It's great to learn that grading has finally begun on the Abo Canyon double-tracking project. Thanks to Paul North for posting the informative BNSF employee magazine--it's in the thread about top events of 2008. I hope that forums like this one have a lot of information on the progress of the work. (The Cajon Pass 3rd-track job has a 35-page-long thread of photos and text at SoCalRailFan.com!)
The only other two single-track bottlenecks, far as I know, are at the Vaughn flyover and at the Pecos River bridge, both in New Mexico. It's probably just a matter of time before these get handled.
Abo Canyon is a bigger deal in terms of length, neighbor problems, permitting, grading, etc., but is anything going on about these others? I'm just curious.
....It certainly will be great if someone will be in position to supply photo updates of Abo Canyon construction of new 2nd track road bed and on up to the finished product.
Quentin
Regarding bottlenecks on the BNSF Transcon. In 80-100 train-per-day territory, there are the three operating pains that you mention. Why BNSF opted to "fix" Abo versus one of the other two first, especially after commencement of work on Abo got bogged down with permitting issues, is a question that only a knowledgeable insider can answer. Regarding the supposition that the other two bottlenecks will be dealt with in turn, you are correct. If any work were going on, or scheduled for 2009, on either of the other two stretches of line, we would have heard of it. My guess: when Abo Canyon is completed, BNSF will start in on one of the other two. If traffic suddenly return to 2006 levels, BNSF may well commence work on both stretches simultaneously.
The fact that work on Abo began only as triple tracking Cajon Pass wound up suggests that double tracking is not the sole criteria for eliminating bottlenecks and attacking other problem spots along the Transcon. BNSF is straightening curves at a location east of, and near, Kansas City, where 35-40 mph track is being turned into 70 mph raceway. This stretch is shared by UP's ex-MOP River Sub, and clearly the mavens who run the Transcon wish to eliminate this bothersome stretch [Ed. note: I had originally written that this stretch was shared with NS. That was erroneous. --WBP]. I have read speculation that BNSF contemplates triple tracking segments elsewhere in 80-100 train territory, notably stretches in the Mojave Desert (think Goffs), where long, heavy grades slow down the less heavily powered trains and these, in turn, impede their shooters.
I think (hey! if I'm wrong, I know someone will correct me) that there remains a stretch of single track on the Transcon in Kansas between Ellinor and Avard, OK, of some 20 miles -- but this lies in 40-50 train-per-day territory, and so falls into a less important category than the three you noted above. If -- no, make that when -- when traffic ramps up to 2006 levels, eliminating single track along stretch will no doubt become a more immediate priority. The Transcon also crosses the Missouri River east of Kansas City on a single track bridge, and adding a second track there also promises to be enormously expensive.
Which leads to a conclusion. Someone in another thread (perhaps railwayman??) pointed out far more competently than I can that railroads, when they add line capacity, concentrate on the easy (read inexpensive) stretches first, and only as time passes and traffic increases, do they bite the cost bullet and fill in the really expensive gaps. Rest assured that if Abo, the Pecos and Missouri River Bridges, and the line through Vaughan were flat and easy (cheap) to build, the work would have been done years, perhaps decades, ago. That this work remains undone testifies to its hideous expense. Anyway, we rejoice to see this work going forward, and my best guess is that the three bottlenecks you cite will be gone within ten years.
There is still a 47 miles stretch of single trk on the Emporia Sub between Ellinor-East El Dorado. Because of this and combined w/ growing traffic levels, BNSF in 2003 began to reroute some of its eastbound fleet through Newton across the Ark City & La Junta Subs, rejoining the transcon @ Ellinor. In othr words, the three different routes were operated as directional running/partly double trk. Its anyones guess if this will continue into the future.
Thanks for filling in the gaps, sfbrakeman. My personal guess: They will continue with the one-way running because it allows them (almost) the flexibility of bi-directional double track without the capital expenditure of double tracking. Finance axiom: the best capital expanditure is the one you don't have to make (Editorial comment: Norfolk Southern clearly understands this and in my view is the tightest tick with a capital buck of any of the big systems). Being careful and parsimonious with capital permits you to consider other, possibly more pressing, uses for your scarce capital (by "scarce," I mean that there is never as much as you want, which puts an enormous premium on spending wisely). Gotta be parsimonious! Consider that coal traffic ex: Powder River Basin continues to increase and demands more and more capacity; that other bottlenecks (think just of the ones cited previously in this thread) cry out to be eliminated; that shops and terminals need to be expanded and upgraded; in other words, there remain an entire portfolio of pressing claims for capital.
