I'm sure fuel mileage is also affected at least as much by the predominant westerly winds.
This might give you an idea of what the extra expenses are for the railroad based on what it costs an OTR carrier to run in the mountains. We have a dedicated team that runs out to SLC and back on an almost daily basis. Now going west they average about 1 MPG LESS than coming back East. Why the climbing of the mountains in WY and UT plus the gradual climbing going across NE. Their loads weigh the same each way trailers are maintained on a by monthly basis where they are shopped at our shop. Truck for now is a 2019 KW we have a new 2020 top of the line Volvo on order for them. Sorry I deal with figures all day long on MPG and you can be amazed on what can effect it. I discovered that we got worse MPG from a certain fuel stop chain than another and so we stopped getting fuel from them a .5 MPG average adds up very quickly on 250 trucks and can costs us thousands a week in extra expenses.
How the BNSF is going to have to deal with the Cascade Tunnel is simple they can not bypass it due to the terrian there. They can not double track it way to narrow of a pass in that area and the local enviromential wack jobs being the PNW would never allow anything that extreme. Forget about redoing the orginal for the same reason to allow a bypass for this one even though the railroad could technically claim they are just reactivating an old route if they never filed a formal abandonment of the old line. It might be a good westbound only route why going downhill all the way therefore. Just would need to redo the snowshed protection.
blue streak 1 Battery locos are going to be just a pain in the neck. Since ventilation is a problem why not sink one or two ventilation shafts at the mid point or 1/3 point to ventilate the tunnel more quickly ? That way ventilation for tracks alreaady cleared behind train could start. Would require doors at mid point or 1/2 points. Once a train cleared a shaft it could suck smoke away from locos. definitely would require reversible fans to help clear tunnel.
Battery locos are going to be just a pain in the neck. Since ventilation is a problem why not sink one or two ventilation shafts at the mid point or 1/3 point to ventilate the tunnel more quickly ? That way ventilation for tracks alreaady cleared behind train could start. Would require doors at mid point or 1/2 points. Once a train cleared a shaft it could suck smoke away from locos. definitely would require reversible fans to help clear tunnel.
(2) There is no guarantee that meaningful reductions in time would result from one or two (how cavalierly we use numbers!) new vent shafts. There is still a cycle time, and perhaps issues for DPs in a given consist, compared to a 'solution' that reduces or eliminates substantial gas and perhaps heat in any part of the bore to begin with.
I thoroughly agree that trying to do that entirely with battery (I.e. enough 'hybrid' storage to take at least the head end through the bore with engines off or isolated) is less attractive than dual-mode-lite for only slightly less investment in the power and initially very limited mandatory investment in 'diesel-power-equivalent' external conductor in the tunnel area.
This is a generic argument about moving traffic through tunnels, not an organized colorista improvement scheme for traffic in the actual Pacific Northwest. I am reminded of the line in the Tom Lehrer song about "die Rockets go up, who cares where they come down" -- that's not my department, either. (Not to disparage the actual dueling Pacific Northwest experts in any respect.)
Battery locos or even an isolated electric distric are going to be just a pain in the neck. Since ventilation is a problem why not sink one or two ventilation shafts at the mid point or 1/3 point to ventilate the tunnel more quickly ? That way ventilation for tracks alreaady cleared behind train could start. Would require doors at mid point or 1/2 points. Once a train cleared a shaft it could suck smoke away from locos. definitely would require reversible fans to help clear tunnel.
If traffic increases over the next ( number unknown ) years causing this to become a necessity then additional sidings are going to be needed especially close to the tunnel.
EDIT. Additional shafts would need capacity to ventilate tunnel from both directions. also maybe ventilation at west end ?
Initial capital costs up front may be high. Certainly more feasible in long run reducing overall operating costs
To the extent Mark's explanation differs from mine, use his. His knowledge of power use is much better than mine and his trips to Renton area are probably more recent.
