Login
or
Register
Home
»
Trains Magazine
»
Forums
»
General Discussion
»
UP thru Spokane
Edit post
Edit your reply below.
Post Body
Enter your post below.
Remember, part of the basis of this excercise (from my perspective) is to compare solutions in other cities across the country to rectify railroad passage through those cities and apply that "train of thought" to Spokane's situation. That's why I think the Reno trench porject is a good comparative model for Spokane. <br /> <br />Eric, if I understand your perspective correctly, you are suggesting that a distant bypass to the south using part of the PCE and UP's Plummer branch is preferable to either trenching, tunneling, or raising the viaduct through Spokane. Is this correct? <br /> <br />Regarding the Beverly to Boylston section of the PCE, there are other ways to reduce the ruling grade without increasing the mileage at all (or at least all that much). One ambitious solution would be to build a high bridge over the Columbia at Sentinal Gap. This would be a tricky project due to it's potential length (over a mile long), height above the river, and the winds that ru***hrough that gap, but if these can be overcome safely you'd reduce the ruling grade to about 65 feet to the mile, and that's just about the max grade you'd want for grain trains and the like. <br /> <br />The next possible solution would be to shift the ROW alignment to the south side of the Saddle Mountains on the east side of the river from Othello to Mattawa, then cross the river there about 10 miles south of Beverly and begin the grade up to Boylston. You add about 10 miles total to the length of the PCE, but keep the ruling westbound grade in the 65 - 70 feet per mile range. <br /> <br />Of course, I expect Michael would argue for simply re-erecting the catenary, which by itself mitigates grades to a near non-factor. This being the case, it raises the possibility of constructing a 3% or so fly-by track to eliminate most of the curvature between Beverly and Boylston, and which as a second track could be used by TOFC's, eastbound empties, etc. Perhaps you could then keep a helper district strictly between Beverly and Boylston. <br /> <br />Regarding UP using MRL as an alternative to the Blue Mountains is something I brought up before. Assuming UP can make the connection between Silver Bow and Garrison, and then be willing to construct a more modern connection from MRL to UP at Sandpoint, it is conceivable. But all that is contingent on what happens to the MRL lease in 2050 (or whenever the current lease is up). If BNSF decides to take back the property, that would leave UP in the proverbial lurch. But if you are talking in terms of rebuilding the entire PCE sans MRL, then the idea has long term merit. <br /> <br />Of course, I have always been an advocate of connecting the barge port at Lewiston Idaho directly to an eastbound railhead. Whether via Missoula to Lewiston, Idaho Falls-Salmon to Lewiston, or Boise to Lewiston, the idea would play into UP's plans for it's current routes. Heck, all I advocate is the concept of discharging grain and aggregates from rail to barge at Lewiston, thus keeping the rail lines west of Lewiston more fluid for all those intermodals and perishables, but most folks on this forum seem to have a problem with rail to barge multimodal operations. Oh well......
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
Update Reply
Join our Community!
Our community is
FREE
to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.
Login »
Register »
Search the Community
Newsletter Sign-Up
By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our
privacy policy
More great sites from Kalmbach Media
Terms Of Use
|
Privacy Policy
|
Copyright Policy