UP thru Spokane

Trains Magazine General Discussion
1

Eric and all interested:

Regarding the discussion of the UP overhead rights over BNSF thru Spokane WA and the long waits UP crews endure at Fish Lake and East Spokane to get permission to the BNSF line, one option mentioned was UP rebuilding it’s own line through Spokane to stop dependancy on BNSF dispatchers. Of course, the old UP line through Spokane (probably the best rail line through Spokane at the time) was torn out for the 1974 Expo, and UP negotiated rights over BN from Fish Lake to East Spokane. Back then, UP traffic over the “Washy” line was light anyway, so it was no big deal. But now, with CP sending more and more traffic over UP via Eastport ID, traffic on the Washy is increasing. Although not anywhere near capacity yet, it is conceivable that traffic could increase to the point where the BNSF bottleneck can become a hotbed of costly delays.

Well, I had a chance yesterday to drive around the Spokane area on my own and eyeball potential UP reroutes. The option I had previously mentioned of UP constructing a southern bypass may be more difficult than first thought, since housing growth in the Spokane Valley and LIberty Lake has taken out a possible southern bypass along the hillsides south of the valley. But what did occur to me in studying the Spokane area geography is this: A new line running northeast to southwest via a 3 mile tunnel under the South Hill from near the Hamilton Street bridge to Latah Creek near the old NP bridge over the creek. The rest of the line is simply a matter of rebuilding over the old UP/Milwaukee ROW from Latah Creek to Fish Lake.

The only hitch I could see with this idea is how to connect the UP line at Fish Lake with the old UP ROW from Scribner east, since BNSF now has a crossover from the old NP main to the old SP&S main, meaning a rebuilt UP would have to go over, under, or a diamond crossing at grade at that BNSF crossover. Going over or under means deviating from the steady grade out of the Latah creek valley to the Che

2

You don’t see a “hitch” with a 3 mile tunnel?

3

Pssst, Hey Tom…
They let him out “on his own” yesterday…[:0]

4

Tom and Ed,

Please never again respond to anymore of my posts of specificity. You are both completely ignorant of PNW rail issues, and you only play to ****.

And Tom, PS, it’s about grades.

5

No, it’s not about grades! A railroad company can handle a grade!

What they can not handle is a past due note on the money they borrowed to build something that isn’t needed and won’t pay for itself.

The railroads hire MBA’s. From the best business schools. That’s six year’s of college and these people were “making the cut” every time. They got into, oh say, Northwestern from high school, then they graduated from Northwestern, and then they got into the Northwestern Graduate School of Management. (two more years) Then they got hired by a Fortune top rated corporation.

They anilyze this stuff. They know what they’re doing, but they’re not infalible. And they will continue to “make the cut” every time, or else they’ll be gone.

And you think you can drive around Spokane for a day and determine that they are wrong?

6

Judging by CP’s Rogers Pass line 20 years ago, this project would be about $300 million. That amount of capital would be far better spent double tracking the Sunset route.

7

Well, Ed, it was a sunny day. What else can I say. That goes a long way here.

Dave, to see my “handle” used in a Thread Title, well … … …

Well, down to business. Full throtle. All that. Right.

First, lets look at the tunnel approach. As Tom says, do you see a “hitch” here? I see two of them and the solution is almost as bad as the problems - both the “hitch” and the capacity situation. The problems - first - are money (the UP is not going to finance this project simply due to traffic volumes and the BNSF won’t help to provide its competition with a superior route) since the cost is going to be way above any economical benefit - second - you have the NIMBY politics from those that live in the area above the proposed tunnel, those that will oppose it for valid reasons, and those (usually the loudest) who oppose simply to be opposing. This idea is dead prior to conception. Sorry, because it is an innovative idea.

UNLESS

The City of Spokane, the Feds, WA-DOT, UP and BNSF get together to build this hole and probably only if the taxpayers pay for it. You then have the political problems attendant to that (in addition to NIMBY) and because holes (horizontal ones used for transportation purposess) are very difficult to enlarge after they are completed, you will have instant capacity problems from square one.

It is true that Spokane would like to get the BNSF and UP out of down town, and the railroads may well wi***o be gone also, I don’t know, but government is going to have to fund this and also create the enabling political climate. Not real likely. For the very same reasons that you saw concerning your original route, your tunnel is in trouble.

The cheapest, most easily done physically, and most doable politically, is to construct the “third leg” of a Y at Spokane between the MILW branch and the SI main where they come together in East Spokane, operate south over the existing trackage to Plummer, and then re-

8

If the BNSF is purposely holding up the UPRR then why does not the UPRR do the same to the BNSF at say Bakersfield or Mojave as a tit for tat situation? The UPRR could also do it on the old WPRR toute thru the FRC[:p]

[quote]
Originally posted by futuremodal

9

Well, when the problem with your “solution” is this obvious, there’s little knowledge of PNW issues necessary.

10

Dave,
Un-wad your panties, man…
If you can’t laugh at yourself, then you can’t laugh…
And if you can’t laugh, then what’s the point in saving the planet in the first place?

