From the last quarter of 2016 the BNSF main line has been overstretched for capacity. The situation can be monitored by following the progress (or not as the case may be) of the Empire Builders, which are regularly losing several hours between Montana and the coast. Exactly where the delays occur seems to vary, but local railroaders say that a critical problem is the capacity and layout of the refuelling station at Hauser, Idaho. Freight trains are parked miles either side trying to get in there, and often need recrewing because hours of service are exceeded. Abandonment of GN and SP&S lines are also implicated. (I believe this goes back to an SLSF manager who went there after their merger and implemented a slash and burn policy). The MRL has been told to refuel its trains in Helena.
To a foreigner this looks like a mess. But how does BNSF see it? Imagine there’s a scale of 1 to 10, where 10 is ‘This is totally unacceptable, heads must roll at a very senior level for allowing it to happen, we’ll spend whatever it takes to fix it, even though it’s not budgeted- go fix it Smythe Jnr’ and 1 is ‘There’s been a big grain harvest, happens every time this occurs. It’s winter. This is railroading, get over it. We’re not ploughing money into a problem that might not happen again. True costs are peanuts. Late delivery to priority intermodal customers? Let them eat cake. Amtrak? Who cares?’
Does anyone have any insight into the mind of a major Railroad board that might illuminate their position? How will BNSF management on the ground view it? Any predictions on what will happen? No axes to grind, just curious.
Apologies if this has been done to death elsewhere.
The brutal truth is the weather. Sub-zero weather(like -25 below/-50 below wind chill) force trains to run slower due to brittle rail and air braking loss. Even UP is fighting snow/cold issues on the Overland route. BNSF has been installing 2nd MT westward and it is now into Eastern Montana. And the traffic still is heavy in spite of our stale economy. When the weather gets this bad, everything slows down. We are seeing #8 arrive 7-8 hours late in St Paul. Back in the 60's, I remember the Empire Builder and NCL 4-5 hours late, and they were not fighting the traffic volumes of today.
Amtrak - BNSF gets paid on performance, and makes less when the passenger train is late. But 7/8 are just one pair of trains; and even if on time, BNSF makes a lot more money on a pair of premium freight trains with UPS/FedEx traffic.
Jim
Modeling BNSF and Milwaukee Road in SW Wisconsin
More to the point, why are they not addressing the capacity issue and where are all the folks that were extolling the benefits of ownership under Warren Buffet?
And yes, Wall Street knows this is an issue with BNSF.
They are addressing it according to several friends I have in that area but laying tracks in the mountains takes time. Also the biggest issue regardless on the HI-line is further to the west with the Cascade Tunnel short of reopening the first one there is no way in Hades your going to get a second main line thru that area.
Shadow the Cats owner They are addressing it according to several friends I have in that area but laying tracks in the mountains takes time. Also the biggest issue regardless on the HI-line is further to the west with the Cascade Tunnel short of reopening the first one there is no way in Hades your going to get a second main line thru that area.
Maybe a new route? Would be a refreshing sight to see an American Railroad build a large grade and curve reducing tunnel out West like CP did in Canada. American railroads have the money for such a project they just have never planned it.
Your wanting the BNSF to attempt a new grade reduction in Washington state where the Cascade tunnel is located in a National Forest. You would have a better chance of getting a Man on Pluto before the Enviromentilsts and NIMBY's ever let that happen. That least reusing an old RR tunnel on old ROW the BNSF can say we are reclaiming what was ours and not upset them to much and get a double track segment they need.
Thanks for all these comments and insights.
To CMstPnP’s points, it will be interesting to see just what exactly BNSF is proposing to do to alleviate things. I would guess any serious doubling tracking would be prohibitively expensive at many places in the mountains, would think rather that debottlenecking in easier places around Spokane would be more practicable, and according to what I read more effective.
The capacity through the Cascade Tunnel is 28 trains per day as I understand it, and whilst the Builder does get stabbed there from time to time, presumably waiting out the 30 minutes restriction for fumes to clear after the previous train passes through, it generally does reasonably OK from Seattle to Spokane, so things seem not too bad there right now. And, the BNSF did reopen the Stampede pass as a relief valve, which is not used that much, I believe.
If capacity there is critical, given the restriction to 28 trains is due to the 30 minutes between trains requirement, might I make the suggestion (tongue in cheek) that it might be a good idea to have electrified helpers hauling eastbounds up the grade through the Tunnel? This would be an alternative to his and Shadow the cats owner’s suggestions, and surely much cheaper?
To JRBernier’s comments, interesting also that the NCL and Empire Builder suffered on account of the weather way back when. Rose coloured spectacles say they could deal with this kind of thing in that era. However, I think the problems in late 2016 started long before the real bad weather that’s been around this winter too hold, so there is definitely a capacity issue also.
West of Spokane isn't much of a problem. What is the problem is getting from Sandpoint to Spokane and v.v. East of Hauser it is mostly single-track with sidings. Throw in long heavy trains with slow speed turnouts to the sidings and you have a recipe for congestion. The Cascade Tunnel is not really the problem.
beaulieuWest of Spokane isn't much of a problem. What is the problem is getting from Sandpoint to Spokane and v.v. East of Hauser it is mostly single-track with sidings. Throw in long heavy trains with slow speed turnouts to the sidings and you have a recipe for congestion. The Cascade Tunnel is not really the problem.
Except that the tunnel itself is 7.8 miles of single track itself - even if there were no other problems on the line.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Dreyfusshudson Thanks for all these comments and insights. To CMstPnP’s points, it will be interesting to see just what exactly BNSF is proposing to do to alleviate things. I would guess any serious doubling tracking would be prohibitively expensive at many places in the mountains, would think rather that debottlenecking in easier places around Spokane would be more practicable, and according to what I read more effective. The capacity through the Cascade Tunnel is 28 trains per day as I understand it, and whilst the Builder does get stabbed there from time to time, presumably waiting out the 30 minutes restriction for fumes to clear after the previous train passes through, it generally does reasonably OK from Seattle to Spokane, so things seem not too bad there right now. And, the BNSF did reopen the Stampede pass as a relief valve, which is not used that much, I believe. If capacity there is critical, given the restriction to 28 trains is due to the 30 minutes between trains requirement, might I make the suggestion (tongue in cheek) that it might be a good idea to have electrified helpers hauling eastbounds up the grade through the Tunnel? This would be an alternative to his and Shadow the cats owner’s suggestions, and surely much cheaper? To JRBernier’s comments, interesting also that the NCL and Empire Builder suffered on account of the weather way back when. Rose coloured spectacles say they could deal with this kind of thing in that era. However, I think the problems in late 2016 started long before the real bad weather that’s been around this winter too hold, so there is definitely a capacity issue also.
30 minutes for fumes to clear? What did BNSF hire locals with Palm fronds to fan at the entrances? You have to be kidding me that a multi-billion dollar railroad can't reduce that to 3-5 minutes with a little more investment and engineering.
Also, isn't there an ex-Milwaukee Road grade or bike path not too far away?
CMSpnP, Perhaps you should hire on at BNSF so the easy solutions may be quickly put into action. Resume please!!!
I'm surprised a local (Bruce Kelly) hasn't stepped in here, as this subject has been covered before.
Due to the above mentioned line abandonments, the 'funnel' between Spokane and Sandpoint is a major bottleneck. Besides the Hauser fueling rack deficiencies, there are still several single track sections that could (and should IMO) be upgraded first (see map link http://goo.gl/maps/zUryP ).
The trackage adjacent to the downtown Spokane Yardley yard looks odd to me - no proper leads off of the mains? To the east, the city of Spokane Valley is preparing to grade separate two streets and presumably any rail bridges will be at least two tracks.
Another track (and bridge) over the Spokane River is needed; interestingly, there appears to be abutments for a former bridge north of the existing one (history, please). Hopefully this will not be impeded by the local nut jobs who want to 'stop all fossil fuel trains'.
Due to budget cutbacks the eleven mile 2MT upgrade between Rathdrum and Athol was put on hold. When construction season starts we'll look for a change in status.
As if the aging single track Lake Pend Oreille bridge wasn't enough, several sidings just RR east of the bridge are unbonded - makes for slow and challenging meets.
Reportedly two thirds of the Northern Transcon traffic originates / terminates in the Portland area, therefore the Cascade Tunnel isn't as much of an issue. If traffic doesn't fall off significantly, the Lakeside sub west of Spokane should get some single track mileage reduced.
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! ***
CMStPnP30 minutes for fumes to clear? What did BNSF hire locals with Palm fronds to fan at the entrances? You have to be kidding me that a multi-billion dollar railroad can't reduce that to 3-5 minutes with a little more investment and engineering.
The tunnel is seven miles long. That's on the order of 15 million cubic feet, I would guesstimate. To completely flush the tunnel in 30 minutes thus means moving almost half a million cubic feet of air per minute (in comparison, your home HVAC probably moves less than 100CFM). They don't completely clear the tunnel, from what I can see. They just bring it down to tolerable levels. The fans are powered by 800 HP electric motors...
Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascade_Tunnel has some info on the ventilation system. Another great explanation can be found here.
Perhaps a couple of fans on the exhaust end would speed the clearing. I would opine that the only other option would likely be a vertical vent (or several) along the tunnel, or a parallel tunnel. I have no idea what that would involve, other than a lot of rock drilling. And likely getting past the folks who would object to the initial work, as well as the equipment necessary to make it operate. Either way, is the payback worth the cost?
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...
BNSF's Iron Triangle traffic pattern sends most westbounds down through the Columbia River Gorge and sends eastbounds over Stevens or Stampede. While Stampede is not cleared for double stacks, oil and grain empties use it. It is far from capacity. The Cascades are NOT a problem.
Sandpoint is the real issue. It is called The Funnel for a reason.
CMStPnP30 minutes for fumes to clear? What did BNSF hire locals with Palm fronds to fan at the entrances? You have to be kidding me that a multi-billion dollar railroad can't reduce that to 3-5 minutes with a little more investment and engineering. Also, isn't there an ex-Milwaukee Road grade or bike path not too far away?
7.8 miles of 22 foot or so high by 15 or 16 feet wide is a lot of a cubic volume of air to be moved. 3 - 5 minutes is beyond rediculous.
I'm looking out my back window across a snowy landscape to the west end of Hauser Yard as I write this. Monitoring the drama on the radio as well. There's so much I could say, but so little time. So just a few quick points.
A detailed and reasonably current view of the track layout between Sandpoint and the western approaches to Spokane can be seen here:
http://www.rclservicesgroup.com/wp-content/uploads/TrackCharts/Northwest/ASTC_Spokane.pdf
Note that the full view of Hauser Yard and its refueling facility comes a couple of pages after the page showing the dual main line running past Hauser.
Note also that the route is NOT mostly single track with sidings east of Hauser as was previously posted. Roughly half of the 40+\- miles between Rathdrum (were 2MT from Otis Orchards, WA, ends) and Sandpoint Jct is 2MT. The only single-track sections are Rathdrum-Athol (with Ramsey siding near the middle), Cocolalla to West Algoma (narrow shoreline along Lake Cocolalla) and of course the long bridge over Lake Pend Oreille.
As for Cascade Tunnel, that's been discussed to death, including here:
http://cs.trains.com/trn/f/111/t/164701.aspx?page=1
The physical constraints to BNSF in this region are obvious to anyone who looks closely at maps, track charts, etc. Ignoring the mountain grade challenges in the WA Cascades and MT Rockies, here's what else to consider: Nearly 20 miles of mostly single track that's limited to 30mph running along the twisting Kootenai River on the MT/ID border. Single-track choke points at Lake Pend Oreille, Lake Cocolalla, Athol-Ramsey, Ramsey-Rathdrum, Otis Orchards-Irvin. And to a lesser degree, the single-track Latah Creek bridge on Spokane's west side, where westbounds headed to Pasco or Wenatchee often stack up through downtown waiting when there's an eastbound fleet approaching from Wenatchee. Southwest of Spokane, there's a single-track section near the top end of Marshall Canyon that's now being surveyed for a second main. The Lakeside Sub from there on down to Pasco is a mix of single track with sidings and 2MT. Grades of up to 1 percent aren't necessarily as much of a hindrance to traffic as are places like the twisting coulee between Hatton and Connell, WA, where it's mostly single track and limited to 35-40 mph for freights. Much like Cascade Tunnel or Flathead Tunnel or the bridges at Irvin or Sandpoint, it's a choke point where busy days can see trains stacking up on either side, waiting their turn through the single track. Some grading has already been done to widen portions of the coulee, but to my knowledge no tracklaying has begun.
Then there are operational constraints. To name just a few: Unbonded sidings and/or sidings with grade crossings at several locations on the former GN east of Sandpoint, requiring the first train who arrives to hold off of crossings until the other train closes in, and the train taking the siding must do so at restricted speed (translation...very slow meets). An intermodal ramp at Parkwater, WA, where Z or Q symbols often leave their train on Main 1 or 2 while picking up or setting out, potentially causing other trains to stack up in both directions. Additional UP traffic joining the BNSF flow from Napa Street west to UP Jct./Fish Lake.
Can't speak personally to the pros or cons of the layout and operations at Hauser's refueling facility, other than to simply describe what's there. Three run-through fueling tracks (Mains 4, 5, 6) capable of holding an entire train clear of Mains 1 and 2. A fourth fueling track (Main 3) is set up to receive light power out of the yard, but grading is in place to potentially make it a run-through track as well. Each fueling track has enough racks to service up to five locomotives per train simultaneously. A train with power only on the head end or no need to fuel its DPUs can be gassed, re-crewed, and on its way in as little as 20 minutes, depending on its inbound fuel levels. But more often than not, trains that get refueled at Hauser are unit grain, coal, or crude, most of which need to re-spot to fuel their DPUs. Figure close to an hour for one of those to get in and get out. Stack symbols are the only intermodals to routinely get fueled at Hauser these days, and they tend to run with DPUs, especially in winter. Z and Q symbols, on the other hand, are usually re-crewed on Mains 1 or 2 without refueling.
Some have asked why they can't simply use mobile trucks to refuel DPUs while the head end is on the fuel pad. Approval and construction of the Hauser facility went through a monumental public hearing process. Because the yard sits atop an enormous sole-source aquifer (sole-source meaning it's the only source of water for the majority of the area's half-million or so residents), the entire refueling facility -- which includes not just the fuel pad itself but also a larger fuel offloading terminal and tank farm -- had to be built on top of a multiple-layer containment system involving poly liners and lots of concrete. The idea of fuel-laden tank trucks driving around that terminal and hooking onto locomotives at various locations would never get approved, no matter how much track you dug up and installed new containment systems under.
H-m-m-m-m, Mount Macdonald tunnel is 9 miles long and I don't remember seeing trains waiting for exhaust fumes to clear.........now lets examine how it ventilates and compare it to the cheap assed BNSF solution, which causes a capacity problem with the BNSF tunnel.....
"The Mount Macdonald Tunnel Ventilation System allowed a major increase in the volume of traffic over Canada's t The NOVA Award was presented to the Mount Macdonald Tunnel Ventilation System for innovation in purging long tunnels of diesel locomotive heat and gases. The Connaught Tunnel had been the Canadian Pacific Railroad's main route through the Canadian Rockies since 1916. By the late 1980's, however, the tunnel's steep approaches and single track created a serious bottleneck. The decision to construct a new tunnel for westbound trains required overcoming a major obstacle: purging such a tunnel, up to nine miles long, of the heat and gases generated by trains with up to six locomotives pulling 110 heavily-loaded cars uphill. Conventional tunnel ventilation systems could not clear a tunnel fast enough to allow an economically viable flow of traffic. To answer the challenge, Sam Levy and Norman Danziger of Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Quade and Douglas segmented the tunnel into two parts to ventilate the segments separately, with a ventilation shaft near mid-tunnel. A series of gates, at this shaft and the eastern entrance, and five fans are operated by computers at Canadian Pacific Rail offices on the West Coast. When a train enters the tunnel, the eastern segment is closed and ventilated. As the train reaches mid-tunnel, the central gate opens for it to pass into the western segment, then closes when it has passed. While the train traverses the western segment, air in the eastern segment is cleaned. After the train exits, the western segment is purged. By this time, the eastern section can receive the next train. The Mount Macdonald Tunnel Ventilation System has enabled Canadian Pacific Rail to increase the volume of traffic through its main transcontinental rail link-at a construction cost that was much lower than alternative methods. The ventilation system for the nine-mile-long Mt. Macdonald Tunnel was the key to the economic viability of the project. The tunnel is partitioned with a system of automatically controlled gates and variable pitch fans that purge fumes quickly allows greatly increased traffic flow.ranscontinental rail line. The system is characterized by the partitioning of the tunnel with a system of multiple gates and variable pitch fans and dampers. These are interlocked in a pattern that automatically adjusts to train position and environmental conditions. The system is unmanned and operated under computer control."
diningcar CMSpnP, Perhaps you should hire on at BNSF so the easy solutions may be quickly put into action. Resume please!!!
It would be cheaper to hire competent railway engineers or managers that can spot an issue and fix it.
tree68The tunnel is seven miles long. That's on the order of 15 million cubic feet, I would guesstimate. To completely flush the tunnel in 30 minutes thus means moving almost half a million cubic feet of air per minute (in comparison, your home HVAC probably moves less than 100CFM). They don't completely clear the tunnel, from what I can see. They just bring it down to tolerable levels. The fans are powered by 800 HP electric motors... Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascade_Tunnel has some info on the ventilation system. Another great explanation can be found here. Perhaps a couple of fans on the exhaust end would speed the clearing. I would opine that the only other option would likely be a vertical vent (or several) along the tunnel, or a parallel tunnel. I have no idea what that would involve, other than a lot of rock drilling. And likely getting past the folks who would object to the initial work, as well as the equipment necessary to make it operate. Either way, is the payback worth the cost?
If trains are waiting 30 min at each end for the exhaust to clear the ventilation system is probably pretty old. Drilling more ventilation and segmenting the tunnel not sure that would be all that expensive with drilling technology today but your not going to get BNSF managers to do that unless they are really begging for capacity......they will stack trains before they spend the money. Which isn't all that efficient but seems to be the MO of railroads these days when faced with a capacity problem. Stack trains, slow the frieght, to hell with the customer and stockholder.
Too bad the old Milwaukee Road Pacific Extension is not in place yet from about Garrison MT to Marengo WA...
CMStPnP H-m-m-m-m, Mount Macdonald tunnel is 9 miles long and I don't remember seeing trains waiting for exhaust fumes to clear.........now lets examine how it ventilates and compare it to the cheap assed BNSF solution, which causes a capacity problem with the BNSF tunnel..... "The Mount Macdonald Tunnel Ventilation System allowed a major increase in the volume of traffic over Canada's t The NOVA Award was presented to the Mount Macdonald Tunnel Ventilation System for innovation in purging long tunnels of diesel locomotive heat and gases. The Connaught Tunnel had been the Canadian Pacific Railroad's main route through the Canadian Rockies since 1916. By the late 1980's, however, the tunnel's steep approaches and single track created a serious bottleneck. The decision to construct a new tunnel for westbound trains required overcoming a major obstacle: purging such a tunnel, up to nine miles long, of the heat and gases generated by trains with up to six locomotives pulling 110 heavily-loaded cars uphill. Conventional tunnel ventilation systems could not clear a tunnel fast enough to allow an economically viable flow of traffic. To answer the challenge, Sam Levy and Norman Danziger of Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Quade and Douglas segmented the tunnel into two parts to ventilate the segments separately, with a ventilation shaft near mid-tunnel. A series of gates, at this shaft and the eastern entrance, and five fans are operated by computers at Canadian Pacific Rail offices on the West Coast. When a train enters the tunnel, the eastern segment is closed and ventilated. As the train reaches mid-tunnel, the central gate opens for it to pass into the western segment, then closes when it has passed. While the train traverses the western segment, air in the eastern segment is cleaned. After the train exits, the western segment is purged. By this time, the eastern section can receive the next train. The Mount Macdonald Tunnel Ventilation System has enabled Canadian Pacific Rail to increase the volume of traffic through its main transcontinental rail link-at a construction cost that was much lower than alternative methods. The ventilation system for the nine-mile-long Mt. Macdonald Tunnel was the key to the economic viability of the project. The tunnel is partitioned with a system of automatically controlled gates and variable pitch fans that purge fumes quickly allows greatly increased traffic flow.ranscontinental rail line. The system is characterized by the partitioning of the tunnel with a system of multiple gates and variable pitch fans and dampers. These are interlocked in a pattern that automatically adjusts to train position and environmental conditions. The system is unmanned and operated under computer control."
How fast do trains run through the tunnel? That would allow us to see how long it takes the CP to purge the exhaust between the 4.5 mile long sections. My guess it is a bit longer that the 3-5 minutes that you stated should be easy with "a little more investment and engineering". Maybe if you posted a link to your source....
Let us also not forget that the CP Roger Pass rebuild, which the new Mount Macdonald tunnel was the major portion of, was a 500 million dollar project in 1988 dollars. That is a bit more than "a little more investment".
An "expensive model collector"
As a BRK-B stock holder, I hope not! Unless the Fort Worth cafeteria needs a new sandwich artist.
n012944How fast do trains run through the tunnel? That would allow us to see how long it takes the CP to purge the exhaust between the 4.5 mile long sections. My guess it is a bit longer that the 3-5 minutes that you stated should be easy with "a little more investment and engineering". Maybe if you posted a link to your source.... Let us also not forget that the CP Roger Pass rebuild, which the new Mount Macdonald tunnel was the major portion of, was a 500 million dollar project in 1988 dollars. That is a bit more than "a little more investment".
Video I posted would make it seem that 25-30 MPH is max speed in the area. 7.8 miles at 30 MPH is approximately 16 minutes for the head end IN the tunnel, plus another 6 to 10 minutes for the train to clear the tunnel - depending on train size. Observation from the video, there are no sidings immediately adjacent to the tunnel - so there will be running time to the next siding in either direction. Don't know what sort of signal spacing BNSF is using in this area - my former carrier has been respacing to 3 miles between intermediates.
30 Minutes does sound like a long time at face value, however, operational realities from other factors may make it realistic.
It's an overblown concept that all trains require a 30-minute ventilation pause before entering Cascade Tunnel, just as it's overblown that ventilation itself is the limiting factor to capacity there. The running time between Scenic and Berne, the sidings at either end of the tunnel, is highly impacted by the 25mph freight speed limit, and since only one train is permitted in the 7.79-mile long tunnel at a time, well, there you have it. A long, slow crawl regardless of the time needed to ventilate. Look here, page 43:
http://www.fobnr.org/timetables/bnsf/phase4/Northwest/NORTHWEST-03-042606.pdf
Some very smart people have worked with, studied, and commented on the tunnel, its ventilation, and trains operations through it. A few examples include:
http://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?1,1669967,1670321#1670321>;.
http://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?1,2048593
Pay close attention to the words of TAW (Thomas White) in the two links above.
Also, visit the link below, read the bottom half of page 16, and bear in mind that this WA state report and others like it were produced in whole or part by a prominent railway engineering firm whose members include a former Trains editor whom some of us remember as a very sharp individual, a walking encyclopedia of all things railroading.
http://wstc.wa.gov/Rail/TM3_RailCapcityNeedsandCnsts.pdf
To summarize from these and other sources available, ventilation time is minimal after a westbound train because it's running downhill, and shoving ahead of it any residual exhaust from a previous eastbound. Which is why an eastbound can apparently depart Scenic and enter the tunnel the moment a westbound has cleared. The ventilation process is already taking place even while a train is still within the tunnel. Hence, by the time an eastbound climber has exited the tunnel and gotten by a westbound at Berne, that westbound can begin to pull and should find enough of the tunnel ventilated by the time he arrives there. At least, that's what people who know the subject far better than me have said.
As for Mount MacDonald Tunnel and Rogers Pass, here's 90 minutes of video chock full of engineering fun. Discussion of its ventilation system begins at 1:06:45.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zepXkTPvqA
1. The coal export market seemingly will not grow, given the very effective environmental opposition that has killed most proposed projects.
2. The Crude-By-Rail market faces as much or more environmental opposition as coal, and the Bakken crude is rapidly gaining low-cost pipeline capacity to the Gulf.
3. PNW international intermodal is under pressure from Prince Rupert; Panama Canal widening; the increased use of Suez from SE Asia to the eastern U.S; and uncertain U.S. trade policy under the Trump administration.
4. Grain, while strong now, faces long-term forces such as these: World-wide production is growing rapidly; PNW ports are not as advantaged vis-à-vis the Gulf since the Panama Canal was widened; and trade policy uncertainty.
I think your getting confused here. I used the Mount McDonald Tunnel as an example but we are really talking about a tunnel in the United States that is only 7 miles long........sooo, why would it be 4.5 mile sections? Wouldn't it be 3.5 mile sections? And I would be willing to bet the CP ventilation system is both newer and a lot more powerful than the BNSF one.
Also, wasn't it $500 million dollars for the tunnel and ventilation system?. I am only talking about ventilation system upgrade to increase capacity. $500 million seems kind of steep for a ventilation sustem upgrade.
Bottom line though even reading the updated links, the BNSF ventilation system is dated and I really wonder how it would fare with a passenger train breakdown in the tunnel with accompanying fire. Would like to read a report on that because I have not read yet how well the tunnel ventilates with no moving train through it and with a fire in the middle. Certainly the ventilation is not to the current standards the Swiss would build with Electric Locomotion through the tunnel. Amtrak passenger escape routes in case of breakdown and fire in the tunnel?
466lex As BNSF decides how much to invest in PNW capacity, I believe they are weighing factors such as these: 1. The coal export market seemingly will not grow, given the very effective environmental opposition that has killed most proposed projects. 2. The Crude-By-Rail market faces as much or more environmental opposition as coal, and the Bakken crude is rapidly gaining low-cost pipeline capacity to the Gulf. 3. PNW international intermodal is under pressure from Prince Rupert; Panama Canal widening; the increased use of Suez from SE Asia to the eastern U.S; and uncertain U.S. trade policy under the Trump administration. 4. Grain, while strong now, faces long-term forces such as these: World-wide production is growing rapidly; PNW ports are not as advantaged vis-à-vis the Gulf since the Panama Canal was widened; and trade policy uncertainty. While Berkshire-Hathaway is a long-term investor, I suspect even they are a bit skittish after the experience of BNSF rapidly and heavily investing in Bakken take-away capacity, only to see safety, pipelines, and international trade reactions dramatically reduce returns. BNSF may simply ride out the current congestion and send more cash to B-H instead of investing more in the Hi Line.
Interesting I read a rail report that UPRR was hit fairly hard in the Intermodal area due to the Hanjin Container bankruptcy but that BNSF was not because it was not a BNSF client or a much lesser BNSF client. I don't think I agree with the Panama Canal scenario......I am sure it is in the CSX wishful thinking column though. I don't see much of a change in traffic post widening as compared to pre-widening.
BTW, both UPRR and BNSF have increased their cash flow. UPRR has been good at cutting expenses and reducing operating ratio. Also UPRR stated it will not perform many if any capacity improvements in 2017 with it's Capital Budget. Does that mean it is caught up or is taking a break until traffic recovers? Not sure.
n012944As a BRK-B stock holder, I hope not! Unless the Fort Worth cafeteria needs a new sandwich artist.
Looks like you need some more help here. "Sandwich Artist" refers to Subway which is in the Fast Food segment. Charleys Grilled Steaks is actually in the Fast Casual market segment. Two different marketing segments there and Subway is not as efficient with food waste and not as profitable on a per sandwich basis.
As for you as an investor....
Not only did that business expand my network hugely but I got a higher paying job with a lot better benefits afterwards because I had that business start on my resume, employers are still asking about it and giving compliments (so perhaps they know more than you with investing?)........and now I have a pension to boot. I am very happy I made that choice, no regrets and no financial impact to retirement plans. All around it was win-win.
Was a challenge running a business, having employees and meeting a payroll. Highly recommend the experience. I know some people out there are afraid of challenges but it was a positive experience for me and I plan on running a business again in the future but after retirement this time so I have an income.
Thanks to all for these inputs, especially to Mike f90 for his most helpful map, and to Bruce Kelly for the track plan and his detailed description of the problem area.
The only info I have found on the BNSF’s position on Sandpoint is found in this news report, which seems accurate enough, from late 2015:
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2015/sep/16/plans-for-second-rail-bridge-across-lake-pend/
This and the fact that plans for more double tracking are in place but on hold says that, with regard to my original question, BNSF is, or at least was a year ago, at 2-3 on my 10 point scale. ‘Well, we have plan, but right now it’s not worth it’. I find it hard to believe that the fact that there could easily be known grain traffic surges or runs of very bad weather were not taken into account in that decision, also the fact that their (and MRL/NP) access to the PNW is solely dependent on a 110 year old bridge, which a bit of help from the UP apart, there’s no way round. Someone has to decide whether this or a second bridge over the Pecos River is more important. If there are questions now about the original capacity decisions, whoever was pulling Mr Melonas’s strings must be feeing hot under the collar. I guess my question was whether there was any indication this might be the case. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Maybe from Bruce Kelly’s input there are some relatively low cost measures that could be quickly implemented to provide some easement. If there are true choke points this would be to no avail. BNSF doesn’t seem to think it’s choking.
466lex’s post suggests how the BNSF board might be thinking about this- it would provide a good logic for what I have outlined above. Every reason to sit on the fence. Just a bit depressing that the BNSF cannot afford to create an infrastructure that continues to provide top customer service when things get tough, nor is confident enough about the future to invest. (I do understand that a lot of traffic is not that time sensitive).
Maybe the fact that there is a daily update on the situation via Amtrak Track a train site is what brings this to our attention. If the same situation occurred on the UP Portland Ogden line, or the CSX/NS lines north from Birmingham and Atlanta, who would know or care?
Another thing I don’t understand is why BNSF keeps sending trains into the funnel at a rate at which experience- even a computer model(!)- says things are going to seize up. Isn’t it most cost effective to keep traffic flowing, deferring lower priority traffic, which is going to get sidelined anyway? Maybe that’s another topic.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.