Mac,
The third part company I refer to also runs other short haul lanes with BNSF. It is shortsighted to say they underestimated terminal costs since they have current experience with those issues. Also, the ports supported the plan so I don’t think terminal space was an issue at the time.
VerM,
Why would rerouting Amtrak from Stevens Pass to Stampede Pass require “another set of equipment it doesn’t have.” You are using the same equipment. You can also separate the Portland leg at Pasco rather than Spokane. Wouldn’t the latter free up equipment?
You also state, “Also, the problems the UP is having in Portland have nothing to do with capacity along the “I-5”.” It is 134 miles from Vancouver to Tacoma. If it is taking 6.5 hours for this run, that’s about 20 miles an hour over water level trackage. Clearly, that slow of a transit time suggests congestion on that line. However, you will note that the real congestion for UP is in the Gorge, and the gist of my point is that the Stampede Pass reroute would free up some capacity on this line for Puget Sound bound/origin UP trains. You do give a reluctant aknowledgement of that point. Perhaps a better example is the one pointed out regarding Cajon Pass, where BNSF is exploring adding trackage while the parallel UP line has extra capacity.
You also state, “The Empire Builder, as an example, is a small part of the 45 or so trains a day that move on the Hi-Line across Montana, so one would have to wonder whether it’s that big of a deal to get rid of it to BNSF (which, as I said earlier, benefits BNSF by providing crew transportation in all weather where there is no parallel public transportation).” Doesn’t the Hi-Line parallel U.S. highway 2? If having Amtrak to provide crew transportation is that much of an asset to BNSF, wouldn’t BNSF want Amtrak on it’s half dozen or so other lines through Montana, Wyoming, the Dakotas? You are mistaking PR for bottom line results. What is really interesting is your opposition to moving the Empire Builder to the I-90 corridor through Montana, which hits most of the population centers in Montana. Wouldn’t that increase online ridership? And speaking of Amtrak…
…you state lastly, "And, let’s not forget the original topic of your post
Dave,
For the record, it is 248 miles by rail from Tacoma to Pasco. If 200-250 is the norm for crew districts, then BNSF’s record of needing two crew districts over the Stampede line would suggest underperformance. I will acknowledge that Stampede has 2.2% grades and more curvature than other PNW lines.
Dave,
The Ports will support your proposal as a reflex action because they think it is in their interest. Their support tells you nothing of terminal issues. The Ports are not running the terminals.
Somebody in the Port of Tacoma would know the capacity situation in Tacoma since it is their facility on the Muni. BNSF operates SIG in Seattle. Going to Tacoma you have to use the Muni to get to the IM terminal(s). I am not familiar with operational details there but I really doubt that the muni will work for free.
Your answer is long on generalities and short on fact which confirms my point that you do not have the information, data, or facts to support your conclusion that open access is the solution to your problem. You have not convinced me you know what the problem really was.
If you are familiar with railroad’s general statements they admit that short haul intermodal does not work for moves of less that 500-800 miles. I believe the reason for that is that it takes that much of the rail’s linehaul advantage to overcome the costs of terminals and drays, which are major cost components that the trucker does not have.
The BNSF is not stupid. They would not turn down profitable business, so I can only conclude your move was not profitable regardless of what your third party told you. BNSF is disciplined enough not to do dumb stuff like take business that does not pay.
Mac
Mac, could you contact me via email please? Thanks.
Futuremodal stated:
“1. Why would rerouting Amtrak from Stevens Pass to Stampede Pass require “another set of equipment it doesn’t have.” You are using the same equipment. You can also separate the Portland leg at Pasco rather than Spokane. Wouldn’t the latter free up equipment?”
As I explained earlier, rerouting the Empire Builder from Stevens Pass to Stampede Pass would require another set of equipment on the Seattle leg because of the increased running time. Even if the track was upgraded to passenger train speeds and a continuous ABS system (which it does not now currently have) installed, the Stampede Pass route would require 2 hours additional running time in each direction. So, the westbound train would arrive Seattle about 2 hours later and have to leave 2 hours earlier. Since turnaround time is only a bit over 6 hours currently, this would reduce turnaround time to just a bit over 2 hours, which is not feasible. Of course, the train’s schedule could be changed, but that would eliminate connections at Chicago and Portland. The Empire Builder, as currently scheduled, is delicately timed to make all eastern connections in Chicago, the Coast Starlight in Portland, and provide a same-day turnaround in Seattle and Portland. Something would have to give if the train was operated over Stampede Pass. If all the connections were maintained, an additional set of equipment would be required on the Seattle section, very simple. As for separating the train at Pasco instead of Spokane freeing up equipment: It would run Spokane to Portland on the same route in the same amount of time with splitting the train in Pasco taking the identical amount of time than it would in Spokane. How in the world could this free up equipment?
Futuremodal continued"
"2. You also state, “Also, the problems the UP is having in Portland have nothing to do with capacity along the “I-5”.” It is 134 miles from Vancouver to Tacoma. If it is taking 6.5 hours for this run, that’s about 20 miles an h
There are several reasons MRRT chose Sandpoint. Primarily, BN was not as excusion friendly as they are now. BN had to support AMTK sponsored excursions but then AMTK had no agreements with MRL. MRRT would have had to share revenues with yet another ‘partner’ if AMTK came aboard for the BN segment. MRRT also had no history at that time as they do now. Land and trackage for the equipment storage, maintenance and switching were readily available on the MRL where there would be far less vandalism than Spokane. There would be no payments to BN other than deadheading of equipment between Portland and Sandpoint. Using Sandpoint as a base would avoid the Spokane - Yardley - Sandpoint massive cluster that could add hours to the trip at the beginning end or the trailing end.
MRRT still has a contract to operate trains on the MRL through 2006. While it is not likely they will operate any trains in 2005 account the lateness to advertise and organize any trips before the summer season there are still plans to operate a full travel season in 2006 in celebration of the final year of the Lewis & Clark Bicentennial. Let’s hope that can still happen. It would be a reason for you to come back and ride, eh, Mark?
Alan