From the MRL mailing list. Since this is now third hand information, some clarification may be in order by those better informed. But Bill Brodsky gave the keynote address at the NP Historical Society meeting in Bozeman MT, and said some interesting things:
Apparently, MRL is seriously interested in obtaining the ex-NP line over Homestake pass between Butte and Three Forks MT from BNSF to run intermodals and such. Currently the line is embargoed, the rails are still in place, but it hasn’t seen a train in more than a decade, and the line was more suited for passenger trains than for modern long heavy freights due to excessive curvature.
What about the ex-Milwaukee grade over Pipestone? Isn’t it better suited for modern freight trains, e.g. lesser grades, compensated curvature, et al? If ya gotta rebuild…
Well, at least MRL is exercising the wisdom of dispersed redundancy…
Problems with ventilation in Mullan Tunnel continue to plaugue MRL even with the new SD units, perhaps more so now. The grade in the tunnel runs uphill east to west, and the old fans were used to push air westward and uphill ahead of the trains. But with modern locomotives and railcars getting bulkier, there is less space between the consists and the tunnel walls to allow forced air to move through. MRL is looking at several options, including a new side tunnel for ventilation, and perhaps modifications to the new SD’s radiator/dynamic brake grids.
(My advice to Mr. Brodsky - go for broke and build a new tunnel that slopes downhill east to west, then use that tunnel for westbounds and use the old tunnel for eastbounds. You’re planning on double tracking anyway, might as well get rid of the bottleneck while you’re at it. Not to mention being able to get rid of the ventilation systems. Problem solved![;)])
MRL is also serious about re-double tracking sections of the ex-NP that were once double
Don’t know what Mr. Brodsky may be talking about or not, but if the MRL is thinking about expanding capacity, a real close and hard look should be given to rebuilding the MILW East from Garrison, over Pipestone and on East via Harlowtown. If nothing else, they will have provided themselves with a superior alignment for a price that would not be a whole lot more than drilling new tunnels over Mullens. Also eliminates the hill at Boseman. Both are helper districts. And Homestake is a mistake.
A second benefit of relaying the MILW East to Miles City and/or Terry, is that access to the PRB is easier than it is from their current end-or-track at Laurel. Even though one of those ex-Q lines out of Laurel does go right through the PRB on the North side of the Grasslands, don’t think that the BN will willingly give anybody access over that track to anybody - including the MRL. I would think that they would tear it up first like they did the branches in SE Washington and the way they are treating the PCC.
If grades are a real concern, the MRL should consider getting access over the UP from Silver Bow South towards Dillon to Glen and then follow the Jefferson River back toward Three Forks. My memory tells me that the UP grade is 1%-1.7% while Pipestone is over 2%. This could also provide the MRL with direct access to Twin Falls and Ogden for the right price.
Should the MRL relay the PCE into Miles City, there is access to Central Wyo. South via the Tongue River, with alternative terminals at or near Sheridan and turning East roward Colony at Ashland; or continuing on from Miles City to Terry and turning South, there, to follow the Powder River, itself, where a turn towards Colony would be made at Brodus and, as far as "water-level’ grades are concerned, can follow the Powder nto the PRB and to the old CNW “Cowboy” line at Powder, Wyo., which would permitt another “relay” opportunity East to Fremont, NE. Actually, the KCS could (per
That’s what I figured regarding the Homestake line, e.g. not worth the effort. For modern freights it would take more than just reballasting and replacing a few ties. That line would need a complete realignment at least from Whitehall to Butte, and if you have to go to that trouble, the ideas you offered aka Pipestone, trackage rights over UP with a new connector to Three Forks via the Jefferson and Big Hole rivers, would be a better use of valuable investment capital.
BTW, isn’t the only reason Homestake hasn’t been officially abandoned is that BNSF still has some NP notes from yore that would require some expensive buy back if any original NP ROW is actually torn out?
Are we talking about two tracks, each for one direction with automatic block signals or two tracks each bidirectional, frequent high-speed crossovers (now imported, movable frogs, etc.) and CTC or equivalent?
Is the single track equipped with really long passing sidings enabling non-stop meets or are the sidings barely long enough to contain the typical or maximum train lengths operated? CTC or equivalent is assumed, of course. What about siding spacing?
Is the traffic “fleeted”, like 54 wesbonds 9AM - 9PM and then 54 eastbounds 9PM - 9AM, or is traffic in both directions spread pretty evenly throughout the day?
Is there a mixture of moderate speed coal and mineral trains and also high-speed intermodal, or do all trains run at about the same speed?
Is the double track going to be complete or will there be somethiing like the Aroya Canyon single-track bottleneck?
If the line is currently single track CTC and a new second track is layed it will most likley be 2MT CTC. Have you ever heard of a CTC line reverting back to directional ABS? I haven’t.
I was referring to 2 main tracks, directional, ABS as “capacity” of 200. Single track ABS would, by defination be 100. Single track CTC overlay on the ABS would bring a capacity of 180. Bi-directional 2MT CTC would have a capacity of 250-300. I don’t know where these numbers originally came from, but I have seen them used since I can remember to compare the relative capacities of the different track and control arrangements.
The NP had a couple of streaches where they had double tracked their single track main and ran it as an Eastward main and a Westward main, ABS. They may or may not have overlayed CTC towards the 1980’s, but I don’t think so. The MRL placed CTC overlay on the original single track and took up the second track. Now they have “bottlenecks”.
I am hoping to locate a transcript of Brodsky’s comments. In the meantime, there are other things that weren’t explicitly stated but were infered, according to some of the subsequent posts on the MRL newsgroup.
