Why does UP and BNSF still have thease grades that require helper service when they often have motive power shortages. CP and CN does not use helper service unless off course it is long and heavy unit trains but as far as I know the helpers originally came with the train. Why doesn’t UP and BNSF try to reduce their grades?
I will assume that the grades in question are Donner, Cajon, Tehachapi and Raton passes. The first three grades would require major line relocations to reduce the grade and would probably cost more money than anyone would be willing to lend. For the most part, Raton Pass has been bypassed and traffic over that grade consists of little more than the “Southwest Chief” and a handful of coal trains.
(1) Raton Pass maxes out at 4.03% at Morely, MP 648.9…and then there’s the 3.1% grade at Glorieta plus alll the curves. The line is still the fastest way between LA & Chicago, period… Between Stracnet and the speed question, the Donner and Raton lines cling to survival & Raton is on the block for the right price. The line is underutilized and the operating folks still carry an irrational fear of it. As it is, trains at Raton “double the hill” usually (or use remotes/ distributed power) instead of involving pushers.
(2) To answer 'Junction’s question, the rate of return is not there to spend the big bucks. (Plus out west we have mountains instead of bumps[:D]) You are talking billion$ with a capital “B” here folks… Other line changes have been contemplated, including revival of the SP “Dawson Branch”, but nothing ever happened, The Colmor Cutoff fizzled by 1942 and Raton went from 65 trains a day to less than 6.
Here in Fond Du Lac,Wisconsin,there is a place called Byron Hill.CN has about 2 or 3 trains that will have a least one WC SD45 on the rear of the train as a helper,though i did see one that had 3 once this year already. To me this was a shock as i had seen helpers only on trains in Southern California,where I used to live.
…Only “bumps” in the east…?? Now we all probably know the route near Asheville, NC on NS and up over Saluda required 4.7% grade for roughly 3 miles…Grades that equal or surpass the ones being discussed above in the Rocky Mtns…Unfortunately, that route was embargoed a few years ago and trains no longer grind up and down it to get through. It is still in place though. And those mountains around that area qualify just a bit more than bumps…
I don’t get a chance to railfan the Feather River route, but isn’t that route a little easier grade wise and double tracked all the way through., or is it as clogged up as most other routes since BNSF has trackage rights. It seems since UP owns that and Donner it would make sense to go the River route.
UP does send a lot of its traffic by Feather River, but most of that route is NOT double track and a significant part cannot be double tracked. (the track is cut into a very steep canyon wall.) However the grade is 1% max; with clearances raised for double stacks which Donner doesn’t have.
Although the grade is only a 1% grade, it is a very long grade (Oroville to Portola). The overall affect on operation is more than many steeper grades that are much shorter. Also curves are a little sharper than on some other lines which also affects operation. It takes a lot of locos to get the tonnage up the hill. Mid train units are common.
Myself anyways, feel that because they run so many trains and a good few time sensitive intermodals included, it would be advantageous to reduce the grade and for that matter than to widen the curves a bit. Wouldn’t cost them more on maintainance, fuel than if they reduce the grade and widen the curves enough so that the speed limit can increase and the amount of engines could decrease?
The economics of plant require that you get your investment back in a relatively short period. That is not going to happen here. The costs of tunnels plus massive cuts & fills makes this prohibitive. The real moneysavers have already been completed. (the last being Rogers Pass/ McDonald Tunnel on CPR) , you see evidence of those line changes all around if you look carefully…Most of the severe grades listed have little or no traffic, thus the time to pay back on your investment is even longer. Railroads have relatively limited capital budgets for major projects (unlike truckers who use Joe Taxpayer’s $$$ and then whine & whimper when US-DOT starts looking at collecting tolls from truckers on big interstates - listened to talk radio for truckers at night lately?) …money is better spent on rail and surfacing…If you’re independently wealthy, I’m sure that a few of us roadmasters and mudchickens can arrange to spend some of that disposable capital for you![:D][:D][:D]
Good example of better money spent might be something like the Chicago project, or the I-95 corridor, or even the UP expanding the Sunset route with more sidings. I’d bet anyone of those projects would do more to increase locomotive uitlization than any effort to “flatten” some of those western passes.
Sorry, I have seen them both and MC is right. Those eastern things are just bumps. Steeper in some spots, but still bumps. LOL.
Jay
The other place where relocation and major upgrades can make good economic sense is on main lines through congested urban areas, where outside factors such as numerous grade crossings, RR xings, curves, and constraints on ROW width (that prohibit increasing siding capacity) cause average speeds to slow to a crawl and delays to increase dramatically.
As a matter of interest, some repetitive terminal delays and congestion issues have been known to originate with highly shortsighted corporate politics that obstruct operating practices involving runthroughs. Depends on how the terminal superintendents are evaluated. Intramural turf wars are not uncommon in the RR industry. Forcing lanes into yards unnecessarily in order to get brownie points on an annual review (which has been known to occur), to justify local budget expansions, or to maintain perceived or real power over operations in a region has, can and does occur. No amount of investment in T&S will cure it, either. Sad but true.
There are two other reasons why these grades aren’t reduced. One is environmental laws. Even if the railroads found the projects economical, the enviromental restrictions might kill the project. The other is NIMBY (not in my backyard). DME’s expansion into Wyoming is an example, if I remember correctly.
Thankyou all for your opinions; they are all very informative to me and I respect them all. I enjoy the debate and encourage anybody interested in this thread to give their opinion. This is the kind of stuff I like to learn about[:)][:D]
…I’ve seen them both too…and I respectfully disagree the mountains around Asheville, NC are more than bumps.
I have to agree Modelcar, living there and all… these slopes aren’t easy to climb, regardless of elevation.
I though one of the main differences between feather river and donner pass was that donner pass couldn’t handle DS traffic due to height limitations. What else, though? don’t both routes end up in (generally, with a few exceptions) the same place?
I believe the grades over the Donner Pass line are significantly steeper than through the Feather River Canyon. Of course the Feather River line is more prone to washouts.
The grades over Donner are steeper than the Feather River, but they are much shorter with less steep and even downhill sections to help trains get over the next hill. The Feather River grade is only 1% but there is no relief all the way from Oroville to Portola. Most of the advantage of being less steep is lost because of the length of grade. Mid train locos are needed on most EB trains. Going down that long a grade isn’t a picnic either. The Feather is also a much longer route.
CN and CP are interested in using both of their lines at the same time. The agreement is that CN and CP use the same one oneway and the other line the otherway. I was wondering if BNSF and UP could do the same? Are their an routes that would be to their advantage they could do this with?