The question of capital has been explored a tad more than usual because many don't understand that it is not limitless; that it therefore needs to be carefully budgeted, and that if a project doesn't earn a decent return, there had better be a real good reason for it.
All of this 21st century fixing, with the least expensive done first, does not always equate with what Santa Fe has done in the past. The 1960 forty four mile Williams to Crookton line change was the most significant modification of the Transcon since it was established by construction of the Belen Cttoff in 1908. This changed a 25 MPH restriction, with also a non clearance tunnel, into a 70 MPH Railroad.
The evolution of the Transcon has a long history of many smaller projects. ButWilliams, Crookton was a crowning achievement at a time when projects like this were not contemplated because of cost.
You are correct in citing Santa Fe's 1960 44-mile Williams-Crookton line change as a monumental piece of work. Certainly it transformed an inordinately large stretch of railroad that presented Santa Fe with huge daily operating problems (expenses) into a 90mph (for passenger trains, anyway) raceway. Steep grades, helper operations, restrictive curves -- all gone. One assumes that by eliminating all these sources of expense, the dollars expended have been repaid many times over.
The railroad employed capital funds to underwrite the project --which was no cheapo. In this case, the expenditure allowed the railroad to continue supply the same service -- linking Williams and Crookton over a two-track main line -- after the project was done as before it got started, but by consuming fewer resources to do so. Was the money well spent? I think so. For Santa Fe, its Transcon was unquestionably the jewel of its network, which was, and remains, the premier, and then, the only, single-line route linking Chicago and Southern California. Since work on the Belen Cutoff began, the railroad pumped tons of money into burnishing this asset, thereby enhancing its competitive advantage.
But...this capital project represented a different sort of expenditure than those that are the subject of this post. Why do corporations spend capital? Two reasons: to produce more widgets (and make more money on greater output); and, to reduce the cost of production (make the same number of widgets more cheaply, and so make more money by lowering the cost-per-widget). The Williams-Crookton line change clearly falls into Category 2. This project was undertaken to reduce the cost of operation between Crookton and Williams, not to increase capacity -- the stretch that got improved already had been double tracked. Conversely, the double tracking projects that are the subject of this thread are (or will be) undertaken to enable the railroad to handle more traffic -- metaphorically, to produce more widgets. Had BNSF not undertaken the systematic expansion of capacity (double tracking) between Belen, New Mexico and Ellinor, Kansas some fifteen years ago, there is no way the Transcon could handle 100+ trains on a busy day without coagulating into an unmanageable, unmoving glob. The three stretches cited -- Abo, Pecos River and Vaughan -- represent the last stages of this expansion between Belen and Clovis. And they are the most expensive stretches along the line to get the double-tracking treatment.
In sum, all this means that two classes of expenditure were undertaken by Santa Fe and then BNSF for for different reasons, but for each sort, the ultimate goal is to polish the Transcon.
billio, you have presented two reasons for capital expenditure and while I understand your reasoning I submit that Williams - Crookton encompassed both. There is no way that 100 trains and more per day could be handled on this 44 mile segment of the Transcon without the modifications made in 1960.
The now parallel tracks with 50 MPH crossovers and CTC compared with the 1959 separated tracks, the sharp curves and excessive grades; plus the tunnel which required high-wide loads to be confined to only one track to me make an obvious statement - Williams to Crookton substantially created additional capacity.
billio The fact that work on Abo began only as triple tracking Cajon Pass wound up suggests that double tracking is not the sole criteria for eliminating bottlenecks and attacking other problem spots along the Transcon. BNSF is straightening curves at a location east of, and near, Kansas City, where 35-40 mph track is being turned into 70 mph raceway. This stretch is shared by NS, and clearly the mavens who run the Transcon wish to eliminate this bothersome stretch. I have read speculation that BNSF contemplates triple tracking segments elsewhere in 80-100 train territory, notably stretches in the Mojave Desert (think Goffs), where long, heavy grades slow down the less heavily powered trains and these, in turn, impede their shooters.
The fact that work on Abo began only as triple tracking Cajon Pass wound up suggests that double tracking is not the sole criteria for eliminating bottlenecks and attacking other problem spots along the Transcon. BNSF is straightening curves at a location east of, and near, Kansas City, where 35-40 mph track is being turned into 70 mph raceway. This stretch is shared by NS, and clearly the mavens who run the Transcon wish to eliminate this bothersome stretch. I have read speculation that BNSF contemplates triple tracking segments elsewhere in 80-100 train territory, notably stretches in the Mojave Desert (think Goffs), where long, heavy grades slow down the less heavily powered trains and these, in turn, impede their shooters.
Where specifically east of KC is the track being straightened? Thanks
These upgrades go to making the transcon more fluid. Because of the heavy grades on Cajon the triple track is needed. The slow areas at Abo and at Kansas City also need improving. The Williams upgrade also proves these assertions. With heavy grades at Goffs that certainly calls for triple tracking. What does this finally allow? With the two other double trackings an almost completely fluid RR that will maintain schedules (freight and Pass) and allow easy maintenance windows. A scheduled RR is a good business.
The line straightening is taking place on a 7.7-mile stretch between Congo and Eaton, MO on BNSF's Marceline Subdivision. UP's ex-MOP River Sub has trackage rights over this stretch. My sources [in the interest of full disclosure, another website; Trains' website is terrific, but it has no monopoly on interesting railroad poodah] tell me that the line also is being triple tracked, and that two 35-mph curves are being eliminated.
Mea culpa! When I said NS shares the segment, I was in error; the true tenant of this stretch is UP. Should have double checked my facts, as my memory for detail occasionally gets clouded. My booboo.
You raise an excellent point. There is, unquestionably, carryover benefit between capacity expansion and line improvement. Regarding the Williams-Crookton line change -- if I can get my trains over the line faster, and use fewer resources, then those resources are freed up for other purposes. Moreover, a reading of BNSF's description of the work in Abo [go to the BNSF company website, click employee/retiree, thence Railway Magazine Nov-Dec 2008] suggests that while they have all those earth movers in there working, they will try to straighten curves and (reading between the lines) increase train speed through the Canyon. So, probably, the Abo Canyon capacity improvement will be accompanies by an increase in train speed.
This said, were you to poll BNSF's decision makers and finance people in Ft. Worth about the work in Abo, I suspect that each one would think of it, and call it, a capacity increase. And if one could go back to the Santa Fe decision makers and finance people in Chicago back in 1960 and ask them about the Williams-Crookton line work, they each would think it motivated by the desire to improve operations and reduce costs -- any resulting capacity increase would be viewed as icing on the cake; the payoff was being able to operate over the line with less cost.
One last point. Had the 1960 Crookton line change not been made then, BNSF could probably have hauled all their 100 train per day traffic today -- but only at hideous expense. Double stacks and auto racks would probably have a tough time fitting through that tunnel, but the freight could be hauled. The fact that ATSF performed the work in 1960 attests to the foresight of its management, and the stream of benefits (financially speaking) the project provided clearly continues to this day. In fact, had STSF not completed the Williams-Crookton line change in 1960, it would have paid the line to do the work as soon thereafter as possible.
Regarding the tunnel on the abandoned portion of the Williams-Crookton line, its elimination would almost certainly not have been the prime motivation for undertaking the work--perhaps it never even entered into management's decision making calculus. Double stacks did not come along until the 1980s, some two decades after the work. And auto racks were in their infancy, if they were even off the car builders' drawing board. Any high-and-wide would have had to be routed through Phoenix thence over todays Arizona and California Railroad, then a part of the Santa Fe network. One suspects that the ability to accommodate this equipment without having to undertake additional capital improvements along this stretch was merely a pleasant, but most unexpected bonus.
A finance class I slept, er sat, through years ago revealed that the ONLY two reasons for a company to embark on capital expenditures are to increase production capacity and decrease expenses.
A little bit of history here. The Belin Cutoff bottlenecked severely once before. That was in 1943 when WWII traffic was nearing its peak. At that time they coped with the problem by installing CTC and lengthening sidings. They also managed to wrangle a large fleet of 5010 Class 2-10-4s out of the War Production Board and massed these brutes on the Abo Canyon run. This was the second p[roduction run of these engines, the first being the 5001 Cass. I understand they were the heaviest non-articulated engines ever built.
More triple-tracking? I love this!
Does anyone know of an on-line site which would show the BNSF track profile from Needles to Goffs and beyond? Thanks in advance for any help.
Well the single track bottlenecks are going to be slowly eliminated. However there will always be bottlenecks. As Mudchicken and RWM have so stated any change in traffic will change the metrics. ie. Same number of trains different traffic mix, add a passenger train or two, more freight trains, HP to weight ratios, more differences in train speeds, starting the addition of ECP braking to some trains and maybe higher speeds for them, PTC, addition of more triple track, etc. All this IMHO will always cause new bottlenecks. Fluidity is everything but the only way you get it is with very low traffic on any line (not feasible).
What is needed not just on the Transcon but everywhere is infrastructure work to improve fluidity.
wha
Time to resurrect and update this old topic.
- Once again, the Albuquerque Journal has dug up some interesting news. A project to 'bridge' the nine mile single track gap near Vaughn, NM has been restarted: http://www.abqjournal.com/437393
- The project to upgrade the 20 mile single track stretch on the Panhandle sub still awaits restarting after the hits from the economic downturn, major Midwest flooding and the ND oil boom. Per aerial views about eight miles at the east end looks 'ballast ready'.
- Other short but expensive-to-fill single track sections include the Pecos River bridge in Ft. Sumner, NM and the Missouri River bridge in Sibley, MO.
A BNSF Southern Transcon overview map: http://g.co/maps/dyzd3
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! ***
There was an interesting article on Bloomberg.com yesterday regarding the BNSF Transcon:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-07/buffett-bets-on-rail-superhighway-to-beat-trucks-as-coal-fades
It was a little short on geographical specifics, such as where the 3 remaining bridges are. We can probably assume that 2 are at the Pecos and Missouri rivers, but where is the 3rd? If the 3rd is the flyover at Vaughn, it should be close to completion, based on Mike's post from last year. Also, IIRC there was a stretch of directional running on two single track sections in Oklahoma or Kansas. Is that the location that the article is covering? Maybe someone with more knowledge about the Transcon can sort it out. Thanks,
Pete
Pete-M3 There was an interesting article on Bloomberg.com yesterday regarding the BNSF Transcon: The "missing" bridge you speak about in the list of three is the Salt Fork River just east of Alva, OK. With approaches, it is about 1/2 mile. Bridges not long, but approaches tricky. The long elevated east approach grade was put in two years ago but not railed. River edge on both sides has birds, salamanders etc which need permits. Same problem at Sibley, MO for MO River. It sits on a NWR. Makes permitting tougher, lawyers happier. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-07/buffett-bets-on-rail-superhighway-to-beat-trucks-as-coal-fades It was a little short on geographical specifics, such as where the 3 remaining bridges are. We can probably assume that 2 are at the Pecos and Missouri rivers, but where is the 3rd? If the 3rd is the flyover at Vaughn, it should be close to completion, based on Mike's post from last year. Also, IIRC there was a stretch of directional running on two single track sections in Oklahoma or Kansas. Is that the location that the article is covering? Maybe someone with more knowledge about the Transcon can sort it out. Thanks, Pete
There was an interesting article on Bloomberg.com yesterday regarding the BNSF Transcon: The "missing" bridge you speak about in the list of three is the Salt Fork River just east of Alva, OK. With approaches, it is about 1/2 mile. Bridges not long, but approaches tricky. The long elevated east approach grade was put in two years ago but not railed. River edge on both sides has birds, salamanders etc which need permits. Same problem at Sibley, MO for MO River. It sits on a NWR. Makes permitting tougher, lawyers happier.
There is a section of paired track in Kansas. It splits west of Emporia. One line goes thru Newton, and the other line goes over the Flint Hills. The Flint Hills line has much double track.
Hello Harold Jr and welcome to the forum! BTW it is better to append your update rather than to insert it into the middle of someone else's post. Done for you:
Harold JrThe "missing" bridge you speak about in the list of three is the Salt Fork River just east of Alva, OK. With approaches, it is about 1/2 mile. Bridges not long, but approaches tricky. The long elevated east approach grade was put in two years ago but not railed. River edge on both sides has birds, salamanders etc which need permits. Same problem at Sibley, MO for MO River. It sits on a NWR. Makes permitting tougher, lawyers happier.
The overcrossing at Vaughn, NM was indeed completed in June of this year.
Can't find the original source, but reportedly a new second main will be extended about ten miles east from East Avard to Noel siding by years end; the 'bridge gap' left at Alva, OK is about three miles.
Also per an indefinite source, construction related to a second MT over the Pecos River (Ft. Sumner, NM) will begin in 'early' 2016. Not sure if it will be a new single or two track bridge.
As for another bridge over the Missouri River, IMO that will be a nine figure project - not likely in my lifetime. BNSF has many other bottlenecks to tackle.
MikeF90 ... As for another bridge over the Missouri River, IMO that will be a nine figure project - not likely in my lifetime. BNSF has many other bottlenecks to tackle.
...
Maybe by then they will have merged with NS, and could use a paired trackage arrangement in the area.
BNSF hasn't been afraid of large bridge projects in the recent past - see below - even with environmental challenges. Abo Canyon - though not a bridge - was of like kind.
With Buffett's patience, probably that won't change - they're now both in the business for the long-term, not like the short-sighted Wall Street crapsters ("To an investment* banker, a long-term investment is 48 hours." [*oxymoron; source forgotten])
The article on Abo Canyon (pgs. 5 - 6) in this 2008 BNSF employee magazine says this:
https://www.bnsf.com/employees/communications/railway-magazine/pdf/200812.pdf
"It’s one of the last major pieces of single track on the Transcon.” Two others in New Mexico are at Vaughn and Fort Sumner." - i.e. , the Belen overcrossing and the Pecos River bridge.
BURLINGTON, IOWA:
About 5-7 years ago (finished 2012) BNSF replaced an old swing bridge over the Missouri River at Burlington, Iowa with a new lift bridge. It was a huge project - $69 million per the BNSF video on Phase 2 linked below. Trains also had a brief article by Alex Mayes on it in the Dec. 2011 issue - pg. 12.
Pretty technical article:
http://www.genesisstructures.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Replacement-of-the-BNSF-Approach-Spans-over-the-Missouri-River.pdf
http://www.dannysconstruction.com/userfiles/file/April%202011(1).pdf (1st page, left side)
BNSF video on Phase 2 (5 mins. 54 secs. long):
http://www.bnsf.com/media/video/?file=/media/video/video/burlington_bridge.flv&title=Phase%202%20of%20Burlington%20Bridge%20reconstruction#%23subtabs-1
PLATTSMOUTH, NEBRASKA
More recently, a new single-track 1,682 ft. bridge over the Missouri River at Plattsmouth, Nebraska was finished in 2013 for about $46 million - see:
http://www.progressiverailroading.com/bnsf_railway/article/BNSF-opens-new-Missouri-River-bridge--38688
It affected 5 acres of wetlands, but apparently the permit was granted - see this article from the LIncoln, Nebraska newspaper:
http://journalstar.com/news/local/bnsf-railway-wants-to-build-bridge-over-missouri-river-near/article_84340233-8c03-5d4d-ae40-e98c4f71d46b.html
It's easier than you might think sometimes for widenings of existing tranportation corridors, as opposed to new construction of shopping malls, etc. Also, there's now a method called "mitigation banking" whereby $ is contributed to a nearby preserve, etc. that has an equal or better effect than the disturbance at the site - been used by some railroad projects recently.
For those who want all the technical details, here's a link to the 2013 AREMA paper on it:
https://www.arema.org/files/library/2013_Conference_Proceedings/Design_Challenges_of_BNSF_Bridge_3-8_Over_Missouri_River_Near_Plattsmouth_NE.pdf
- Paul North.
Two routes between Chicago and Kansas City were merged when Burlington Northern Santa Fe was created. Both went through Galesburg, IL. Both are still in use.
To what extent does the longer way between Kansas City and Galesburg on the former CB&Q help keep the former Santa Fe route fluid?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.