Bruce KellyIt's an overblown concept that all trains require a 30-minute ventilation pause before entering Cascade Tunnel,
I see what you did there... Very punny!
I wonder if the half hour thing is more of a rule of thumb, given the differences in air handling for eastbound and westbound trains and the time/distance factors. In the end, it works out the same.
It's really a rather complicated problem. All the bad air has to go somewhere, and get replaced by good air. Millions of cubic feet of air have to be moved. Adding one or more mid-shaft vents f'rinstance would require similar timing, and more of it.
People tend to underestimate air ("You propose to stop my trains with WIND?"). If we were talking a similar amount of water...
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
tree68 Bruce Kelly It's an overblown concept that all trains require a 30-minute ventilation pause before entering Cascade Tunnel, I see what you did there... Very punny! I wonder if the half hour thing is more of a rule of thumb, given the differences in air handling for eastbound and westbound trains and the time/distance factors. In the end, it works out the same. It's really a rather complicated problem. All the bad air has to go somewhere, and get replaced by good air. Millions of cubic feet of air have to be moved. Adding one or more mid-shaft vents f'rinstance would require similar timing, and more of it. People tend to underestimate air ("You propose to stop my trains with WIND?"). If we were talking a similar amount of water...
Bruce Kelly It's an overblown concept that all trains require a 30-minute ventilation pause before entering Cascade Tunnel,
You can decrease the volume of both by cooling them both which is an innovative approach our European friends have taken with Rail Tunnel ventilation, cool the contaminated air====> move less volume.
Bruce Kelly Unbonded sidings and/or sidings with grade crossings at several locations on the former GN east of Sandpoint, requiring the first train who arrives to hold off of crossings until the other train closes in, and the train taking the siding must do so at restricted speed (translation...very slow meets).
Just occurred to me - perhaps PTC related signal upgrades might fix this sooner than later.
DreyfusshudsonSomeone has to decide whether this or a second bridge over the Pecos River is more important.
I think they did. The second Pecos River bridge was completed last year.
DreyfusshudsonMaybe from Bruce Kelly’s input there are some relatively low cost measures that could be quickly implemented to provide some easement.
The above posts covered all of the ones I'm aware of - thanks, Bruce. The lyrics of a Johnny Cash song come to mind. I've always noticed that large bridge installation / replacement is left for last. The RR capital spending plans are usually published around this time of year, so standby ....
Links to my Google Maps ---> Sunset Route overview, SoCal metro, Yuma sub, Gila sub, SR east of Tucson, BNSF Northern Transcon and Southern Transcon *** Why you should support Ukraine! ***
Funny you should mention signal upgrades. A now-retired BNSF official once told me that re-spacing of signals is part of the solution for one of the Northern Corridor's other little-known challenges: Ton Per Operative Brake (TOB) rules. Under normal conditions, trains under 100 TOB may run at 60mph across most of the route, while trains 100 TOB or over are limted to 50mph. More so than BNSF's southern Transcon, the northern line carries a high percentage of unit grain, coal, and crude trains that qualify for that 50mph limit. Which only adds to the obstacles in front of intermodals and Amtraks wanting to run much faster than that. Toss in the kind of winter conditions we've been having lately from eastern WA to the Dakotas and beyond, you're now talking cold temp speed restrictions (minus ten or below on some subdivisions, not sure about the rest) where trains with less than 100 TOB are limited to 50mph and trains 100 TOB or more are limited to 40mph.
My experience with the Cascade tunnel was on an Empire Builder trip in 1968 with my family. Back in the super dome, the fumes got to my son (7 yrs old) and he got nauseated. The fumes from four 567's working are strong when confined in the tunnel. So when it was dinner time, he wasn't in a mood for food. Later that evening, after he recuperated and was hungry, we went to the coffe shop ranch car and he had a BLT. He claimed it was the best he ever had. Appetite can affect your mind. The sandwich looked excellent, and it smelled delicious.
