN had a chance to retain the Milwaukee’s Cascade crossing with the double stack clearances already built in, but the inherent brilliance of the idea of reducing capacity by eliminating “excess” trackage and thus procur pricing power for the railroads (the keystone ideal of the post Stagger’s closed access system) made the loss of this superior route a foregone conclusion.
I’m just glad I’m not a resident of the State of Washington. Given that the state’s legislature wants to raise gas taxes 15 cents or more to pay for the replacement of the Alaskan Way viaduct as well as other Puget Sound boondoggle projects, and of course the recent “purchase” of WATCO’s properties by the State (which may be a precursor to gr
The cost of dropping the floor is not as much as the paper clown author thinks. You aren’t going to notch the ceiling above the spring line in that thing, they just put a bunch of new steel sets at the portals and a few other places in that thing. When the traffic gets to a certain level, they will do it. They did have the foresight to save the capacity and they all apparently forgot about the remains of the Milwaukee line nearby from just west of Ellensburg to the west . Show them the tonnage first.
There is a real solution to this…simply raise the rates on containers.
Today’s Wall Street Journal (page A2) stated that ocean shipping rates of containers will probably rise 5 to 7% this coming 12 month period. Volumes of container traffic from Asia will increase 10 to 12% in the coming year. China’s economic growth last year was 9.5%, “powered by exports.”
Due to the huge increase in business on the west coast, shipping lines are sending containers thru the Panama Canal, which recently increased it’s charge from $115 to $165 per container.
Everyone is gearing up for increased capacity.
We can sit here and tsk, tsk, but that will not do any good. The Milwaukee Line is long gone. Railroading was a sick industry 25 years ago and isnt very healthy right now. It is very easy to say they should have done this and they should have done that, but the simply fact is…the industry did not have the capital to do so.
The time is right. Rates should be evaluated on each and every segment of business and raised to reflect the cost of business plus a healthy return.
ed
Washington is less friendly to businesses than to residents. Washington has no income tax and my car tabs are $35 per year so it is not all bad. My understanding gas tax increase is scheduled to be implemented over a number of years so it is not one big hike.
[quote]
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal
Quote of the story:
“Historically, railroads have paid for their own infrastructure improvements. But given the scope of rail upgrades necessary, Melonas said, his company wants to talk with the state government and the ports about a partnership in funding.”
So, the railroads, incapable of approaching a decent return on capital even with the mega mergers and historic capacity retrenchment, now want the taxpayers to help fund their virtual monopoly. Not necessarily all that suprising, but if this so-called “best railroad system in the world” (as one forum participant put it regarding the “benefits” of the U.S. closed access rail system) by it’s own admission cannot pay for it’s desired upgrades without government aid, why is that example of government involvement in railroading considered beneficial while the idea of government involvement in the development of an all comers rail system is a detriment?
Can it not be said that this one example is a microcosm of the whole rail oligarchy’s inability to stay ahead of the demand scale? Granted, if the railroads manage to pull of this con of taxpayer’s fund, railroad stock will be a tremendous value. I guess this is one way to approach infrastructure funding equalization.
Of course, in this area BN had a chance to retain the Milwaukee’s Cascade crossing with the double stack clearances already built in, but the inherent brilliance of the idea of reducing capacity by eliminating “excess” trackage and thus procur pricing power for the railroads (the keystone ideal of the post Stagger’s closed access system) made the loss of this superior route a foregone conclusion.
I’m just glad I’m not a resident of the State of Washington. Given that the state’s legislature wants to raise gas taxes 15 cents or more to pay for the replacement of the Alaskan Way viaduct as well as other Puget Sound boondoggle projects, and of course the recent “purchase”
The article says this is not going to occur tomorrow. The article further said it is for some time in the distant future & the BNSF wants public funds to accomplish it which will probably be difficult to obtain. You know pols are more interested in project that tickle the electorate like schools, parks etc, etc not giving $$$$$ to a hugh private company such as the BNSF. [:o)][:D][8D]
[quote]
Originally posted by SPandS-fan
greyhounds,
“Emotional”? Methinks you are injecting your own state of mind into what I write. I don’t write with emotion, I instead rely on fact and subsequent synthesis. Okay, so I throw in a little sarcasm once in a while, so what?