As to power via the Columbia River Gorge/Vancvouver WA vs Stevens or Stampede passes, the mountains will require double to 2.5 times the power per ton that the Gorge will. Spokane to Puget Sound via the Gorge is 1% ruling grades Spokane to Pasco and over Napavine Hill. In DC motor days you could figure 1 HPPT. Over the mountains was about 2.5 HPPT. I do not know what the figures are today with AC, but it looks to be about the same ratio today.
While AC power can lug along at 2 MPH, you need to put enough power on the train to move with reasonable dispatch up the grades. Five or six hours from Skykomish to Scenic will limit line capacity more than the time between Scenic and Berne does now. Again the fundamental point that running time between stations is what counts.
Mark's details about power experiments confirm the overall point I was trying to make, which is that since 1970 BN and BNSF have provided enough capacity to handle the traffic without expensive engineering solutions or exotic geegas.
Mac
Thank you for the reality check Mark, I was hoping you would see this thread and comment.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
Mac said, “Traffic on the Cascade tunnel line is first and foremost intermodal to and from South Seattle (domestic) Port of Seattle, and Port of Tacoma. Many of these trains are DPU powered. I do not know where the DPUs come on and off, but would bet the vast majority are on/off at Hauser Yard 15 miles or so east of Spokane where every train to and from Vancouver WA and Puget Sound points gets fueled westward and eastward.”
You would lose that bet. DP units are rarely added at Hauser or Spokane simply because it’s too busy to do it there due to the fueling function. And not every train gets fueled at Hauser Yard. They try to do as many as possible, but it’s often a function of capacity, and trains like coal empties regular get fueled in Missoula. But it’s commonplace with congestion to “check the fuel” and continue east to places like Havre.
As to where the DP is added, this varies widely. Unit trains tend to be that way out of destination. Trains from Whitefish get add-on units as necessary at Great Falls or Havre. Intermodal trains run the full gamut. They come with distributed power out of St. Paul, add at Minot, Havre, or Wenatchee. Havre is the most-likely spot for adding power (distributed power or not) because it is the roundhouse for the west end of the Northern Transcontinental. (Interbay has a roundhouse, but they work mostly on power used for yard, locals, and intradivisional runs.) Where the DP power is cut depends on the current operation. When power is exceptionally tight, Wenatchee is the best place to cut off eastward intermodal trains (and then they get helped Essex to Summit). Power is then added to westward trains and that allows the train to operate to Wenatchee with the absolute minimum power. Of course, the standard today is to do as little power modification en route, so power can continue east to Havre or Minot (both inspection points) to avoid the helper cost at Essex. It all just depends on the need. It’s not usual to let power run through to Havre simply to have some available for origin grain trains or unit trains which require add-on power.
Mac said, “The best way to increase capacity is to get the Empire Builder to go away. That has not happened for 50 years and there is no reason to expect Congress to quit pouring money down the ATK rathole, so assume that particular burden will not go away.”
Your anti-Amtrak bias is well-known, but it specifically is inappropriate here. That it’s a short train that operates at track speed and takes up less capacity relative to other trains notwithstanding, the reality is that it’s a train that needs to be figured into the mix. That’s what railroaders do.
Mac said, “The line handles one pair of mixed carload trains between Everett and Spokane/Hauser. All else is intermodal. These trains have long operated in DPU mode, itself increasing capacity for intermodal traffic via Stevens Pass.”
Not everything else is intermodal. Coal and crude empties trains from north of Everett routinely operate via Wenatchee to avoid the Seattle terminal.
Mac said, “There are Bulk traffic, grain, coal, and oil unit trains that would/should use the route IFF it had the capacity, which it has not for any years. BN's first response was to route carload and bulk, and even intermodal via Vancouver Washington then to the two main track line between Vancouver WA and Everett. Converting the intermodal trains to DPU seems to have been enough to get them off the long mile, longer time route via Vancouver WA. Today oil and coal trains continue up the single track former GN main line to their destinations north of Everett and south of Vancouver BC.
The bad thing about this route is that it is significantly longer than the Cascade tunnel route, say about 180 miles longer Spokane to Seattle. The good thing is that the ruling grade is significantly less, 1% vs 2.2%, so required horsepower per ton/train is only half what is needed to lift loads over the mountain. The reduction in horsepower hours is less than 50% due to the excess mileage. That excess mileage also generates higher operating costs than would otherwise be the case, but when the capital investment solution is very expensive, you live with higher than ideal operating costs.”
