Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote]QUOTE: Originally posted by VerMontanan [quote]QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Someone mentioned on another thread the idea of having the Corps of Engineers be in charge of constructing new rail links to supplement the current rail grid. Since the likelyhood of an expansion of the nation's waterways is highly unlikely, it would be logical for the Corps to supplement their waterways with an expansion into the rail spectrum. One such logical rail link project would be a rail link from Lewiston ID to Missoula MT, connecting the easternmost point of the Columbia/Snake River waterway with direct eastern rail access. Since Corps transportation projects are all open access, they would have to incorporate this attitude into any new rail projects. The Lewiston-Missoula rail link would have UP and BNSF on the western end (via Watco's GNR), and MRL (along with trackage rights MRL has given BNSF) on the eastern end. The question then is if UP can (or would want to) access this rail link from Butte via the former Montana Western (now owned by BNSF), but other than that the open access caveat should be easily adhered to for this project. It would represent the perfect trial concept for open access. [/quote] Far from perfect because: a.)This line would be prohibitively expensive to build; b.)This line would be expensive to operate due to the grade; and c.) The east end of this line is not where BNSF or UP need to a large quantity of their trains to go. This "perfect trial concept" envisions using Lolo Pass (now traversed by US highway 12). While OK for use by Lewis and Clark, Lolo Pass was studied both by builders of the Northern Pacific and the Milwaukee Road as not being practical, due to the grade involved. Indeed, the current alignment of highway 12 on the Idaho side features a loss (or gain, depending on direction) of elevation of 2,000 feet in about 10 miles. Either the cost would be huge to create a railroad with a manageable grade (say 1%) by having a long tunnel, or helpers would have to used. Given that the current BNSF/MRL line between Pasco and Missoula has a maximum grade of 1% eastbound and .8% westbound, it's highly unlikely that BNSF would see much value in this line. The route would be shorter than the current one, but there are many examples where shorter does not equate to preferred, especially with heavy trains, which is what railroads tend to specialize in. The other problem for BNSF would be that such a route wouldn't be located where their trains could use it. In the case of eastbound trains such as stack trains (which are to be area of greatest growth), most of these are and likely will continue to destined to the upper Midwest and East Coast. The route through Northern Montana, not Southern Montana, is the route for most of these trains. But even for trains that could use this route, it would deliver them (via MRL) to BNSF at Laurel, at which point they would face either a wall of coal trains on the line though Forsyth or the line through Sheridan, or a stiff grade along the Rocky Mountain Front between Wendover and Cheyenne. Westbound, it would be unlikely that BNSF would see much value routing trains this way for the same reason. In addition, they would have to negotiate stiff grades on the MRL at Livingston and Helena just to get to the new railroad (where, of course yet another would be encountered). That's why it's much easier for BNSF now to run their unit grain trains via Great Falls where trains can be operated with distributed power and without helpers all the way to destination rather than routing them via MRL where they have to receive a minimum of three helper consists. The UP might actually see benefit in this route, since they have a bottleneck with numerous stiff grades in the Blue Mountains and elsewhere between Pocatello and Hinkle. Certainly, even with a 2.2% grade over Lolo Pass, the route might be considered useful. However, the reasons that UP would never use such are route are: a.)BNSF controls the former Montana Western between Silver Bow and the MRL at Garrison, lest we forget the reason they reacquired it (so that UP and MRL do not have direct access to one another). b.)Somewhat longer mileage, but would require upgrading their entire route between Pocatello and Silver Bow, and c.)Operating conditions on the new line. Lolo Pass would be much more prone to weather hazards (mostly increased wintertime precipitation) than their current route. [/quote] Mark, I will offer some points of difference, since I did some research on this a few years ago. 1. The rail link would not go via Lolo Pass, due to the points you mention, and additionally the fact that the Lochsa River is designated a Wild and Scenic River, and the Selway Bitterroot Wilderness abuts right up to the south shore of the river opposite U.S. Highway 12. Also, this route would be longer than the two alternatives.... The prefered routing would use the old Milwaukee right of way from St. Regis to Marble Creek ID, then southwest via Davies Pass (3800' elevation) to Bovill and eventually Lewiston. A new 8 mile tunnel would be optimal between Saltese and the North Fork of the St. Joe River, bypassing the curvature and 1.7% grades of the old line through St Paul Pass (which is now a popular biking trail). This route could be built at a maximum ruling westbound grade of 0.8% and a ruling eastbound grade of 1.5%. Estimated rail distance Lewiston to Missoula is around 200 miles. The second alternative would leave MRL near Tarkio and follow either Trout Creek or Fish Creek to a rather long (over 10 miles) summit tunnel under the Bitterroots to the North Fork of the Clearwater, along which the new route would follow to the Pierce ID area where it would connect with the soon to be torn up track of the Camas Prairie's 4th sub and basically follow that route to Lewiston. This alternative would be more expensive, since it would require a longer summit tunnel and a rebuilding/rerouting of the older CPR right of way into Lewiston to eliminate the 2.5% grades and curvature. However, this route would be the shortest, with an estimated rail distance of 180 miles between Lewiston and Missoula. 2. This line would be designed for heavy haul traffic such as grain trains bound for Lower Columbia export. The options of the participating railroads to transload grain to barge at Lewiston or continue on the the Lower Columbia ports could be invoked depending on traffic conditions through the Gorge. The problem of getting grain traffic from the High Line is compounded by BN's abandonment of the Harve to Great Falls line and it's mothballing of the Great Falls to Helena line. As an adjunct to the rail link, additionaly track expansion projects would be to rebuild the GF to Harve line (perhaps not necessary if routing via Shelby would suffice), and a new connection between Silver City (on the GF to Helena line) and the east portal of Mullan Tunnel. The latter would allow for westbound grades to stay under 1%, bypassing the 2.2% of the east approach to Mullan tunnel from Helena via MRL. 3. The Lewiston-Missoula rail link would be a logical crew district in and of itself, roughly equadistant to the Missoula-Spokane line. 4. As for it being a "perfect" rail project for the Corps, remember that this line would segue nicely with the Corps Columbia-Snake River waterway on an end to end basis. 5. You are correct in your assessment of UP's involvement with this line via Butte. Do not forget that although BNSF reaquired the Montana Western, UP still owns the original right of way, and unless they sold away any chance for use of this line should the opportunity avail itself, there may be caveats in the deal that would allow UP to use this line. If you have better knowledge of the particulars of this deal, I would like to be advised of such. I think UP's bigger problem of using MRL is the connection in Sandpoint which does not allow for ease of transition from one set of tracks to the other westbound off MRL and eastbound off UP, and the caveats of UP's trackage rights agreement that allowed them to us BNSF rails around Sandpoint (and thus abandon their original route throught Sandpoint) may preclude them taking such traffic off MRL, e.g. another paper barrier to macro rail fluidity. That being said, if it is determined that UP would favor access to this line, the Corps could either negotiate for the Montana Western line or barring that build their own line from Silver Bow to Garrison via the old Milwaukee right of way (where available). For that matter, if their remain paper barriers to UP access to MRL rails from the original BN sale, the old MIlwaukee corridor is still mostly intact and could be revived at additional cost. 6. This line would allow MRL direct access to the barge ports, allowing MRL more leeway in determining online functionality free of dependence on BNSF.
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag