Did Burlington, or whoever owned the rail at the time, ever consider using The Snoqualmie Tunnel instead of Cascade… would it have been possible.?
Maybe my geography is way off…I thought they were pretty close…relative to train traffic needs.
Thank You
It was the Milwaukee Road that ran through a tunnel in Snoqualmie Pass right next to where I 90 runs now. Both the Milwaukee Road and Great Northern ran side by side from Ellensburg up to Easton on the eastern slope of the Cascade Mountains then Great Northern splits off to go through Stampede Pass which is a howling wilderness compared to Snolqualmie Pass. The BNSF now uses the Great Northern Route to get to Auburn just south of Seattle.
Yeah…I was not asking about who used/built the tunnel, but rather who Could/Might have used it, after TMR was ditched.
Would/Could it have been a better alternative for, once again Burlington or whoever Owned/Owns it, getting under The Cascades than what BNSF uses now…that 7.5 mile long tunnel with all the fume, fan, and waiting problems.?
Thank You
BN bought the Snoqualmie Pass line all the way across Washington to where it connected to their lines in Eastern Washington for the reason you mention when the Milwaukee closed it in 1980, and kept it until 1987 or so. But they had one other route paralleling both the GN and MILW, the former NP Stampede Pass line, shut down for lack of traffic already, and decided one had to go and it was the Milwaukee, and the rails were taken up. Ironically, just five or so years later the Cascade Pass route had so much extra grain traffic that they had to reopen Stampede Pass at great cost, it has worse grades than the old Milwaukee and I recall reading that they rued their choice. I’m not sure why they chose to save the Stampede Pass route, it may just have been in better shape than the Milwaukee Snoqualmie Tunnel route.
Crank,
All of your references to Great Northern should be Northern Pacific.
Dwight,
The MILW route had its issues, particularly street running through Renton WA. I have heard tales BN contemplated a connection out Ravensdale (NP)/Maple Valley(MILW) way, which would have avoided Renton and kept the connection at Auburn. Of course, since Stampede was shut down there was no need for it and was never done.
Between Ellensburg and Lind MILW was much shorter, but with a long 2.2% grade westward and a few mile 1.6% eastward grade. Would have been OK for intermodal but not good for carload traffic in terms of power.
BN’s big mistake in Eastern Washington was tearing out SP&S between Spokane and Pasco, but that is a whole different kettle of fish that the MILW over Snoqualmie Pass.
Mac
OK…I do not have your guys knowledge of rails but…I guess there was more at hand than just simply using the “better” tunnel at Snoqualmie.? The route to and from the tunnel may have presented problems of its own I guess…more trouble than using the other tunnels apparently.
Thanks
Kenny,
If the MILW would clear auto racks and double stacks, and if the new connection I mentioned in the previous post had been built, then using the MILW from Easton to the west would give a better profile than the NP from Easton west.
BN wants to route all cross state intermodal via Stevens pass and the 7.79 mile long Cascade Tunnel since it is only about 330 miles between Spokane and Seattle. If Stevens Pass is full, stack trains have to take the much longer route via the Columbia River Gorge since they can not clear the Stampede Pass tunnels.
With traffic growth of the last decade or so, especially in heavy unit trains of grain coal and oil, the former SP&S along the Columbia River Gorge has become congested. BNSF recently got smart and is now making the best use of what they have without investing a LOT of money. The have instituted what they call the “iron triangle” plan. At Pasco a crew works west on a loaded unit train. Next day they work north, I think to Seattle, on another loaded unit train or an empty grain train from say Kalama to Auburn, Next day they work west over Stampede Pass with an empty unit train. This gives directional running for the unit trains in the Gorge and over Stampede which minimizes the number of meets in the Gorge and on Stampede. Vancouver WA to Seattle is two main tracks all the way. It also minimizes power requirements since loads see no more than 1% and that power is more than sufficient for the returns over the 2.2% of Stampede Pass.
Mac
Personally, I believe that the Milwaukee ROW in the PNW should be rebuilt, as means of easing the chronic rail bottleneck in that park of the country.
Your thought(s)?
I believe that Stampede Pass is not at capacity. However, with the new rush of oil trains, and the possibility of major coal and bulk cargo export terminals, the number of trains is rising. The big question is whether or not it is cost effective, and if Washington State, who IIRC owns the ROW, allows it. I would expect tons of NIMBYism,.
Well…if done properly a rail trail and ROW could co-exist. I also wonder about Washington State…they are becoming more and more like California.
One of the tall steel trestles was damaged during a flash flood in the 1980s. One of the support towers collapsed. That and the expected traffic never developing led BN to abandon the line.
The trestle was repaired for trail use, but I don’t think to the point that it could support rail traffic. To make it rail worthy again I would guess would require more extensive work.
Jeff
Highly questionable statement from any railroad’s or risk manager’s point of view.
They could switch the rail and the trail between Stampede and Snowqualmie. Seattle would probably like to get the rail corridor away from the Green River Reservoir.
Using that logic, no passenger railroad station could exist.
The Stampede line goes through Tacoma’s watershed area, not Seattle’s. Tacoma does not allow visitors, even just walking, in their watershed (an exception is made for foot traffic to Lester from the west, but not by Tacoma’s choice).
There is a lot of anti-coal transport and anti-oil transport politics in the west side of Washington state. Given the political realities, it would be very difficult politically to get approval to put BNSF rails back on the former MILW right-of-way now owned by the state.
Understand about the state owning the ROW.
My questions is…is that former MILW ROW considered to be “railbanked” insofar that it could possibly be restored if necessary?
Murray,
You are beating a long dead horse. BNSF can have no desire to spend $250-300 million dollars for a Cascade Mountain crossing that is not significantly better than Stampede.
Mac
Well…not so much beating a dead horse Mac…rather than I am figure out how the rail bottleneck in the PNW could be improved from its current state.
And if for nothing else, you would at least have available another cross state rail line.
Keep beating that horse, it is the proper horse to beat. A second outlet for traffic is worth it. Besides, horsemeat is a growing trend.
Murray,
To what rail bottleneck across Washington State are you referring and what is your source?
I grew up in Wenatchee, and am familiar with the geography and the traffic. Last time I talked to the Port of Tacoma, one of BNSF’s chief complainers, they told me there was lots of capacity due to the fact that Port volumes were down due to the recession and capacity was up due to DPUs allowing longer heavier trains.
Since then BNSF added a siding in the Gorge, instituted the iron triangle, and is double tracking the former NP between Spokane and Pasco.
Even if there was a capacity problem between the Columbia River and Puget Sound there are many cheaper ways to expand capacity the resurecting the old MILW over Snoqualmie Pass.
Mac