BNSF vs. The Pacific N.W., Yet Another Round?

[Anonymous]

My sources for the UP and MILW grades westbound into Plummer were company track charts, not rail enthusiast books. UP max is 2.0%.

[kenneo]

I was up in Sandpoint in August for about 7 days on two different trips .... that dip you talked about is now an overpass. Even if the present arrangement is as you specify, the only thing needed would be the third leg of a Y, and looking at what the City did to move the SI out of the middle of town would suggest that Sandpoint just might be willing to permit a "complete Y" so that the UP could totally bypass Sandpoint.

The only reason I suggest the detour to Plummer via Spokane is that it would be a real out-of-the-way rerout to take the "Portland" traffic and run it over St. Paul unless the MRL would also be using St. Paul to bypass Spokane. It would take the construction of a "short" U-Turn track to connect the old MILW and SI yards and a realignment of the Spokane-Plummer trackage would then not be necessary - or even perhaps desireable. That way, the only traffic through Spokane would be Hi-Line traffic, AMTK, and that traffic off the MRL destined for former GN Washington destinations and UP Eastport traffic destined for Oregon and Washington. The BNSF could also "detour" a bypass via St. Paul destined for Pasco if it wanted. Proper blocking in the East by BNSF would route Pasco traffic via MRL and automatically bypass Spokane using this proposal.

Yakima-Ellensburg ---- the Freeway goes through part of the Fireing Range. Why couldn't a railroad, also. Of course, it would depend in large part in how far into the active part of the range ... ... ...

One thing we need to remember here, is if what we are talking about is to be something more than a pure fantasy railroad, we need to keep "new construction" out of the picture as much as possible. Connecting tracks such as at Sandpoint and Spokane do not really count for much in the "new" catagory, although they are new construction. Placing ties, trim and rail and replacing ballast and rebuilding bridges on already existing roadbed (no matter how degraded) normally does not fall into the "new" catagory, and even if it should, the EIS problems are usually very minor because all of the environmental disruption took place many years ago.

We have several items at play in these discussions -- deveral attitudes on the part of the BN (and BNSF), the removal of the PCE and the now attendant capacity problems, and the attitudes of the State of Montana and the Ranchers of Montana.

And just a side note - somewhat interesting - the line that the NP used as its passenger main between Silver Bow and Garrison was originally built by a UP sponsered n.g. building north from Ogden to Pocatello, Silver Bow to Garrison. The UP decided it didn't want the Silver Bow-Garrison alignment and the NP decided it would be a good thing for them to have it for their passenger trains and mineral movements out of Butte. This was later leased to the MRL and now is still, yet again, another short line between Butte and Garrison "LA-LA, LA-LA, where does your RR wonder ..."

[Anonymous]

Clememte - You are right about the grade from Beneway Lake to to Plummer, it is 1% at least according to the profile map on pages 190-191 of "The Milwaukee Road - West" by Charles and Dorothy Wood. The only reference I can find right off hand for the UP Chacelot Lake to Plummer grade is from "The Milwaukee Road In Idaho" by Stanley Johnson, where on pages 94 and 95 it describes the grade separation between the Milwaukee line and the old OWR&N - "Milwaukee tracks climbed up the mountainside towards Plummer Junction at about 1% or less grade." Then he describes the old OWR&N grade as being "a full 1.5% greater than the Milwaukee for most of this way", which would make it around 2.5%.

kenneo - where you mention "The State of Washington might be able to be convinced to purchase the line from the BNSF and then build a new line north of Pasco to connect with the PCE R-o-W -- a decent grade to the currect top of the grade at Boylston should be obtainable. That leaves getting through Ellensburg." I couldn't agree more that a line that follows State Highway 240 from Richland to the Highway 24 junction, then begins a steady slight climb on the western flanks of the Columbia River to Boylston would be ideal, probably under 1%. You would have to avoid getting too far west into the Yakima Firing Range (for obvious reasons), so I'm not sure if it possible to start the grade that far south (hgwys 240 and 24) without entering off limits territory. Which leaves starting the grade a few miles south of the "gap" opposite Mattawa, so not sure how much can be alleviated gradewise from the original PCE upgrade start opposite Beverly.

Even so it would be a preferable rail routing to the NP Yakima Valley/Yakima River Canyon line, if for no other reason than increasing train speeds (it may be shorter mileage wise as well). And I'm sure the recreationists would love a riverside rail trail in the Canyon.

Regarding UP's options with MRL and Spokane, one problem with the Sandpoint connection is that it runs from a switch on the SI south across Highway 200 (with a noticable dip to meet the road level) to a one way spur off the old NP main (now MRL). Thus any potential UP trains wanting to take MRL to Garrison/Butte and then south to LA LA land would have to creep ever so slowly across the highway, then once the consist was over would then have to backup onto the MRL main and run reverse (thus would need to be in DPU push/pull power arrangement), and it would have to be a short consist to boot.

You also have somewhat of the same problem in Spokane if UP wanted to run from the old SI main in East Spokane down to the Plummer branch, e.g. I don't think you can run head on from a westbound off the SI down to the Plummer branch without a backup/reverse move or two. Plus you're climbing the grade out of Dishman up to Mica and fighting those curves. But you're right, once you got to Plummer and the rebuilt PCE, you'd have prime profile east or west from there.

If I was UP and traffic off the CP at Eastport grew enough to warrant significant investment, I'd rather look at a potential southern bypass route around Spokane, a more modern alignment than using the PCE/UP Rockford branch/UP-Milwaukee Dishman branch if it's possible. I'll have to study my contour maps of southern Spokane County more closely to see if that is a reasonable possibility. But whatever, just getting off BNSF's line through Spokane would be a goal worth pursuing.

[samfp1943]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by kenneo
As to Stampede Pass, I seem to remember that at one time the NP was looking at putting a much lower tunnel through from near Easton about where the grade stiffens to 2.2% level through to the Green River drainage and the current R-o-W. I don't know where the west side of the Cascades stiffens but my memory says that this proposed tunnel would be below that point on both ends. Since both the NP and the PCE arrive between Tacoma nad Seattle with about 5 or so miles of each other, this could also be part of a viable solution.

BN did a complete study on this, for re-routing the Stevens Pass entirely, down the "Front" to Easton, then across the Cascades. About a $1.2 Billion price tag. Compared to the high costs and negative rate of return endured at Cascade Tunnel since it was built, I am told that the plan was favorable ... just didn't have the bucks ...

Maybe they should approach BIll Gates, good investment opportunity for him ,and in his own"back yard".
Sam

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by kenneo
As to Stampede Pass, I seem to remember that at one time the NP was looking at putting a much lower tunnel through from near Easton about where the grade stiffens to 2.2% level through to the Green River drainage and the current R-o-W. I don't know where the west side of the Cascades stiffens but my memory says that this proposed tunnel would be below that point on both ends. Since both the NP and the PCE arrive between Tacoma nad Seattle with about 5 or so miles of each other, this could also be part of a viable solution.

BN did a complete study on this, for re-routing the Stevens Pass entirely, down the "Front" to Easton, then across the Cascades. About a $1.2 Billion price tag. Compared to the high costs and negative rate of return endured at Cascade Tunnel since it was built, I am told that the plan was favorable ... just didn't have the bucks ...

[samfp1943]

QUOTE: Originally posted by kenneo

Futuremodal -- Dave, your mention of the problems the UP is having in Spokane turned on a light bulb- or perhaps it just got it off of dim, I don't know.

The SI at Sandpoint has the ability of going either south on the SI to Spokane or east on the MRL eventually passing through Silver Bow on its way to Butte. Now, since a good portion of the UP (SI) traffic is destined for California 9Sacramento and south, you have the perfect bypass, fully operational, from Spokane to Ogden via Silver Bow and Pocatello. Much better grades than the other bottleneck over the Blue's.

And, if the PCE is rebuilt between Marengo and Plummer, the old MILW main that the UP shared between Plummer and Spokane complete the bypass. Now, should the PCE be rebuilt between St Maries and St. Regis, the MRL could also use this short cut around the traffic jam in Spokane and deliver its trains to the BNSF directly to Pasco.

I am not much in favor of the Yakima Canyon route. It would take a huge bunch of straightening and it is a rather heavely used recreation area. The State of Washington might be able to be convinced to purchase the line from the BNSF and then build a new line north of Pasco to connect with the PCE R-o-W -- a decent grade to the currect top of the grade at Boylston should be obtainable. That leaves getting through Ellensburg.

As to Stampede Pass, I seem to remember that at one time the NP was looking at putting a much lower tunnel through from near Easton about where the grade stiffens to 2.2% level through to the Green River drainage and the current R-o-W. I don't know where the west side of the Cascades stiffens but my memory says that this proposed tunnel would be below that point on both ends. Since both the NP and the PCE arrive between Tacoma nad Seattle with about 5 or so miles of each other, this could also be part of a viable solution.

For relief in Spokane, the BNSF might just be agreeable to some of this.

Sure seems like the concept of reconstituting the Milwaukee Road to the PNW is closer to reality, now with complaints of capacity problems all over the area and the country; maybe Bill Gates would be interested in financing a new railroad entity into his back yard? Utilizing electric power it could be that much more environmentally friendly in an area that seems to like that kind of an argument.
Sam

[kenneo]

Futuremodal -- Dave, your mention of the problems the UP is having in Spokane turned on a light bulb- or perhaps it just got it off of dim, I don't know.

The SI at Sandpoint has the ability of going either south on the SI to Spokane or east on the MRL eventually passing through Silver Bow on its way to Butte. Now, since a good portion of the UP (SI) traffic is destined for California 9Sacramento and south, you have the perfect bypass, fully operational, from Spokane to Ogden via Silver Bow and Pocatello. Much better grades than the other bottleneck over the Blue's.

And, if the PCE is rebuilt between Marengo and Plummer, the old MILW main that the UP shared between Plummer and Spokane complete the bypass. Now, should the PCE be rebuilt between St Maries and St. Regis, the MRL could also use this short cut around the traffic jam in Spokane and deliver its trains to the BNSF directly to Pasco.

I am not much in favor of the Yakima Canyon route. It would take a huge bunch of straightening and it is a rather heavely used recreation area. The State of Washington might be able to be convinced to purchase the line from the BNSF and then build a new line north of Pasco to connect with the PCE R-o-W -- a decent grade to the currect top of the grade at Boylston should be obtainable. That leaves getting through Ellensburg.

As to Stampede Pass, I seem to remember that at one time the NP was looking at putting a much lower tunnel through from near Easton about where the grade stiffens to 2.2% level through to the Green River drainage and the current R-o-W. I don't know where the west side of the Cascades stiffens but my memory says that this proposed tunnel would be below that point on both ends. Since both the NP and the PCE arrive between Tacoma nad Seattle with about 5 or so miles of each other, this could also be part of a viable solution.

For relief in Spokane, the BNSF might just be agreeable to some of this.

[Anonymous]

UP grade from Chatcolet to Plummer Jct. is 2% max (1.8% in most places), not 3%. MILW (now STMA) grade from Benewah Lake to Plummer Jct. is 1% compensated, not 1.7%. I-90 has not been widened over abandoned RR grade between Wallace and Mullan. That section of grade is now part of the paved trail that runs clear from Plummer to Mullan.

[Anonymous]

You are right about the Silver Valley. Mines are starting to reopen left and right, but there's no more rail lines left to serve them, so it will all have to be trucked or wheelbarrowed out. Which means precipituously higher shipping costs, which means these mines will be the first to shut down when the silver, lead, and other heavy metals markets go down.

[kenneo]

I had heard that the Lookout Pass Line was at 4%, but could not remember. I did not know that the climb from the Lake to Plummer was as steep as it is. I had never attempted to estimate what the grade might be (have been). I agree that the PCE St. Paul line is the superior of the two, and the drilling of a new tunnel under St. Paul as the MILW had wanted to do at one time, espicially if electrified, would be far better than the present.

I knew that Bannock Pass was at 4% with a rather different switchback maneuver. Up out the the vally (either side) about 2/3 of the way to the top, enter a tail track for the switchback, then back the train over the pass to the switchback on the other side, and thence resume "forward motion in the forward manner". That line has a multitude of reverse loops used to gain altitude, but with a better approach to each side a tunnel under the pass about 2,000 feet under the highway (what, 4 or 5 miles long?) would do the trick.

Please understand that simply because I mention a certain route does not mean that I approve of it or would promote it. As an example, the Wallace route would put the tracks through a revenue producing area with a population base. The St. Paul line does not, nor does the "Lemhi-Salmon" alignment.

Following US 93 south over the Bitter Roots is OK until you get to the Divide, and then it's like stepping off a clif. You are only about 10 miles from the Salmon River at that point and you have a drop in elevation of nearly 5,000 feet. Reminds me of two old moldy's - "My name is Cliff, drop over some time" and "Watch that first step, it's a Lulu."

[kenneo]

QUOTE: Originally posted by nanaimo73

QUOTE: Originally posted by kenneo


What is the grade over Lookout Pass (I-90) over the old UP and NP branches between Plummer and Saltese. From Saltese going east the NP branch operated over the PCE to St. Maries. The grades still exist, so perhaps that may be a reasonable alternative to the original PCE via St. Paul Pass.

BN abandoned the Lookout Pass line in the fall of 1980, and had to keep the St. Regis to Haugan section running for a few months.[;)]

I'm not sure if a line could be put through Wallace now that the interstate is there.
http://terraserver.microsoft.com/image.aspx?T=1&S=12&Z=11&X=726&Y=6572&W=1&qs=%7cwallace%7cidaho%7c

When the I-90 was approved for construction, the NP was still operating (and the UP had not ceased operations into Wallace), so the overpasses were built. Of course, there are no rails there any more on the NP side, but I think the UP's rails are still there in most areas (has been many years since I have been up to Wallace).