Nope. Not the case, and we know this because running today’s unit trains via Wenatchee (and via Ellensburg) has been tried and proven to be fantastically inefficient. I know specifically because my team at BNSF was tasked with providing the locomotive power for it. The “reduction in horsepower hours is less than 50% due to the excess mileage” is especially inaccurate. Mac fails to mention that trains via Wenatchee need 100% to 167% more power than those operating via Wishram and Vancouver. (These trains normally operate with 3 or 4 units, mostly depending on origin). That’s a huge expense. When this was done in the 2010s, the additional power (most of the time) was added at Wenatchee. The trains were grain trains to Seattle and Tacoma. Not counting station dwell at Wenatchee to configure the power (most trains departed 3X3X2 distributed power), the average locomotive took 49 hours to get back to Wenatchee to be in place for another grain train. On average, two grain trains were operated daily, so that would mean that more than two days would elapse (with two trains each day) before the extra power required for this rotation could again be in place. That meant a minimum of 20 to 25 locomotives (depending on whether 4 or 5 units were added), a significant amount of resources. Running time via Wenatchee wasn’t great, either. During the test period, trains destined to Seattle were a whopping 8 minutes faster via Wenatchee and took 4 hours LONGER en route to Tacoma. Crew costs were higher via Wenatchee, too, because a crew had to be called at Wenatchee just to configure the power on the train (the big delay is cutting in the mid-train DP). Trains for Tacoma took a crew just to get the train from Seattle to Tacoma and additional delay to cut out the mid-train DP locomotives because TEMCO wouldn’t take it that way.
For unit coal and crude destined to Fidalgo, Cherry Point, Arco, or Roberts Bank, the inefficiency of a routing through Wenatchee might not be as acute, simply because the comparative route miles are fewer. But, the number of additional locomotive resources is similar, and – with the exception of Fidalgo – the trains are going just as far or father with that extra power than the Seattle and Tacoma grain trains. In a perfect world with unlimited capacity, crews, and flexibility, additional power added to these trains at Wenatchee would be cut at Gold Bar to be immediately moved back to Wenatchee for another train. But another crew would be required to remove mid-train DP units and the work would restrict the fluidity of the other traffic on the route while the train was doing the work. Then try to find an eastward train to Wenatchee with a crew that has enough time to stop and pick up the power….good luck.
The beauty of unit train operations on BNSF in the Pacific Northwest is that it is pretty much perfectly balanced: The loaded trains arrive from Montana with enough power to get the train to destination, handle the corresponding empties back to where the train will again be loaded, that’s sufficient power to launch yet another load, and the cycle continues. Adding a segment that doubles (or more) the power requirement adds cost on top of cost. And, there’s one other big cost: The cost of occupying track space. When trains have to cut in distributed power mid-train or add to the rear end and other locomotive work in general, scarce yard space is used for extended periods of time that can’t be used by other trains. And at Wenatchee, this can usually be cutting off eastward to trains to add to westward intermodal trains. Bottom line: Adding trains to any route with significant power modifications is the perfect thing to do if you want to stifle fluidity.
Mac said, “There has been discussion of the former MILW Snoqualmie Pass line. It is a reasonable alternative between Easton and Renton. The problem is that while this middle is OK, the ends are not. On the West end, the line features street running for about a mile through downtown Renton.”
Actually, it’s a rare proponent of this route that even mentions the route through Renton. The street running is the least of the problems. The major ones are the areas in Renton that have been completely developed as well as several sections east of Renton along Washington Highway 169, which has been widened significantly. I believe that there is zero chance of the Milwaukee route being revived, but for those who fantasize, the general consensus is that a 3- or 4-mile connection would be constructed from the Milwaukee line at Landsburg to the ex-NP line near Ravensdale.
Mac said, “I give you all lots of points for imagination, but not much for practicality.”
Agreed.
Mark Meyer
PNWRMNMI give you all lots of points for imigination, but not much for practicallity.
Hey, you never know.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
This thread has seen many fantastigorical solutions to a straight forward problem, which is that BNSF has more traffic that could/should use the former GN Cascade Tunnel, than the tunnel can physically handle. TAW is correct, the issue is running time between Scenic and Berne, and it is what it is. The solutions most of you have proposed all add cost, complication, and delay.
I grew up in Wenatchee, clerked for the GN, rode thru Stevens Pass on passenger trains in freight cabs, rode thru Stampede on my uncle's passenger trains, and am familiar with the rail geography of Washington.
Traffic on the Cascade tunnel line is first and foremost intermodal to and from South Seattle (domestic) Port of Seattle, and Port of Tacoma. Many of these trains are DPU powered. I do not know where the DPUs come on and off, but would bet the vast majority are on/off at Hauser Yard 15 miles or so east of Spokane where every train to and from Vancouver WA and Puget Sound points gets fueled westward and eastward.
The best way to increase capacity is to get the Empire Builder to go away. That has not happened for 50 years and there is no reason to expect Congress to quit pouring money down the ATK rathole, so assume that particular burden will not go away.
The line handles one pair of mixed carload trains between Everett and Spokane/Hauser. All else is intermodal. These trains have long operated in DPU mode, itself increasing capacity for intermodal traffic via Stevens Pass
There are Bulk traffic, grain, coal, and oil unit trains that would/should use the route IFF it had the capacity, which it has not for any years. BN's first response was to route carload and bulk, and even intermodal via Vancouver Washington then to the two main track line between Vancouver WA and Everett. Converting the intermodal trains to DPU seems to have been enough to get them off the long mile, longer time route via Vancouver WA. Today oil and coal trains continue up the single track former GN main line to their destinations north of Everett and south of Vancouver BC.
The bad thing about this route is that it is significantly longer than the Cascade tunnel route, say about 180 miles longer Spokane to Seattle. The good thing is that the ruling grade is significantly less, 1% vs 2.2%, so required horsepower per ton/train is only half what is needed to lift loads over the mountain. The reduction in horsepower hours is less than 50% due to the excess mileage. That excess mileage also generates higher operating costs than would otherwise be the case, but when the capital investment solution is very expensive, you live with higher than ideal operting costs.
The BNSF reopened Stampede Pass in the 1990's as a relief route for carload traffic. Stampede has had restricted clearance since the largest Z class steam engines came along in the late 1920s or so. BNSF chose not to clear the tunnel before restoring it to service, the best time to have done that work. Stampede is shorter than the route via Vancouver AND puts the carload traffic thru the former NP hump yard at Pasco. My very soft guess is that this amounts to one train a day to/from Everett, Seattle, Tacoma each. This too is a mountain route with 2.2% grades both ways between Easton and Lester.
A few years ago the BNSF and the operating crafts entered into an agreement for a three legged crew district; Pasco to Vancouver WA, Vancouver to Seattle, and Seattle to Pasco. Each crew works those segments in that order. The target traffic is the unit trains, and for them Pasco to Vancouver, and Seattle to Pasco is functionally a paired track. The objective was/is to reduce the number of meets on the Columbia Gorge line. Since eastward bulk trains are empty the power that brought them west can get them over Stampede.
This is practical railroading and avoids the high capital cost of engineering solutions. Is it perfect? No, but is much better than the alternative.
There has been discussion of the former MILW Snoquamie Pass line. It is a reasonable alternative between Easton and Renton. The problem is that while this middle is OK, the ends are not. On the West end, the line features street running for about a mile through downtown Renton. Considering how Auburn pitched a fit when BN reopened Stampede Pass, which had no physical impact on anyone or any thing, imagine how Renton would explode at the idea of running real trains through downtown. The track is intact and BNSF uses it to deliver airplane parts to Boeing's Renton plant. Two moves of 1-6 cars per trip.
The MILW east of Easton presents two unattactive features. First assume that the target traffic is intermodal. Carload needs to go to Pasco, and quicker time for intermodal is always a good thing. The map gazers look at old maps and say 'What a great short cut the MILW would make between Ellensburg and Lind' and 'The MILW was the shortest fastest line'.
