The Reno Trench cost roughly $282 million for 2.2 miles of project, or $128 million per mile.
I would venture that 1 mile of rebuilt track from Napa Junction to Hamilton Street, plus a 3 mile tunnel through basalt, plus a 4,000’ viaduct over Latah Creek, plus the cost of re-aquiring the old UP/Milwaukee ROW from Fish Lake Junction to the west end of the new viaduct, plus relaying ballast and track, AND the cost of an underpass under the BNSF crossover near Scribner, would cost less per mile than the cost per mile of the Reno Trench AND cost less per mile than a southern bypass via the old PCE grade and the UP Plummer branch.
Basalt is easier (read - less costly) to tunnel through than granite and more stable than sandstone or clay. I will have to check this, but one website I perused stated that the BN project west of Spokane over Latah Creek plus the reroute of the ex-GN main cost $16 million in the early 1970’s, so that’s what? Maybe $50 million today adjusted for inflation? The total mileage of that project was about 8 miles give or take. This prospective UP project would be about 12 miles total from Fish Lake to Napa Junction.
But that’s a whole different animal - underwater, commuter rail, and a host of public agencies (ir)responsible who seem to like nothing more than to somehow find a way to make even the most rudimentary projects subject to the highest possible costs.
We’d all be better off if they spent the money to move businesses and people out of New York to roomier places in the Midwest and Rocky Mountain West.
Heck, we’d take Wall Street in a pinch here in beautiful downtown Butte![:D]
Now we KNOW Dave is living in a fantasy world. Maybe you should take these speculations over to the Model Railroader side of the forums. You can even build your own mountains and move buildings and tunnels wherever you want them.
While the BNSF trackage rights can be problematic from time to time, it’s just one problem in a sea of problems. If a train coming from Hinkle has less than a hour to work on their 12 hour limit, then BNSF won’t take them unless some arrangement was worked out ahead of time between the BNSF and UP dispatchers. In that case, the outbound crew has to be taken out to Fish Lake to get on the train. The situation actually was worse up until a few months ago. About 5-6 months ago, a link was setup between Omaha and Fort Worth that allows UP dispatchers to see the BNSF’s dispatchers screen of the Spokane Area, and a new direct phone line was also establish between the dispatchers. No more lost UP trains on the BNSF.
And it’s not like UP has no part of the blame. The BNSF dispatchers put a stop to the 3 on 3 meets on the BNSF a while back. For a couple years there, UP was using the BNSF like one big long passing siding, and that strained the BNSF’s ability to handle their own trains. Imagine being the BNSF dispatcher getting bombarded by 6 UP trains all at one, and they all need to be one your railroad at once before they start to clear back onto the UP. Even still, last Wednesday ther were 6 northbounds and 5 southbounds all within 60 miles of Spokane, that was quite a day. Gary was a bit flustered trying to read out track warrants with three “not in effect until after the arrival of” trains. Of course UP’s dispatchers leaving something to be desired, from Gary in the morning, and mister Happy Gilmore in the afternoon. Today got a “sun uv au b-tch” out of Gill. Mike “Taz” who was the weekend relief dispatcher, but now the full time night dispatcher is probably the best one on the UP Ayer/Spokane subs.
Anyways, the larger problems for UP’s Spokane/Ayer sub are Hinkle, which has been a on again, off again meltdown ever since they closed Eugene. Part of the problem is the “12 unlocks” a interlocking at the west end of the yard that can only be used by one train at a time. So if a train is lined into
Do you mean to say that a direct phone line between dispatch centers, repeater for the dispatch screens, some extra yard track, reconfigured interlocking plants, and power switches at mainline sidings relieves the problem? You’re going to ruin futuremodal’s life.
Word of advice: Ignore everything posted by the “ilks”. They have no knowledge of PNW operations nor geography.
Now, on to more topical things…
What is the status of the proposal to move UP’s funnel trains onto the BNSF between Athol and Napa St.? If I remember correctly, that move was predicated on BNSF triple-tracking that section, and I have not even seen any survey markers out there that would suggest such a project is forthcoming.
Nice to know Joso and friends are getting modernized. Are there any plans to lengthen any of those sidings?
It has been my opinion that UP made a big mistake back in the 70’s in allowing the Expo folks to bully them off their own line (and in my opinion the most superior line through Spokane) and forcing UP to keep access via BN. Even now, I feel it would be advantageous for UP (and for BNSF) if UP had their own line through Spokane, thus the start of this topic.
That being said, all the improvements south of Spokane for UP is not going to take care of the Spokane congestion problem. BNSF cannot expand trackage over the viaduct through town (well, maybe they could go double decker!), and the city seems stuck forever with low street clearances and mid-street support struts. Just my two cents.
