With oil shipments increasing, BNSF Railway is shifting some trains to make room for current and future crude oil trains. Senior management recently communicated that most double stack trains operating between Chicago and the Pacific Northwest would be rerouted away from the Northern Corridor, via Minot, N.D., and shifted to the Central Corridor via Lincoln and Alliance, Neb…
How much greater in terms of transit time and operating expenses per container is running the Central Corridor when compared to the Northern Corridor? Is the current traffic trend justification for expanding Northern Corridor capacity?
I can’t answer your first question in specific time or cost figures. Logistically, this would leave BNSF stack trains two options between Sandpoint, ID, and Laurel/Billings, MT. Option 1 would be all-BNSF via Marias Pass and Great Falls. Problem here would be slow going on the Shelby-Great Falls-Mossmain route due to dark/TWC operation and existing traffic base of manifest, coal, and grain. Option 2 would be MRL. Problem here would be two mountain grades to cross and a heavy traffic base of everything including the kitchen sink. BNSF may be leaning more toward oil business now because domestic-use coal is declining, but if export coal continues to climb, they’ll be revisiting this subject again. To answer your last question, yes, the oil now and the coal later should be justification for northern transcon capacity improvements.
While oil will probably continue to be hauled by rail to the East and West coasts, pipelines are in the permitting stage, and at least one will likely be built toward the Gulf Coast. If traffic can be rerouted around the northern transcon, then it may be risky to spend on capacity improvements for what may be a temporary boom.
Capital investment will be driven by discounted cash flow analysis which is simply a structured way of addressing the question What will I save if I make the investment vs how much will it cost"
We can safely assume that the new route involves more miles. If anyone cares to do so, you can go to BNSF web site and calculate the difference via the three routes involved.
The mileage difference is the first element of increased cost. Next is what investments does BNSF have to make on alternate routes. This is highly route specific and far beyond the scope of what anyone outside of BNSF could get the data required to support the analysis.
I concur with Bruce, BNSF will be reluctant to invest just for oil due to its perceived short shipping life, AKA pipeline diversion. The exception to this would be if the investment is relatively modest and the savings associated are substantial. For example, if two or three new sidings in North Dakota would solve the problem, then this diversion could be very short lived.
My guess as to route between Sandpoint and Laurel is the former GN. Yes it is dark track, but the maximum freight train speed differential is only 10 MPH, 49 vs 59. The big issue is how BNSF is handling switches at meeting points. Even with spring switches they would need a caboose and a rear brakeman to line back the main traick switch after heading in. The other option is what they did on Stampede Pass, “Poor man’s CTC”, which is dispatcher control of siding switches under Track Warrant Control.
Power requirements via the MRL would be about double that of former GN, and fuel would be higher on the NP. Plus they have to pay MRL a toll. For those reasons my money is on the former GN.
I look at the timekeeping record for the California Zephyr quite a bit. Although BNSF installed additional crossovers in the Iowa portion of the Central Corridor this year, it is very common for the Zephyr to lose an hour westbound between Galesburg and Omaha. From that I assumed this route was running pretty close to its capacity. Apparently I’m mistaken.
There are several loading points either on the former NP or branches off of it. Bakken Oil Express is located just west of Dickinson, ND and there is another on the branch northwest of Mandan, ND.
By "minimumly involved’ on ex-NP, I was talking relative to the ex-GN line. The map on p.37. Trains, May 2012. shows two loadouts on NP, vs. several on GN and surrounding lines. I presume the NP line was also affected by the downturn in coal.
A much less expensive way and more fluid as well is do what NS did.
NS upgraded their line from Manassas – Front Royal. The siding switches were aligned for straight thru running with a spring switch. A train would enter straight thru at one end and after receiving clearance from dispatcher would trail thru the other end’s spring switch. This set up requires no aligning of switch by either dispatcher or train crew. Much quicker and more fluid.
Of course do not let train move backwards ( even slack action ) thru these switches.
Between Chicago and Seattle:
.
BNSF, current intermodal route via New Rockford, Havre, Wenatchee: 2181
BNSF, current intermodal route except via Pasco-Wishram-Vancouver instead of Wenatchee: 2400
BNSF, current detour route via Lincoln, Billings, Wenatchee: 2345
BNSF, current detour route if via Pasco-Wishram-Vancouver instead of Wenatchee: 2568
UP via Boone, Blair, Sidney, Kemmerer, Kuna, The Dalles: 2421
.
BNSF has a huge mileage advantage over UP on its preferred route via Havre, some 200 miles. Even when BNSF chooses to route trains via the low-grade ex-SP&S route through Wishram instead of over the mountain, it’s shorter. Amazingly, even detouring route is a bit shorter than UP (but not by a lot), except this is mileage for Seattle; for Tacoma, add 40 miles to the BNSF route via Wenatchee, and subtract 40 miles from the UP route (80 mile difference), which means for trains to/from Tacoma, the UP route is actually shorter.
.
Mileage really tends not to matter as much as profile and crews, however. Between Chicago and Seattle via Havre, BNSF uses 10 road crews and no helper crews (westbound); the route via Lincoln will use 14 road crews and 2 to 3 helper crews. UP uses 11 road crews, and like BNSF west of Wenatchee, relies on distributed power rather than helpers over the Blue Mountains.
.
On the preferred route via Havre westbound, the first grade over 1 percent is west of Havre, and only exceeds 1 percent one place between Havre and Wenatchee; it’s 2.2 percent west of Wenatchee. The UP route is similar (depending on which trac
Pretty much all the way across North Dakota, but now that the bridges on the Devils Lake line have been rebuilt, this route is now available as a safety valve east of Minot. West of Minot, where the oil is loaded, and there is a lot of other Bakken-related business, is the main bottleneck. The question I suppose is whether not upgrading the line is cost-effective compared to rendering some of the rest of the route underutilized and creating an alternate routing that is inferior with regard to cost. We shall see…
Pretty much all the way across North Dakota, but now that the bridges on the Devils Lake line have been rebuilt, this route is now available as a safety valve east of Minot. West of Minot, where the oil is loaded, and there is a lot of other Bakken-related business, is the main bottleneck. The question I suppose is whether not upgrading the line is cost-effective compared to rendering some of the rest of the route underutilized and creating an alternate routing that is inferior with regard to cost. We shall see…
To upgrade is not a quick proceedure - see UP double tracking the Sunset Route for example. Also the current traffic on this line that precipitated this discussion would make upgrading impractical.
BNSF has made their decision and there is not sufficient knowledge commenting at this site to suggest there is a better way.
I would agree that we do not have the facts to support an investment decision, but disagree with the notion that we are incapable of discussion alternatives.
I also agree that expanding capacity can not be done instantly, in fact not before next spring in North Dakota. I disagree that the high volume of traffic makes upgrading the line impossible or impractical. The railroads have been doing upgrades under traffic since before the Civil War.
The additiional crew, MRL toll, and power costs of diverting the stack trains would make me think very seriously about expanding capacity across North Dakota if I were Mr. BNSF. I am confident they are studying the matter very closely. The key element in the decision will be how long the oil will be moving and in what volume.
Are the tunnels the reason the double stacks can’t be diverted down the old Milwaukee Road mainline at Terry, MT and run through South Dakota and Minnesota to Minneapolis?