My opinion is that it is just very old. If you read up on the new Gotthard Tunnel Ventilation system (Switzerland), you’ll see it could be a lot more state of the art but that the Cascade Tunnel was built when standards of ventilation and moving air were not as high…just hasn’t been significantly updated probably.
[quote user=“466lex”]
MidlandMike
466lex
…
- The Crude-By-Rail market faces as much or more environmental opposition as coal, and the Bakken crude is rapidly gaining low-cost pipeline capacity to the Gulf.
…
While there is plenty of Bakken pipeline takeaway to the south, and potentially to the east, the lower levels of demand to the west coast are not susceptible to pipeline diversion.
It’s one of the safest niches for CBR (while Bakken production holds up.)
The folks at RBN Energy had a post on exactly this topic yesterday. One of their “takeaways”:
“Risks and Opportunities
“PNW refineries continued to perform relatively well despite lower margins in 2016 because of access to advantaged crude
[quote user=“Dreyfusshudson”]
Thanks to all for these inputs, especially to Mike f90 for his most helpful map, and to Bruce Kelly for the track plan and his detailed description of the problem area.
The only info I have found on the BNSF’s position on Sandpoint is found in this news report, which seems accurate enough, from late 2015:
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2015/sep/16/plans-for-second-rail-bridge-across-lake-pend/
This and the fact that plans for more double tracking are in place but on hold says that, with regard to my original question, BNSF is, or at least was a year ago, at 2-3 on my 10 point scale. ‘Well, we have plan, but right now it’s not worth it’. I find it hard to believe that the fact that there could easily be known grain traffic surges or runs of very bad weather were not taken into account in that decision, also the fact that their (and MRL/NP) access to the PNW is solely dependent on a 110 year old bridge, which a bit of help from the UP apart, there’s no way round. Someone has to decide whether this or a second bridge over the Pecos River is more important. If there are questions now about the original capacity decisions, whoever was pulling Mr Melonas’s strings must be feeing hot under the collar. I guess my question was whether there was any indication this might be the cas
Between Bonners Ferry and Sandpoint, the SI faces a 1-percent climb southbound, twice as steep as anything BNSF trains face on their own line between those points. It usually brings UP’s loaded potash and grain trains down to 15mph or less. BNSF would only want to run that route eastbound (northbound by UP ops) to avoid having to add power to westbounds out of Whitefish. Not to mention connections to be made at both ends.
BNSF using the SI between Sandpoint and Athol, however, was given some consideration a couple years ago, especially under a directional running arrangement where UP would get to run its trains one way via BNSF. A new connection would be made at Athol, just north of Highway 54, where both railroads come fairly close side by side and at common elevations. Sandpoint would be another story. There’s already a straight connection off BNSF’s Hi Line onto the SI via the former GN trackage through Boyer. UP trains using BNSF between Sandoint and Athol, on the other hand, would either have to make a zig-zag move at Boyer that would tie up crossings and block other trains considerably, or use a bit of MRL trackage to make a straighter move via the MRL-UP interchange track. MRL trains, which represent roughly a third of what BNSF moves between Sandpoint and Spokane, would have no direct path to/from the SI with the track structure that’s currently in place in Sandpoint. For now, the SI between Athol and Sandpoint is still dark / TWC. CTC has recently been added from Spokane up to only Garwood/Chilco.
A shared, directional running arrangement for BNSF and UP southwest of Spokane was discussed some years ago. It would have been the closest thing to having the old SP&S High Line back, giving heavy trains like grain, coal, and crude a flatter course across eastern Washington. But that didn’t get beyond the talking stage. Much like the former SP&S, the UP through Palouse River Canyon and along portions of the Snake River is vulnerable to occasional rock and mud sli
Not the case. The actual ruling westward grade between Bonners Ferry and Elmira on BNSF is .6 percent. But even a 1 percent grade would be no problem for BNSF trains because they’re powered for that now. It’s a 1 percent grade between Brimstone and Twin Meadows on the westward approach (from Whitefish) to Flathead Tunnel as it is. And beyond that, most westward BNSF trains between Bonners Ferry and Sandpoint are at least powered for the even steeper (a short 1.3 percent) climb at Bison, between Glacier Park and Summit.
–Mark Meyer
This isn’t happening and to my knowledge, no additional second main is planned. The current double track (2 MT CTC actually) still ends westward at Williston, North Dakota.
–Mark Meyer
No it’s not. The last thing we need is ANOTHER helper district (MRL already has two). Not to mention the curvature and numerous numerous very high and costly-to-maintain bridges getting up and down St. Paul Pass.
This reply concerns two aspects of the topic, the tunnel and fueling.
The tunnel:
What exactly is in the tunnel under discussion?
In 1982 over three days my wife and I rode the Rio Grande Zephyr both ways through Moffatt Tunnel in Colorado, a tunnel as I recall was 9 miles long. The tunnel interior had handrail walkways embedded in the tunnel, with laddering to get to the tracks. It was spectacular, to say the least.
To avoid problems and probably to be mind settling to train crews, why couldn’t maybe three trains be connected together, DPU’ed, and run as only one train through the tunnel with only one crew? Then the train would be split up into three trains on the other side of the tunnel, and probably re-crewed, and continue on?
Some 2010 views of the Moffatt Tunnel portal area that had been built up in its surroundings:
Fueling:
IIRC issues with the Cascade tunnel were being discussed.
BNSF has issued a press release regarding the 2017 Capital Investment plan. Looks like ~$175M will be spent on Washington infrastructure and ~$100M in Montana.
Moffat Tunnel is 6 miles long, Cascade is about 8 miles long. Moffat was build at the same time, however, it was designed for steam loco operation. It still takes as long to clear of diesel fumes as Cascade.
MikeF90 (1-21):
In hindsight probably the word “inside” instead of “in” should have been used in the post with reference to the Cascade Tunnel. The Moffat Tunnel was only brought up because what was inside Moffat I saw with my own eyes when passing through it twice on the Rio Grande Zephyr nearly thirty-five years ago. What is actually inside the Cascade Tunnel sure would like to be known to this forumist. Is it just walls, or is it handrailed walkways and lights like the Moffat Tunnel? You or anybody know?
Take care,
K.P.
Mark, thanks for pointing out that 1 percent WB grade east of Flathead Tunnel. I too often think of that area as having only the long eastward climb to the tunnel.
Here’s a comparison of some prominent grades against UP southbounds and BNSF westbounds approaching Sandpoint:
UP Shiloh Hill = 7 miles of 1.0 percent
BNSF Swamp Creek to Twin Meadows = 4 miles undulating 0.94-1.0 percent
BNSF Bonners Ferry to Naples = 9 miles undulating 0.42-0.6 percent plus approx 2 miles of 0.6 percent between Naples and Elmira
BNSF East Algoma to Algoma = 3 miles undulating 0.25-0.6 percent
BNSF Granite to Athol = 2 miles of 0.8 percent
MikeF90, thanks for the link to the BNSF Capital Plan Media Release. While $3.4 billion is down from last year and the enormous amounts from the years before, it is still a very large amount.
Of particular interest to also watch for is the $400 million in capacity expansion projects that the press release notes as part of the capital plan.
The question will be — Once the hi line has its congestion eliminated where will congestion on the nothern transcon then show its ugly head ? Where has congestion showed as BNSF increased the southern transcon 2 MT ? One location though of would be the need to triple track the Cajon trackage.