What they do not see is Eastern Washington State University in Ellensburg which has grown up around, if not on, the MILW right of way. That is fixable with lots of money. Not reasonably fixable is the relatively short 1.6% eastward ascending grade and the 20+ mile 2.2% ascending grade westward from the Columbia River. This right of way is owned by the State of Washington. Can you really see them plowing through their own University? Finally, Stampede is not cleared fof double stack, so your intended traffic can not use the route.
I give you all lots of points for imigination, but not much for practicallity.
Mac McCulloch
Erik_MagFleeting through the Cascade tunnel would require a solution to the ventilation problem. Similar issue with very long trains, there will be a point where the trailing DP units do not have an adequate supply of cool clean air.
I haven't seen this point made explicitly yet, but presumably a zero-carbon hydrogen locomotive with proper variable air compression would suffer comparatively less -- if indeed at all from an engineering standpoint -- from even high-demand operation in tunnels of this kind. The 'crew' issues then become protection from superheated humid air rather than breathing integrity -- and I'd argue that relatively simple changes to S-580 cabs would offer the necessary protection.
In any case, the combination of dual-mode-lite external power plus CBTC would allow any number of fleeted movements to pass through the tunnel at near to full allowable road speed, with minimum physical separation. That eliminates most if not all the practical concerns Mr. Kelly mentioned, although it does impose capacity limits if no effective yarding facilities for the fleeted trains cannot be provided within the operational segment of the railroad that contains the tunnel.
Note that the method that was mentioned as "efficient" -- routing trains alternately in opposing directions, net of all ventilation time required to clear -- is as much of a false 'economy' as the idea that container cranes should 'utilize the return travel' by picking up a container for unloading each time a different container is placed for loading. The idea of optimizing travel time across the fixed bottleneck imposed by physical running speed is valid, but it does not take account of percentage of effective track occupancy over the stretch, provided road speed can be maintained by all trains over it. Obviously effective CBTC alone will greatly increase that if traffic can be blocked directionally by daypart, which it seems to me is a premise of any real scheme of PSR in operations.
Of course the one relatively large question is how the power for electrification gets there. It might be less than expected, though, if the electricity to run a cycle of the ventilation system can be saved.
I would be suprised if the yards originating the bulk of the longer "Northern Transcon" trains cannot put several tgether without doubling. If I'm wong. then those yards need investment in anycase. Branch operation should not be a problem given the right analysis and schedule planning.
Fleeting through the Cascade tunnel would require a solution to the ventilation problem. Similar issue with very long trains, there will be a point where the trailing DP units do not have an adequate supply of cool clean air.
Backshop daveklepper The running-time problem can be solved (not of-coursec to the extent of a double-track railroad or closer-spaced sidings) b y fleeting. Possibly I have not explained the concept well, and possibly someone else can explain it better. Fleeting can probably double existing capacity. Of course, "fleeting" implies that the originating yards can put together a number of outbound trains in a short amount of time.
daveklepper The running-time problem can be solved (not of-coursec to the extent of a double-track railroad or closer-spaced sidings) b y fleeting. Possibly I have not explained the concept well, and possibly someone else can explain it better. Fleeting can probably double existing capacity.
The running-time problem can be solved (not of-coursec to the extent of a double-track railroad or closer-spaced sidings) b y fleeting. Possibly I have not explained the concept well, and possibly someone else can explain it better. Fleeting can probably double existing capacity.
Of course, "fleeting" implies that the originating yards can put together a number of outbound trains in a short amount of time.
Not really as their can be a intersection of lines that feed traffic into the direction that is being fleeted.
Yards that are constructed to dispatch complete trains - can depart trains from their 'Departure Yard' one right after the other. Yards where trains have to double tracks together cannot do that.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Isn't that similar to PSR and some of the 15k foot trains out there?
Is there a issue for DPUs or closely followed manned units being able to breath?