CMStPnP n012944 How fast do trains run through the tunnel? That would allow us to see how long it takes the CP to purge the exhaust between the 4.5 mile long sections. My guess it is a bit longer that the 3-5 minutes that you stated should be easy with "a little more investment and engineering". Maybe if you posted a link to your source.... Let us also not forget that the CP Roger Pass rebuild, which the new Mount Macdonald tunnel was the major portion of, was a 500 million dollar project in 1988 dollars. That is a bit more than "a little more investment". I think your getting confused here. I used the Mount McDonald Tunnel as an example but we are really talking about a tunnel in the United States that is only 7 miles long........sooo, why would it be 4.5 mile sections? Wouldn't it be 3.5 mile sections?
n012944 How fast do trains run through the tunnel? That would allow us to see how long it takes the CP to purge the exhaust between the 4.5 mile long sections. My guess it is a bit longer that the 3-5 minutes that you stated should be easy with "a little more investment and engineering". Maybe if you posted a link to your source.... Let us also not forget that the CP Roger Pass rebuild, which the new Mount Macdonald tunnel was the major portion of, was a 500 million dollar project in 1988 dollars. That is a bit more than "a little more investment".
I think your getting confused here. I used the Mount McDonald Tunnel as an example but we are really talking about a tunnel in the United States that is only 7 miles long........sooo, why would it be 4.5 mile sections? Wouldn't it be 3.5 mile sections?
The confusion lies with you. My quote was your information to Mount Mcdonald Tunnel, which is just a shade over 9 miles long. According to your quote, there is a door in the middle to clear out the fumes of half of the tunnel. Half of 9 miles is 4.5. The question is, does it take less time to clear the Mount Mcdonald tunnel, since your source, which you have not proviced a link to, did not give the amount time it takes.
An "expensive model collector"
466lex ... 2. 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. ...
...
2. 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.)
Perhaps the Cascade Tunnel was built with limited ventilation because it was designed for electrified rail operation.
MidlandMike 466lex ... 2. 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.)
Electroliner 1935 My experience with the Cascade tunnel was on an Empire Builder trip in 1968 with my family. Back in the super dome, the fumes got to my son (7 yrs old) and he got nauseated. The fumes from four 567's working are strong when confined in the tunnel. So when it was dinner time, he wasn't in a mood for food. Later that evening, after he recuperated and was hungry, we went to the coffe shop ranch car and he had a BLT. He claimed it was the best he ever had. Appetite can affect your mind. The sandwich looked excellent, and it smelled delicious.
I would not be surprised if the current ventilation system had layers of dust dating from before 1968.....lol
MidlandMike Perhaps the Cascade Tunnel was built with limited ventilation because it was designed for electrified rail operation.
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.
466lex MidlandMike 466lex ... 2. 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. Looking forward there are both risks and opportunities for these refineries in the next two to three years. “A major risk is that Bakken crude from North Dakota becomes too expensive to provide better margins than ANS. That is likely to be the case if the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL—see Let Your Crude Flow and Tighten Up) is completed in 2017 following intervention by the incoming Trump administration to overrule permit delays imposed by the Army Corps of Engineers. The 470 Mb/d DAPL will provide adequate pipeline takeaway capacity for all Bakken crude that needs to leave North Dakota (at least until production takes off again). That is likely to increase Bakken prices—possibly to the extent of making it uneconomic for Puget Sound refiners to process, forcing them to increase imports to replace Bakken supplies. The result would increase crude costs at the expense of refining margins.” Source: https://rbnenergy.com/sweet-dreams-are-made-of-this-cheap-crude-and-captive-market-boost-pnw-refineries
Ther are 2 types of pipeline deversions to consider: direct (a pipeline from ND to PNW is very unlikely as mentioned in th article, and a pipeline from TX to CA has been proposed but died from lack of interest. Note, BNSF also hauls Bakken to Cal. which is why I included all west coast); indirect would be pipelines to the Gulf Coast as you referenced. As I have said in other threads, I believe DAPL will be completed. The RBN article raises the "possibility" that the price may rise above present margins. The Texas Gulf Coast is already awash in light sweet crude, so there is some unknown as to how much it might relieve Bakken's low crude prices. However, they also point out that using the heavy Canadian crude as a replacement would necessitate the costly expansion or upgrading at the refineries to handle it.
