In terms of shortest distance and smallest grades…who has the best route to Chicago from the Pacific (from California to British Columbia)?
This is just a guess…no facts what so ever to back this up.
BNSF (ex-Santa Fe Transcon)
Jeff
I believe the answer to your question would depend entirely on your west coast starting point, all ending in Chicago proper I assume.
From Chicago to Seattle BNSF (ex GN)
From Portland to Chicago both BNSF and UP tossup
From Oakland to Chicago BNSF (ex AT&SF)
From Los Angeles to Chicago BNSF (ex AT&SF)
Al - in - Stockton
Which did you want, least distance or least grades? But those don’t make for “best” necessarily.
Chicago-LA/Long Beach: Least adverse gradient and least total elevation to be overcome is UP by far. Least distance depends which combination of route on both carriers is used, but it’s a wash between UP and BNSF.
Chicago-San Francisco Bay: Least adverse gradient, least total elevation to be overcome, and least distance are all UP.
Chicago-Portland: Least adverse gradient and least distance is UP. Least total elevation to be overcome is BNSF.
Chicago-Seattle: Least adverse gradient is UP, least total elevation is BNSF, least distance is pretty much a wash.
Chicago-Vancouver: Least distance is CPR. Least gradient is CN. Least total elevation is CN.
Chicago-Prince Rupert: Only one player, CN.
RWM
I would think that in the stakes between Vancouver B C and Chicago BNSF would be a major player considering that the former GN line would offer faster running time and an equal if not shorter route that CP or CN. CN may have the lower grade over there Rocky Mountain crossing but the miles of Fraser River Canyon running does not offer the speeds found on the BNSF line.
Even when the UP finishes there Sunset route double tracking between Los Angeles and El Paso that line will not compare with the former AT&SF line that will soon have triple track over Cajon and double track except for Abo Canyon to Chicago. It is also far shorter than the UP line through Salt Lake City.
BNSF consistantly runs faster Richmond - Stockton - Chicago trains than the UP operates via Donner and the Overland route to Chicago. The UP already has congestion problems on the Overland route.
From Portland the UP has to overcome the Blue Mountains and Sherman Hill on there route where as the BNSF route through Spokane only has Marias Pass to negotiate. Once over that pass it is clear sailing to Chicago.
Al - in - Stockton
The only one I disagree with Railway Man on, is Portland, OR to Chicago. The Union Pacific has to contend with 2.2 percent gradients over the Blue Mountains in Eastern Oregon, compared to 1.8 percent gradients for BNSF on Providence Hill, Haskell Pass, and EB only from Essex, MT.
You are absolutely correct; the maximum ruling grade is less on the BNSF. As far as rise/fall, it’s a pretty close comparison at a minimum, and to be definitive I’d have to sit down with the track charts and add up all the elevation rise/fall.
The UP/OSL/OW&RN has the advantage of multiple main track or double track as far as Granger, Wyoming, and a pretty good route across the Snake River Plain and down the Columbia River Gorge, with only Medbury Hill, Encina Hill and the Blue Mountain climb from LaGrande to Kamela to contend with, most of that either multiple main or long sidings. The BNSF is mostly single track all the way, not much second main on the climbs, has the inferior side of the Gorge, the hilly NP between Spokane and Pasco, and a fairly tedious route across the Rockies by comparison with the UP across the Blues.
The problem is that just considering grades and length is like being given two random pieces of a 100-piece jigsaw puzzle and trying to decipher what it pictures. There’s a lot more to route comparisons then length and maximum ruling grade.
RWM
Is the Long Run Varible Cost significantly (+/- 10%) different on the routes from (1) the PNW to Chicago or (2) PHL interchange to Chicago?
The question was posed based on mileage and gradient, however there would seem to be more issues than that in determining a “best route”.
What other factors would come into play? I can think of a few such as capacity, speed restrictions, terminal capacity/conditions, etc.
What should occur with the completion of double tracking of the SP Sunset Route? It has been indicated it is a superior route, but when looking at the map I see an issue east of Kansas City (trackage rights on the BNSF). Is that an issue these days or not?
ed
I would think that having customers on your route is important. Do you route thru Podunk with no customers to make you money,but is shorter than going through Skunkville with 3 customers but is a 20 miles longer?. I would think that having customers on the line rather than just running trans from Point A to Point B with no one in between but empty land.wins out.
Having customers on your route is not always important, especially if hauling bridge traffic is your reason for being.
Case in point: When the Poughkeepsie Bridge outfit found they couldn’t do business with the local Poughkeepsie and Eastern bunch, they built their own line, bypassing Pleasant Valley, Salt Point, and other podunkvilles served by the P&E, as Boston and points east was where their traffic was heading and coming from.
And when it’s time to trim back, no city complains they’re losing their link to the outside world!
Art
I appreciate that there are many factors such as track quality, on line traffic availability, weather etc… however for my own purposes I wanted to limit the comparisons to those two factors.
That’s really the question, isn’t it.
RWM
That 1.8% applies just to the west slope of Marias; Providence Hill is only 1%. Haskell Pass is long gone, at least as far as railroading goes. Like RWM said, you can’t judge a route simply by distance and grade. Geographic limitations come into play, like long single-track choke points at Flathead Tunnel west of Whitefish, the Kootenai River canyon in north Idaho/northwest Montana, and the long, slow coulee between Connell and Hatton, WA. And operating limitations like the need to stop for manned helpers for grades like Marias and Medbury/Ticeska, etc., or to cut mid-train DPUs in and out at Hinkle or Nampa. At least at Marias, they’ve gone back to the practice of equipping helpers with remote pin lifters so they can cut off on the fly once they reach the top. From a business standpoint, I think the “best” routes will be judged more by shortest average running times, fuel efficiency, return on investment, and other numerical data that’s less fun to look at than a set of maps and grade charts.
Bruce:
It is a matter of personal choice. While maps and charts are fun to look at, I will take the return on investment, fuel efficiency, and other data.
Throw in the revenue data for a line, tonnage, etc. and I would be a very happy reader for awhile.
ed
Sure, the question of “best route” can be complicated, but he’s keeping it fairly simple-- we don’t need to consider capacity, or customers, or whatever.
How about this: you’ve got an ES44 in Chicago with… say 1500 tons of doublestacks, or whatever consist you like. Your assignment: get to the Pacific anywhere north of Mexico as fast as possible, assuming whatever route you choose is guaranteed to be cleared for you-- no interference from other trains. And you’re not limited to one railroad-- combine UP and BNSF if you like. What route do you take?
There would still be speed restrictions unrelated to gradient, to account for curves, Method of Operation, city ordinance, bridges, tunnels, etc. So I am inferring from your premise (perhaps incorrectly) that I cannot violate existing maximum authorized speed and all existing permanent speed restrictions are in effect.
Speaking from experience and not from the ETTs or track charts, which could lead to error, I think the ideal route combination would be:
- BNSF (Santa Fe) Chicago-Kansas City-Amarillo
- UP (Rock Island-SP) Amarillo-El Paso-Los Angeles
It’s possible there might be a slight advantage to UP between Kansas City and Amarillo.
RWM
Did you mean Vaughn rather than Amarillo?
Perhaps the best route would switch from BNSF(ATSF) to UP(CRI&P) at Hutchinson, KS?
I am obviously too tired to form coherent answers today.
Vaughn would be a reasonable choice except there is no straight-rail connection. I’m not sure there is one at Hutchinson, either. Perhaps Kansas City is the best choice; the switch between carriers could be made on the KCT Railway on signal indication.
RWM