Interesting.
It is clear to me that BNSF just does not want to give up their near death grip on the shippers in Montana. To me, it apears that they refuse to abandon the Helena Sub, and they refuse to reopen the Homestake Pass line, only to keep Union Pacific from serving more of the state.
Uncle JakeI woke up with this 'what if' idea yesterday: what if UP traded the former DRGW-WP line from Denver to San Francisco to BNSF in exchange for the former NP from Minneapolis to Spokane? I'mnot saying this is neccessarily a good idea or that it should be donedone, just throwing it out there. This rearrangement would give each company one route in each of the 'corridors', theoretically improving competition, it would physically connect BNSF in the west and give it complete control over a line it has been operating over for some time now, it would sort of recreate what Henry Villard did with his Oregon and Transcontinental company, but would necessitate an agreement with MRL. It would still allow BNSF to honor its predecessor roads without changing its orange and green paint scheme too.
Correct me if I'm mistaken but isn't a large section of what used to be the Northern Pacific mainline now owned and operated by Montana Rail Link?
How would your plan address that issue?
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
Why would either BNSF or UP want to do anything like this?
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
I would venture to say that the competition is already there in the form the Interstate Highway System and, in some areas, navigable waterways.
John Timm
Would have been a great idea... 30 years ago. This horse is already out of the barn, the barn burned to the ground and a mini-mart built in its place. It was the responsibility of the ICC (and later STB) to maintain competion. Epic failure. We are stuck with the status quo for the foreseeable future.
Editor Emeritus, This Week at Amtrak
I am a big Rio Grande fan, and I would liked to have seen the D&RGW-WP spun off to BNSF. It would compliment the BNSF Denver line. The thing is that I don't thing BNSF ever wanted it. Rio Grande was a high cost, up and down route. BNSF's Transcon is only about a 50 miles longer route CHI-SFO. They were given trackage rights in the UP/SP merger to this "central corridor" but they seem to use it just to maintain a presence. The Rio Grande route is constrained by the Moffat Tunnel, which takes about 45 minutes to clear after a freight train. UP uses the route for its on line coal mines, but that business is in danger. The large Denver area power company has said the will go non-coal.
Additionally, most of the business on MRL is BNSF overhead traffic. MRL only has about one round trip a day over the line, so there is little local business. BNSF can't do without use of the line, and UP already has their own line to the Pacific NW.
A big problem with the proposal is that there is NO real swap. While the northern route would be a swop (excluding Montana Rail Link), the central route of the D&RGW would NOT be a true swop. BNSF already goes over the D&RGW route, and the SP and WP to the far west. The situation can’t really be compared, because UP does NOT now go over the NP.
As far as the BNSF over the D&RGW, that is more or less a farce. BNSF trains go over the southern Transcon, sending only a token amount of trains via the D&RGW. Except for Tehachapi, the Oakland-Chicago southern route is blissful high-speed running. The token amount of trains that do go over the D&RGW strangely use UP crews. What does that tell one?
MidlandMike had a real good point in referencing the Moffat Tunnel Route in the post just above this one, namely, that the tunnel taking some time to clear of exhaust after a train passes.
The initial post question is a nifty idea, but in reality doesn’t realistically seem feasible or practical.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- K.P.’s absolute “theorem” from early, early childhood that he has seen over and over and over again: Those that CAUSE a problem in the first place will act the most violently if questioned or exposed.
Not mentioned is that the former NP mainline from St. Paul, MN to Casselton, ND is BNSF's Northern mainline with CTC and 2 main tracks. The former GN between those two points is single track.
it takes 12 to 20 mins to clear the Moffat tunnel of exhaust.
ccc It is clear to me that BNSF just does not want to give up their near death grip on the shippers in Montana. To me, it apears that they refuse to abandon the Helena Sub, and they refuse to reopen the Homestake Pass line, only to keep Union Pacific from serving more of the state.
The "death grip" or whatever you want to call it is just a leftover myth from those who opposed the BN merger (45 years ago) and who thought a Milwaukee Road could be competitive in today's environment.
Specifically, what business in Montana could the UP access if it had Homestake Pass and its curvy 2.2 percent grades?
Mark Meyer
Um, what if UP refused to take ex-NP. UP needs all the capital it can summon up today just to keep de-bottlenecking its existing network, and the last thing it needs is a line with highly unfavorable (i.e., costly) operating characteristics versus BNSF's ex-GN. The only way to overcome that would be to offer UP the ex-GN, which would provoke a firestorm of protest from BNSF. Aside from that, UP would still be be playing second banana in the Pacific Northwest. So how would that be resolved?
denveroutlaws06 it takes 12 to 20 mins to clear the Moffat tunnel of exhaust.
It has been widly reported in Rio Grande forum threads that it is 40-45 minutes waiting times between trains using the tunnel. I have seen a reference to up to 25 minutes to clear smoke, but it also takes a train going 25 mph, 15 minuts to transit the 6 mile tunnel, which adds up to 40 minutes.
Another problem with Rio Grande's Moffat Route is that it does not clear double-stacks. With 30 tunnels, including the 6 mile Moffat, it would be a monumental clearance project.
"It was the responsibility of the ICC to maintain competition".
Saying a gov't entity was responsible for maintaing competition is like saying...well, I can't think of another oxymoron that rivals that thought.
Keep in mind that regulatory bodies at any level do not exist in a vacuum. Their existence and role is governed by federal or state statute, which may be changed at any time for whatever reason.
MikeInPlanoSaying a gov't entity was responsible for maintaing competition is like saying...well, I can't think of another oxymoron that rivals that thought.
Sherman Act? Clayton Act?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.