I should have qualified my earlier statement, so that Bakken crude is not susceptible to direct pipeline diversion to the west coast, and that there are obstacles to other diversions. Nevertheless, Bakken CBR to the west coast is still one of the safest routes, relative to the other CBR routes.
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 case. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Maybe from Bruce Kelly’s input there are some relatively low cost measures that could be quickly implemented to provide some easement. If there are true choke points this would be to no avail. BNSF doesn’t seem to think it’s choking. 466lex’s post suggests how the BNSF board might be thinking about this- it would provide a good logic for what I have outlined above. Every reason to sit on the fence. Just a bit depressing that the BNSF cannot afford to create an infrastructure that continues to provide top customer service when things get tough, nor is confident enough about the future to invest. (I do understand that a lot of traffic is not that time sensitive). Maybe the fact that there is a daily update on the situation via Amtrak Track a train site is what brings this to our attention. If the same situation occurred on the UP Portland Ogden line, or the CSX/NS lines north from Birmingham and Atlanta, who would know or care? Another thing I don’t understand is why BNSF keeps sending trains into the funnel at a rate at which experience- even a computer model(!)- says things are going to seize up. Isn’t it most cost effective to keep traffic flowing, deferring lower priority traffic, which is going to get sidelined anyway? Maybe that’s another topic.
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 case. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Maybe from Bruce Kelly’s input there are some relatively low cost measures that could be quickly implemented to provide some easement. If there are true choke points this would be to no avail. BNSF doesn’t seem to think it’s choking.
466lex’s post suggests how the BNSF board might be thinking about this- it would provide a good logic for what I have outlined above. Every reason to sit on the fence. Just a bit depressing that the BNSF cannot afford to create an infrastructure that continues to provide top customer service when things get tough, nor is confident enough about the future to invest. (I do understand that a lot of traffic is not that time sensitive).
Maybe the fact that there is a daily update on the situation via Amtrak Track a train site is what brings this to our attention. If the same situation occurred on the UP Portland Ogden line, or the CSX/NS lines north from Birmingham and Atlanta, who would know or care?
Another thing I don’t understand is why BNSF keeps sending trains into the funnel at a rate at which experience- even a computer model(!)- says things are going to seize up. Isn’t it most cost effective to keep traffic flowing, deferring lower priority traffic, which is going to get sidelined anyway? Maybe that’s another topic.
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 slides. Nothing that can't be managed, however. Much tougher to untangle derailed cars within the tunnel zone south of Palouse Falls State Park, as UP found out this past week.
Bruce Kelly 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.
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
Mark Meyer
jrbernier BNSF has been installing 2nd MT westward and it is now into Eastern Montana.
BNSF has been installing 2nd MT westward and it is now into Eastern Montana.
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.
kgbw49 Too bad the old Milwaukee Road Pacific Extension is not in place yet from about Garrison MT to Marengo WA...
Too bad the old Milwaukee Road Pacific Extension is not in place yet from about Garrison MT to Marengo WA...
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:
It is confusing about a fueling area causing controversy and backups. Today’s locomotives can go great distances before having to be refueled. Why doesn’t BNSF do what UP did at Santa Teresa, New Mexico? There are seven fueling tracks, with fueling racks at each end of the tracks, for DPU’s and head-end power.
There must be some way that is acceptable to all parties concerned up on the Hi Line that would be speedy and that avoids much trouble and controversy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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.
K. P. HarrierWhat exactly is in the tunnel under discussion?
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.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.