Dave — The whole purpose of re-routing the SI traffic south via the PCE is to get it completely out of Spokane to the greatest extent possible. If the MRL between Sandpoint and St. Regis were routed instead over the PCE, this would also remove the Pasco traffic over the BN out of Spokane That would leave only the “GN” traffic off the High Line and AMTK going through Spokane.
Concerning rights over the MRL, this would actually have to be done with the BNSF since the MRL is just “renting”. My experience with the BNSF is that the MRL probably has to get permission from the BNSF to change out even just one tie.
Track connections exist at Sandpoint and Silver Bow to operate SI traffic via Garrison. What does not exist is an operating agreement. This also presumes that there is sufficient traffic Sandpoint and north that could profitably operate via Garrison.
The only track that would have to be layed is on the PCE between Marengo and Plummer and St. Maries and St. Regis and the old NP Wallace Branch connection to the MRL.m This would solve a whole lot of capacity issues.
The UP would lighten its traffic load between Sandpoint and Spokane. The MRL would only operate “GN” trains via Sandpoint. Traffic through Spokane would be almost limited to “GN” routings. This would permit the UP to take its Hinkle traffic off the SI line between Sandpoint and East Spokane without the need to triple track the BNSF main.
The UP could then lift all of its line between Spokane and Marengo and the BNSF could lift the old NP trackage between Fish Lake and Connell. The point is to remove to the maximum practical extent rail traffic through Spokane.
Not sure if I’m following your logic here. Are you saying UP should route it’s SI traffic via Pocatello? Most of the CP traffic is bound for the lower Columbia ports, and as such would have to go through Spokane. Or are you saying SI goes Sandpoint - St Regis - Avery - St Maries - Marengo?
Doesn’t also the majority of BNSF High Line traffic go down through Pasco? And if you take all the UP and BNSF(SP&S + NP) out of Spokane and onto the PCE, wouldn’t you have to at least double track the PCE to Marengo and Lind?
Another misstatement on your part. This ilk grew up in Wenatchee Washington.
It seems the problem you are trying to solve is delays to UP traffic at Spokane.
The solution is more capacity through Spokane. Put the UP line back in from Fish Lake to Marshall. There is a tunnel style underpass under that connection between former NP and SP&S lines. Go to Scribner Road and walk a block or two toward Marshall. I am not certain but think the NP from Marshall to Spokane was double track, if not making it so would be a lot cheaper than a tunnel even with the bridges required.
I recall seeing a view east/west of the NP elevated line though downtown shortly after the turn of the 20th Century. As I recall it showed two main tracks plus industry sidings on both sides of the main. If that is so, then the elevated is four tracks wide. I suspect the sidings are gone, which means they could easily put a third main on the elevated and solve the UP’s problem a whole lot cheaper than what you guys are contemplating.
Mac — Provided that the R-o-W still exists, which from your comments it does, your solution would be the best. My understanding is that with the exception of the current BNSF trackage through Spokane, all of the former R’s-o-W have a break in them that would not be politically doable to reconnect. Do I misunderstand?
My proposition was to use existing trackage where it exists and relay other alignments where needed and no operating trackage currently exists. The purpose was/is to remove all of the traffic possible from metropolitan Spokane, to remove as much traffic as practical from the BNSF through Spokane and to separate the BNSF and UP to the extent possible or practical – all to increase fluidity and reduce congestion.
Dave – your solution of the tunnel is definately elegant, but unless the City or other DOT type of government agency proposes the solution, it can’t fly at all politically or financially. My experience is that if you wi***he government to fund a project, it must be seen to be their idea from square 1, so neither BNSF or UP can suggest it without their desireing to also pay for the entire project. If the City should suggest something similar to what we are talking about, the cost effective solution would be Mac’s.
My understanding of the MRL traffic is that it basically is Pasco bound. MRL traffic that currently operates via Wenatchee would probably still need to go via Sandpoint. The point of moving some of the SI traffic via Garrison and Pocatello is to take the traffic that does not final in the Columbia ports and move it out of the congestion and around it (Spokane and the Blue Mtns and Cascades). The remaining SI traffic could bypass Spokane via East Spokane, Plummer and Marengo. Plummer and Murango would need to be relayed.
That still leaves the option of routing all of the SI traffic from Sandpoint to St. Regis and then relay the PCE all the way to Marengo, which would not be a solution that the UP would wan
The former GN and UP/MILW rights of way through downtown Spokane are gone and would be very expensive to reproduce. The key question of fact is the width of the former NP elevated right of way through Spokane. I believe it is four tracks wide with two main tracks on it today.
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]