The running-time problem can be solved (not of-course to the extent of a double-track railroad or closer-spaced sidings) by fleeting. Possibly I have not explained the concept well, and possibly someone else can explain it better. Fleeting can probably double existing capacity.
As was implied in the prior post, the east slope of the Cascades is a different story. The landscape around Wenatchee is signicificantly drier and the dominant color is a light brown.
Murphy Siding A side note: does pushing all that smoke, carbon monoxide and etc. out the ends of tunnels for years kill all the vegetation at the ends of the tunnel?
A side note: does pushing all that smoke, carbon monoxide and etc. out the ends of tunnels for years kill all the vegetation at the ends of the tunnel?
No. Trees love the rain that characterizes the wet side of the Cascades and they love carbon dioxide. Happy, happy trees.
Pictures I have seen of the area do not give the 'moonscape' apperarance that I noticed as a child when our family vacation took us through Sudbury, ON.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
David, if you're referring to TAW's description of Cascade Tunnel operations, he did not say that the siding locations determine capacity. He (and others) said that the running time between the sidings determines capacity. Those being the sidings at opposite ends of the tunnel, Scenic and Berne,
Running time is a factor of not just the distance between those two sidings, but also the grade and authorized track speed between them. Eastbounds departing Scenic have just climbed a 2 percent compensated grade and are entering a nearly 8-mile long tunnel where the climb continues at 1.57 percent. Westbounds departing Berne are climbing an undulating grade of up to 2.2 percent. The summit is just outside the tunnel's east portal. Maximum authorized speed between Scenic and Berne is 30mph passenger and 25mph freight.
To me, saying that the siding locations determine capacity, so electrification or other smokeless operation is rediculous, is a stqtment that is rediculous. Ever hear of "fleeting?" And I'm pretty certain BNSF uses or used the concept on the Transcon where single'track sections interrupred a double-and-multiple-track main line. On the Casdcade line, this would involve closely spaces multiple sections of long westbound trains meeting widely-speced siding-fitting single eastbound trains for half a day and then the reverseve for the other half of the day. But fleeting is not possible with the currrent ventillation time requirements.
message deleted
Out of curiosity, I know there is barely enough room for anything above a double stack in the tunnel, but is there zero room at all? I was watching a ride along video of the Caltrain highlighting some of the electrification efforts on that line and in at least one of the tunnels, rather than raising it, they are using some form of fixed metal rail along the top as the transmission method. the youtuber (who is an engineer) speculated aluminum. Could such a system which involves much less equipment overhead work in Cascade tunnel? Also, with the new Battery Locomotives under test, would a mixed consist reduce emissions enough to reduce flush time? I'd have to imagine not for an east bound train.
Seems like there was an article in one of the RR mags in the not-too-distant past specifically about said tunnel.
Go here:
https://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?1,2048593,2048720,nodelay=1
Scroll down to the explanation by TAW (Thomas White).
Key quote: "...the presence of a tunnel and the need for ventilation is irrelevant. Running time between Scenic and Berne is the capacity limiting factor."
That's been the take on Cascade Tunnel that I've read and heard from everyone who really knows anything about how things operate there.
BaltACD Has anyone actually consulted the Train Dispatchers for the territory to learn and understand their philosophy's in operating the territory that includes the tunnel and its operating constraints?
Has anyone actually consulted the Train Dispatchers for the territory to learn and understand their philosophy's in operating the territory that includes the tunnel and its operating constraints?
Erik_MagHave one or two battery locomotives fitted out with some of fixture (air bladder??) that would have a minimal gap (a few inches?) with the tunnel wallls.
Depending on the tunnel wall construction, perhaps a better solution along these lines would be a series of brushes. These would not be affected by irregularities in the tunnel walls (ice, outcrops, etc). Two or three rows on one unit would be almost as functionally air tight as a bladder.
The battery loco/piston should be able to clear the tunnel from either direction, so shouldn't need repositioning after traveling through the tunnel. I would be very surprised if pushing the air through the tunnel didn't require a lot of power, but it is well within COTS battery technology. Also why I wrote locomotive(s).
Agian, this was proposed as an "way out of the box" idea.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.