I would differ with you on the BNSF’s job of projecting for the future. Didn’t they originally sell part of the NP line to a shortline operator, only to have to buy it back at many times what they sold it for? They also bought the Milwaukee line over Snoqualmie Pass I would presume to utilize it’s superior alignment over the Stampede Pass line, but then let it go while mothballing the lessor of the two lines. Double stack operations were well underway while all this was going on, didn’t anyone in the Seattle office realize that they were throwing away the one line with double stack clearances and 1.7% max gradient while mothballing a line with 2.2% grades that would need expensive work in the main tunnel? You call that “foresight”? I guess it’s foresight if the alternative were total abandoment of both lines, but given what actually occurred, I’d call it nearsighted ineptitude. But again, when you are a near monopoly, you can get away with such actions.
Yes, BNSF employees are well paid, and for the most part they have a pretty good safety record, and their performance record is much better than that of UP. But as all railroaders seem to forget, in the big picture it’s not about the railroad, it’s about the shippers. In this instance, from the article it is clear that the beneficiaries of public investment in BNSF’s near monopoly will be BNSF (including it’s stockholders and employees), the Ports of Tacoma and Seattle, and imports from Asia. How will U.S. exporters benefit from public investment in double stacking Stampede tunnel? To take your usual reference to Montana farmers, their grain trains don’t need double stacking of Stampede, since grain trains use the Columbia Gorge route, only empties use Stampede occasionally, and any
May I kndly correct a little of your verbage[?]
Most import container from the FE are usually quite lite. Just pick up your newest VCR or DCD player. [:p][:)][:D]
Most export containers are I would term it somewhat heavier then import containers. Also because of the need to balance between more import loaded containers then export loaded containers WB trains will probably be lighter even though the loaded ones are heavier then the import containers as they will be hauling more empties. Most EB trains will have ZERO empties on them [:p][:)]
[quote]
Originally posted by futuremodal
greyhounds,
What verbage are you correcting? Didn’t I say the same thing regarding light and heavy containers?
If you’re refering the the temporary state of load imbalance EB vs WB COFC via the West Coast, that in my view isn’t something that will necessarily continue. Freight forwarders will do just about anything to fill an empty container heading back to Asia, and there is a growing tendancy to put bulk commodities in Asian bound containers rather than utilizing standard bulk shipping methods. Because the U.S. dollar is devalued relative to the Euro, containers from Asia that have recently been emptied will be filled with U.S. goods bound for Atlantic nations instead of heading straight back to Asia. Or they will sit empty in some New Jersey warehouse lot, because it is cheaper for Asians to build new containers than it is to bring them back empty from the U.S. Plus, there is pressure on China to let it’s currency float freely rather than being pegged to the U.S. dollar, which would change the trade imbalance situation dramatically.
Consequently, it is the Western railroads that will have to fill the excess capacity, meaning a greater use of 53’ wells in preference to the 40’ wells. The 53’s, although not allowing as great a load factor for 40’ import containers from Asia, will allow for greater WB capacity with domestic containers and trailer
I think you’re confusing the projected cost of increasing Stampede Pass’ vertical limits with the overall cost to BNSF 10 years ago to pull the route from mothballs. BNSF dished out about $40 million to buy the lease back from Washington Central for the Cle Elum-Kennewick segment, after investing about $200 million more to refurbi***he route from Auburn to SP&S Junction with signals, new rail, concrete ties, and improvements at Stampede Pass tunnel.
Hardly foresight, when one considers that MILW’s Snoqualmie Pass line can already accommodate doublestacks, has a better profile, and BN once owned that right of way.
The way I read your post was that you said WB trains would be heavier then EB trains because WB cargoes tend to be heavier. In that equation you have to figure all the WB M/Ts that if you average out the weight of the cargo + the M/Ts would actually be lighter then a EB train even though all EB containers would be loaded. That is what I am saying[:o)]
[quote]
Originally posted by futuremodal
[quote]
Originally posted by spbed
[