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.
Clememte - You are right about the grade from Beneway Lake to to Plummer, it is 1% at least according to the profile map on pages 190-191 of "The Milwaukee Road - West" by Charles and Dorothy Wood. The only reference I can find right off hand for the UP Chacelot Lake to Plummer grade is from "The Milwaukee Road In Idaho" by Stanley Johnson, where on pages 94 and 95 it describes the grade separation between the Milwaukee line and the old OWR&N - "Milwaukee tracks climbed up the mountainside towards Plummer Junction at about 1% or less grade." Then he describes the old OWR&N grade as being "a full 1.5% greater than the Milwaukee for most of this way", which would make it around 2.5%. kenneo - where you mention "The State of Washington might be able to be convinced to purchase the line from the BNSF and then build a new line north of Pasco to connect with the PCE R-o-W -- a decent grade to the currect top of the grade at Boylston should be obtainable. That leaves getting through Ellensburg." I couldn't agree more that a line that follows State Highway 240 from Richland to the Highway 24 junction, then begins a steady slight climb on the western flanks of the Columbia River to Boylston would be ideal, probably under 1%. You would have to avoid getting too far west into the Yakima Firing Range (for obvious reasons), so I'm not sure if it possible to start the grade that far south (hgwys 240 and 24) without entering off limits territory. Which leaves starting the grade a few miles south of the "gap" opposite Mattawa, so not sure how much can be alleviated gradewise from the original PCE upgrade start opposite Beverly. Even so it would be a preferable rail routing to the NP Yakima Valley/Yakima River Canyon line, if for no other reason than increasing train speeds (it may be shorter mileage wise as well). And I'm sure the recreationists would love a riverside rail trail in the Canyon. Regarding UP's options with MRL and Spokane, one problem with the Sandpoint connection is that it runs from a switch on the SI south across Highway 200 (with a noticable dip to meet the road level) to a one way spur off the old NP main (now MRL). Thus any potential UP trains wanting to take MRL to Garrison/Butte and then south to LA LA land would have to creep ever so slowly across the highway, then once the consist was over would then have to backup onto the MRL main and run reverse (thus would need to be in DPU push/pull power arrangement), and it would have to be a short consist to boot. You also have somewhat of the same problem in Spokane if UP wanted to run from the old SI main in East Spokane down to the Plummer branch, e.g. I don't think you can run head on from a westbound off the SI down to the Plummer branch without a backup/reverse move or two. Plus you're climbing the grade out of Dishman up to Mica and fighting those curves. But you're right, once you got to Plummer and the rebuilt PCE, you'd have prime profile east or west from there. If I was UP and traffic off the CP at Eastport grew enough to warrant significant investment, I'd rather look at a potential southern bypass route around Spokane, a more modern alignment than using the PCE/UP Rockford branch/UP-Milwaukee Dishman branch if it's possible. I'll have to study my contour maps of southern Spokane County more closely to see if that is a reasonable possibility. But whatever, just getting off BNSF's line through Spokane would be a goal worth pursuing.
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