One of these unstated statements in the ongoing battle between BNSF and MRL over the notion of MRL getting a connection with UP in Butte/Silver Bow. The comments about Homestake Pass have led some to think that this would be MRL’s backdoor way to the UP connection, since BNSF owns the only line (nee-Montana Western) between MRL at Garrison and UP at Silver Bow. But of course, since BNSF also owns the Homestake line, why would they sell it for that intent, unless they think the roundabout routing would not give any real advantage to UP?
(Hey, UP. You got money. Just build the 30 miles of connecting track between Silver Bow and Garrison yourself and be done with it. Geeez.[banghead])
The bigger question of UP’s desires is that of wishing BNSF would reinstate rail service between Great Falls and Helena, and then somehow getting BNSF to agree to “bridging” Canada-SoCal traffic between the CP at Sweetgrass and the UP at Silver Bow. That would be the aforementioned I-15 rail corridor between central Alberta (e.g. Calgary - Edmonton) and Southern California, a corridor that has the necessary excess capacity to handle the overload from the I-5 corridor. The whole corridor from Sweetgrass to Pocatello would be perfect for MRL operations, if only they could get the big boys to play ball like men, instead of playing keepaway like spoiled children.
I respectfully disagree with those capacity numbers. I got into this with Mark Hemphill a couple years ago and these are the numbers he gave me. Of course there are variables as mentioned above.
Don’t know what Mr. Brodsky may be talking about or not, but if the MRL is thinking about expanding capacity, a real close and hard look should be given to rebuilding the MILW East from Garrison, over Pipestone and on East via Harlowtown. If nothing else, they will have provided themselves with a superior alignment for a price that would not be a whole lot more than drilling new tunnels over Mullens. Also eliminates the hill at Boseman. Both are helper districts. And Homestake is a mistake.
A second benefit of relaying the MILW East to Miles City and/or Terry, is that access to the PRB is easier than it is from their current end-or-track at Laurel. Even though one of those ex-Q lines out of Laurel does go right through the PRB on the North side of the Grasslands, don’t think that the BN will willingly give anybody access over that track to anybody - including the MRL. I would think that they would tear it up first like they did the branches in SE Washington and the way they are treating the PCC.
If grades are a real concern, the MRL should consider getting access over the UP from Silver Bow South towards Dillon to Glen and then follow the Jefferson River back toward Three Forks. My memory tells me that the UP grade is 1%-1.7% while Pipestone is over 2%. This could also provide the MRL with direct access to Twin Falls and Ogden for the right price.
Should the MRL relay the PCE into Miles City, there is access to Central Wyo. South via the Tongue River, with alternative terminals at or near Sheridan and turning East roward Colony at Ashland; or continuing on from Miles City to Terry and turning South, there, to follow the Powder River, itself, where a turn towards Colony would be made at Brodus and, as far as "water-level’ grades are concerned, can follow the Powder nto the PRB and to the old CNW “Cowboy” line at Powder, Wyo., which would permitt another “relay” opportunity East to Fremont, NE. Actua
This is from someone who was actually in attendance at the banquet…
The capacity problem with railroads is the terminals. Always has been. Always will be it seems. MRL will be improving it’s terminals in Missoula and Laurel to better get trains through the terminals and out on to the mainlines. If the terminal problems are solved and the traffic volumes warrant increasing mainline capacities the MRL is in great shape to double track much of the railroad from Livingston to Paradise. Some of this is due to former double track right of way where all the earth moving and bridge building chores have been done and are still in existance. Grinding will have to be done on the tunnels between Garrison and Beavertail Hill to allow double stack trains through. The row through the tunnels is wide enough though. Other double track would include the lines over Evaro Hill and Homestake Pass. Those lines are in and Evaro is in daily use. MRL has long wanted the Homestake line to relieve congestion while heavy westbound trains are sluggin away on Mullan Pass and the line is pretty much close to all other traffic unless a meet can be made at Austin. BN and BNSF have been reluctant to open the line to MRL access and reconstruction. Nothing was said about constructing a new lind between Garrison and Butte, nor any line using the UP over Deer Lodge Pass and a new alignment via the Jefferson River on to Terry, MT, no relaying track over Pipestone Pass on the old MILW alignment. Given the current realities of property ownership and finances on the MRL these lines are pretty silly. NONE of them will happen in our lifetimes. Reopening Homestake Pass would happen shortly if the BNSF gives a go ahead. Perhaps if the UP sells their line through Dillon to a third party the BNSF will change their mind but Mr Brodsky did not say that in his speach, I have added that with no factual basis.
Chad, if you will look at my numbers as %'s (or ratios) which is what I think they were intended to be, you will see that Marks numbers and mine match up pretty close.
Just as a side remark, I have seen single track CTC handle 46 movements in one shift. That definately was over capacity, but that was what was being done.
FM must think that UP has an incredibly huge pile of cash for which they don’t have better uses if he thinks that they can obtain the land and build 30 miles of connecting track from scratch. He’s already screaming about capacity limitations on various UP lines, the easing of which probably have priority in UP’s spending plans anyway.
UP has an interest, make that a financial interest, to improve capacity between Canada and SoCal. The I-5 rail corridor is clogged, while UP’s I-15 rail corridor is underutilized for most of the way from Butte/Silver Bow through Utah down to SoCal. It is in UP’s long term financial interests if they can find a way to shift north-south freight off the I-5 rail corridor and onto the I-15 rail corridor. MRL provides a viable alternative to this end for UP’s benefits, if only they can make the Garrison to SilverBow connection.
Except 30 miles of new railroad would cost WAY more money than they would be willing to spend. The railroad needs to spend its money wisely, and the UP has much more important areas to expand, such as the sunset route, the Powder River area, and Chicago termanal capacity. All of which are more important to the railroad’s future than your 30 mile dream line.