Home
»
Trains Magazine
»
Forums
»
General Discussion
»
BNSF vs. The Pacific N.W., Yet Another Round?

Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote]QUOTE: Originally posted by kenneo Dave (futuremodal) and Michael Sol ------ (or anyone else who knows) What is the grade over Lookout Pass (I-90) over the old UP and NP branches between Plummer and Saltese. From Saltese going east the NP branch operated over the PCE to St. Maries. The grades still exist, so perhaps that may be a reasonable alternative to the original PCE via St. Paul Pass. Even if it isn't and the Avery-St. Regis alignment needs to be utilized, it would be cheaper (and easier) to rebuild the Forest Service road higher on the hill and then relay the PCE on its original alignment than to build a new grade for those 10 miles.[/quote] The line over Lookout Pass has 4% grades both ways, plus switchbacks. Not exactly what one would want for a modern day mainline rebuild. From Mullan to Wallace, I believe I-90 has been widened right on top of the old NP grade, and that's is in a narrow canyon as well. I-90 over Wallace is via a viaduct - the rails were still in place when this viaduct was built, so there is room for a new rail line under it. From Wallace to Plummer is now a paved bike trail, and the swing bridge over the St. Joe was taken out and replaced with a higher bike bridge to allow barges on the river to fit under. If one had to choose between the Coeur d'Alene line(s) or the St. Joe line, the St. Joe line nee-ex PCE is by far the superior grade. The old UP grade from "the river between the lakes" to Plummer is 3%, while the ex-Milwaukee grade from Benewah Lake to Plummer is 1.7% (and still active under the St. Maries River Railroad!). Both lines were basically water level from the lakes to their respective starts of the mountain crossings aka Lookout Pass and St. Paul Pass. Then you have the 4% of Lookout vs the 1.7% of St. Paul Pass, not to mention easier curvature of the ex-PCE. No contest. As for the recreational uses going on now, it is logical for a prospective new line to utilize the original plans of Milwaukee to build a lower level 5(?) mile tunnel under St. Paul Pass, which would eliminate the horseshoe at Adair and reduce the ruling grade to 0.7% (?). Then you would need to bypass Avery and the Forest Service highway to Marble Creek, so why not simply extend the grade on the north slope above Avery all the way to Marble Creek, where the old water level roadbed could be re-attained? Or, if the southern routing is chosen, it is relatively simple to cross over to the south side of the St. Joe, run up Marble Creek to Davies Pass (at 3800' elevation), wherein it is basically downhill all the way to Lewiston (albeit a mix of new trackage/new construction and current branchline trackage) and the water level grade trackage along the north side of the Snake River to Pasco. The one particular of this alignment is that it effects the possibilities of rail to barge transfer at the far end of the Columbia/Snake Waterway system. There's nothing like multimodal interoperability to enhance optimized capacity utilization! Plus, with the Columbia Gorge fully occupied by both BNSF on the north side and UP on the south side (both of which are extremely difficult to expand for capacity enhancement), this rail to barge option allows direct service to Portland and the lower Columbia ports for non-time sensitive traffic, aka hot TOFC service Portland to the east might be out for this new railroad, but everything else is a go. From Pasco to Puget Sound, you hope for trackage rights over the Stampede Pass line. If that's out, then a revival of the ex-Milwaukee Hanford branch between the Tri-Cities and the foot of PCE's Saddle Mountain grade might be a possibility. It should be mentioned that this routing could result in a reduced westbound grade to the summit at Boylston by starting the upgrade nearer Vernita Bridge. Again, that would be all new construction, and it abuts the Yakima Firing Range. But it does allow for revived Milwaukee service areas of yore, and reduces the 2.2% of the Beverly to Boylston line. [quote]QUOTE: I have a possible problem with this solution in that there is quite a tourist trade utilizing the PCE between Avery and St. Regis. Also, there is the possibility of a "Snow Train or Ski Train" to the Lookout Pass Ski Area which is just a few feet from the old roadbed for the NP branch at the Continental Divide. This alignment would bring the line up to Spokane using the alignment the MILW used for its passenger trains and PVR branch trains to a connection with the UP at the Spokane International Yard and thence via UP to Pasco. Where this line crosses the old PCE at Marengo, the PCE could be rebuilt west. This would permit a more nearly "straight line" from the MRL to Seattle.[/quote] UP has trackage rights over BNSF through Spokane over the ex-NP viaduct, but would BNSF allow another carrier to use that congested segment? UP has a hard enough time getting it's trains from Fish Lake to East Spokane, they'll often sit for hours waiting for permission to enter BNSF territory. How could a third player expect to fit in there? But you are right, once you hit UP tracks at Fish Lake, you could make it easily to Marengo since UP has excess capacity on it's "Washy" line. From Marengo, either rebuild the PCE to the Cedar River valley via Othello and Beverly (keeping in mind you can't really mitigate the 2.2% up to Boylston since the grade starts at the end of the Columbia River bridge at Beverly), or take UP down to Wallula, then UP up to the Tri-Cities, then either BNSF's Stampede Pass line or the aforementioned Hanford alternative with it's mitigation prospects up to Boylston. [quote]QUOTE: The PCE R-o-W over Snoqualmie still exists and is a rails-to-trails for nearly its entire distance (John Wayne Trail) - all the way to Marengo and somewhat byond towards Plummer. And I never did understand why the MILW climbed out of the Columbia to Ellensburg the way it did. An easier grade and lower "pass" exist through the alignment of I-90, the top of the hill for I-90 is where the MILW crosses over the freeway. The alignment may have been rather putrid, though. And they could have gone around the South end of the hills north of the Tri-Cities to Sela and then used the Yakima River Canyon along with the NP.[/quote] As mentioned above, I too have always questioned the compatibility of the 2.2% up the Saddles, when you compare the ruling grades of the rest of the PCE. Since the MIlwaukee chose to cross the Columbia at Beverly, they really had no choice but straight up the Saddles. If Milwaukee had crossed closer to Vernita or White Bluffs, they could have started the Saddle Mountain grade farther east and kept the ruling westbound grade at 1% by following Umtanum Ridge in a manner similar to the old CP/SP Donner Pass grade of the nation's first transcon. Umtanum Ridge runs southeast to northwest on a straight line between the Tri-Cities and Ellensburg, with a summit slightly lower elevation than that at Boylston. Would have made a legendary grade for showing off engineering and locating skills, and given the Milwaukee an unheard of "near water" level grade over the Saddles and Cascades of 1% and 0.7% respectively. Compare that with NP's 2.2% over Stampede and GN's 2.2% over Stevens! As for the Yakima River Canyon between Yakima and Ellensburg, that's way slow trackage even now, I think 25 mph max. It's a steep canyon with a curvy river to follow. That being said, the curvature could be mitigated by a few well placed tunnels to shorten and straighten the line. And that would keep things at water level grade. [quote]QUOTE: As I understand it, using an already existing R-o-W nearly to completely eliminates the EIS requirements because all that's missing is the ties and rails - very little to change in the "environment". New construction, however, takes the whole nine yards and lots of time and much much money which is why I suggested trackage rights over (mostly) the former NP while the rest of these items are taken care of. [/quote] That's why I ask if it is cheaper to build less miles of new tracks and utilize existing tracks, than it is to mostly re-lay new tracks on existing ROW? Is building maybe 100 miles of brand new construction more or less expensive than re-laying 500 miles of ballast and tracks?
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