Ed

11

[quote]
QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed

If the BNSF is purposely holding up the UPRR then why does not the UPRR do the same to the BNSF at say Bakersfield or Mojave as a tit for tat situation? The UPRR could also do it on the old WPRR toute thru the FRC[:p]

What it boils down to is “This is my railroad, and I will run my trains first. Then yours”. As I mentioned in my “note”, the BN is not going to advance the UP’s interest. The UP is not going to repay the BN for its alturism.

The same attitude displays itself with the railroad running its through trains and holding its own locals because they make more money off the through trains. We see the same attitude with AMTK. The railroad makes more money off of freight than passenger.

Whatever makes the bigest heap on the bottom line gets the priority. This is the real “trickle down theory” in action. Believe me, if Ed’s switch job made the biggest contribution to the bottom line, his job would get nothing but high green – and get them a LONG time before he needed them.

12

Probably because BNSF has the PRB lines, which are more important than those you mentioned. The two railroads have enough problems with capacity without getting into a war.

13

Would it be worth the money to build this line, just to speed up transit times of some UP trains?

14

Funny you mention what you posted cause at the site of the recent derailment I observed at Sullivans Curve I met a BNSF manager & asked him why would you not divert the trains to the UPRR track & he related the following story. According to him the BNSF & UPRR have dispatch offices in San Bernandino next to each other but according to him they NEVER speak to each other. He went on to say that is the reason the UPRR would not premit BNSF to use that track while the derailment was being cleaned up & in the same regard he stated that unless a UPRR train was in a position to move from the BNSF to the UPRR owned track they would just have to wait like the BNSF has to do for the track to reopen. I realize that the 2 RRs compete against each other but that managers comments seem to me to be ultra extreme[:)]

[quote]
QUOTE: Originally posted by kenneo

[quote]
QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed

If the BNSF is purposely holding up the UPRR then why does not the UPRR do the same to the BNSF at say Bakersfield or Mojave as a tit for tat situation? The UPRR could also do it on the old WPRR toute thru the FRC[:p]

What it boils down to is “This is my railroad, and I will run my trains first. Then yours”. As I mentioned in my “note”, the BN is not going to advance the UP’s interest. The UP is not going to repay the BN for its alturism.

The same attitude displays itself with the railroad running its through trains and holding its own locals because they make more money off the through trains. We see the same attitude with AMTK. The railroad makes more money off of freight than passenger.

Whatever makes the bigest heap on the bottom line gets the priority. This is the real “trickle down theory” in action. Believe me, if Ed’s switch job made the biggest contribution to the bottom line, his job would get nothing but high green – and get them a LONG time bef

15

It is a tit for tat world…
I have watched the UP park a switch jobs power in the middle of the diamond at the west end of Basin yard…just to block the TexMex and trap them in Basin yard for a few hours to kill their schedule and hog out a crew…
If my yard fills up with outbound UP trains, or BNSF for that matter…we refuse to allow them to bring any trains in, no matter how important…they come pull a few tracks, we will take their grain train in.
If they want to use us as a storage facility, we can leave their trains out on the main blocking the North Shore, and their access to the Baytown refineries.

So when one road plays hardball, about the only response is to play hard back.
Ed

[quote]
QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed

Funny you mention what you posted cause at the site of the recent derailment I observed at Sullivans Curve I met a BNSF manager & asked him why would you not divert the trains to the UPRR track & he related the following story. According to him the BNSF & UPRR have dispatch offices in San Bernandino next to each other but according to him they NEVER speak to each other. He went on to say that is the reason the UPRR would not premit BNSF to use that track while the derailment was being cleaned up & in the same regard he stated that unless a UPRR train was in a position to move from the BNSF to the UPRR owned track they would just have to wait like the BNSF has to do for the track to reopen. I realize that the 2 RRs compete against each other but that managers comments seem to me to be ultra extreme[:)]

[quote]
QUOTE: Originally posted by kenneo

[quote]
QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed

If the BNSF is purposely holding up the UPRR then why does not the UPRR do the same to the BNSF at say Bakersfield or Mojave as a tit for tat situation? The UPRR could also do it on the old WPRR toute thru the FRC[:p]

16

Eric and any legitimate interested parties:

Remember, this is all speculative “what if” stuff, although there’s probably enough of a congestion problem developing in Spokane and through the “Funnel” between Spokane and Sandpoint to look at possible solutions. And yes, the BNSF through downtown Spokane does represent a certain ambience of a nuisance.

That being said, what I would like to do is compare the recent UP trench project through Reno Nevada with any prospective Spokane realignments. If I remember correctly, what UP did there was take grade level tracks and stuck them in a trench, so there was no need to purchase additional property for this project. UP simply built a few shoo flys around the project until it was finished. There was no need to buy new ROW through high priced commercial properties.

With the Spokane situation, it’s not as easy (if indeed the UP Reno trench can be called “easy”). The BNSF tracks run via a viaduct with commercial buildings on both sides, so there is no room for simply adding additional tracks on the right or left side of the ROW. Also, the bridges over the city streets are constricted for vehicle traffic, with some clearances as low as 12’, and support struts right in the middle of streets. I’m sure the city engineers would prefer at least 15’ clearances on all city streets not to mention unobstructed street widths. In other words, there would be no tears shed by city officials if the old NP viaduct was eliminated.

Now, consider the costs of the Reno trench. Isn’t it possible that compared to building a trench or raised viaduct through Spokane, the idea of a de facto tunnel under solid bedrock, out of sight and out of mind for most city residents, might actually be the prefered option, and may even be the less costly solution? The tunnel idea would not require any additional property purchases, since it can start right at railroad ROW near Hamilton Street and end at undeveloped city property on the west end. From t

17

If you need a little historic background on tunneling through a populated area, pick up a copy of “The Late Great Pennsylvania Station” by Loraine Diehl (no relation) These show up on Ebay on a regular basis. Add to this the fact that this happened about a century ago and things have gotten worse in the lawsuit happy society these days. Just the potential liabilty issues would be staggering. Then there’s the actual costs of tunneling, issues of ownership of the property to be tunneled through, just to mention a few. I’d hate to even think about the enviornmental impact study for something like this.

18

Dave -----

Please refer to my comment about your idea a few posts up. I said it was an inovative idea for this problem. It is, for sure. It is also doable from an engineering standpoint. If the government (any or any combination of branches) foots the bill, there probably would be no resistance to only a little resistance on the part of the railroads.

What I tried to do was to explain why your idea was “dead on conception” in terms of the political and economic realities that now exist. “Dead on conception” does not make the idea a bad one, but does mean that it will be one very hard sell. And then to offer a practical (or at least, more practical) solution.

Yes, we are, to a large extent, engaging in a “what if” “fantisy railroad” excercise. But part of that excercise is practicality. Does that mean we do not talk about the non-practical ideas? No, it does not - we just have to recognize the difference.

For instance, I can plot the approximate location of a potential 1% from Beverly Jct to Boyalston, but it would need to be about 40 miles long to keep the grade to 1%. The topography would require additional miles to avoid the tallus slopes and avoid the rimrock that is exposed as a cliff about 600 feet high in places.

Sometimes the more desireable grade simply is not practical and a helper grade is the only practical alternative solution. Those are big mountains and the rise from Beverly Jct is about 2,000 feet to Boyalston. I-90, which goes up Ryegrass from Vantage approaches 8% in several places and is only marginally shorter in miles than the PCE grade up Johnson Creek which is about a 2% grade to cross the ridge line within 5 miles of each other. Johnson Creek is the easiest grade and Ryegrass is the next easiest. The above two paragraphs are just to illustrate the points.

19

You are correct, mostly. The MRL would get a MAJOR short cut using St. Paul instead of going up to Sandpoint for Pasco trains. Almost an 80 mile saving. They would save about 20 using St. Paul and then up to Spokane from Plummer for traffic going via the (former) GN.

Having the UP “detour” from Sandpoint to St. Maries, over St. Paul and back to Marengo would not save any mileage, would add a helper district, but avoid Spokane. It would be better for the SI traffic to continue to East Spokane and then down to the PCE at Plummer. That would leave only the “High Line” traffic between Sandpoint and Spokane and eliminate the former NP trackage out of Spokane down to Connell, at least. And that would put the Ritzville mega-loader shuttle elevator – on the WATCO.

The UP could use St. Paul as a detour around the Blue’s if it wanted to, rejoining its own tracks at Silver Bow. The Blue’s and Burnt River have capacity problems. It makes a good alternate for PNW-LA traffic, also, eliminating the congestion over Willamette Pass, Grass Lake, Sacramento and Tehatchepie(spelling) but adding to Cajon.

20

Remember, part of the basis of this excercise (from my perspective) is to compare solutions in other cities across the country to rectify railroad passage through those cities and apply that “train of thought” to Spokane’s situation. That’s why I think the Reno trench porject is a good comparative model for Spokane.

Eric, if I understand your perspective correctly, you are suggesting that a distant bypass to the south using part of the PCE and UP’s Plummer branch is preferable to either trenching, tunneling, or raising the viaduct through Spokane. Is this correct?

Regarding the Beverly to Boylston section of the PCE, there are other ways to reduce the ruling grade without increasing the mileage at all (or at least all that much). One ambitious solution would be to build a high bridge over the Columbia at Sentinal Gap. This would be a tricky project due to it’s potential length (over a mile long), height above the river, and the winds that ru***hrough that gap, but if these can be overcome safely you’d reduce the ruling grade to about 65 feet to the mile, and that’s just about the max grade you’d want for grain trains and the like.

The next possible solution would be to shift the ROW alignment to the south side of the Saddle Mountains on the east side of the river from Othello to Mattawa, then cross the river there about 10 miles south of Beverly and begin the grade up to Boylston. You add about 10 miles total to the length of the PCE, but keep the ruling westbound grade in the 65 - 70 feet per mile range.

Of course, I expect Michael would argue for simply re-erecting the catenary, which by itself mitigates grades to a near non-factor. This being the case, it raises the possibility of constructing a 3% or so fly-by track to eliminate most of the curvature between Beverly and Boylston, and which as a second track could be used by TOFC’s, eastbound empties, etc. Perhaps you could then keep a helper district strictly between Beverly and Boylston.