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by kenneo

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

A third option is to relocate a new PCE further south west of Missoula, connecting Missoula to Lewiston ID wherein WATCO's ex-Camas Prairie lines operate and connect with both UP and BNSF at Ayer. BNSF runs a local from Pasco to Ayer to pick up it's share of the WATCO traffic via trackage rights over UP.

There is yet another option, at lease physically. From the location where the PCE leaves the valley to climb Pipestone Pass, continue south on the old NP branch, extending it to Dillon and then utilize the basic alignment of the old UP branch to Leadore, ID and then down the Lemhi Valley to Salmon, ID, thence down the Salmon to the Snake and thence the Snake to Lewiston.

Yes, I know about the "River of No Return Primitive Areas and the Scenic River Recreation area, but - espicially if the line is electrified - this might be a doable thing. This (from Leadore) was "the other choice" for the OSL. With a new alignment over Bannock Pass, a train could go from Chicago to Seattle without benefit of a helper. The other "bad" part is that although there was once a railroad between Leadore and Salmon, and the R-o-W is still there, it is now known as Idaho 28.

Well, that's a whole 'nother ballgame, but it is interesting you bring it up, because there is another movement afoot to "rationalize" the current transportation corridor that exists between the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness north of the Salmon River and the River of No Return Wilderness mostly south of the Salmon River. That corridor, such as it is, is called the Magruder Corridor, and it is an embarrassment to anyone who would consider it a viable transport pathway. It is basically a jeep trail, following the historic path of the Nez Perce Indians and Chief Joseph as they attempted to excape to Canada. What some have suggested (myself among them) is to replace the Magruder Corridor with a newer transportation corridor closer to the north side of the Salmon River. This would keep the max elevation down to respectable levels, with a max elevation of about 5600' east of Dixie, and would basically follow the north bank to Salmon Idaho along US 93 (and the historic western terminus of railroad you mentioned). The point at this time is not to actually build something, but rather to preserve the transportation corridor from further wilderness designation. This corridor could be used for either a two lane highway or a railroad, but not both.

The old railroad from the Beaverhead River near Dillon to Salmon ran over Bannock Pass at about 7600' elevation, with several switchbacks on both sides. I don't know what the ruling grade was but I expect it was steeper than what one would want today. But the rest of the line was splendid, and is now the alignment of Idaho Highway 28. If you ever drive that highway, you get a real appreciation for straightline railroad ROW engineering!

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by kenneo

Dave (futuremodal) and Michael Sol ------ (or anyone else who knows)

What is the grade over Lookout Pass (I-90) over the old UP and NP branches between Plummer and Saltese. From Saltese going east the NP branch operated over the PCE to St. Maries. The grades still exist, so perhaps that may be a reasonable alternative to the original PCE via St. Paul Pass. Even if it isn't and the Avery-St. Regis alignment needs to be utilized, it would be cheaper (and easier) to rebuild the Forest Service road higher on the hill and then relay the PCE on its original alignment than to build a new grade for those 10 miles.

The line over Lookout Pass has 4% grades both ways, plus switchbacks. Not exactly what one would want for a modern day mainline rebuild. From Mullan to Wallace, I believe I-90 has been widened right on top of the old NP grade, and that's is in a narrow canyon as well. I-90 over Wallace is via a viaduct - the rails were still in place when this viaduct was built, so there is room for a new rail line under it. From Wallace to Plummer is now a paved bike trail, and the swing bridge over the St. Joe was taken out and replaced with a higher bike bridge to allow barges on the river to fit under.

If one had to choose between the Coeur d'Alene line(s) or the St. Joe line, the St. Joe line nee-ex PCE is by far the superior grade. The old UP grade from "the river between the lakes" to Plummer is 3%, while the ex-Milwaukee grade from Benewah Lake to Plummer is 1.7% (and still active under the St. Maries River Railroad!). Both lines were basically water level from the lakes to their respective starts of the mountain crossings aka Lookout Pass and St. Paul Pass. Then you have the 4% of Lookout vs the 1.7% of St. Paul Pass, not to mention easier curvature of the ex-PCE.

No contest.

As for the recreational uses going on now, it is logical for a prospective new line to utilize the original plans of Milwaukee to build a lower level 5(?) mile tunnel under St. Paul Pass, which would eliminate the horseshoe at Adair and reduce the ruling grade to 0.7% (?). Then you would need to bypass Avery and the Forest Service highway to Marble Creek, so why not simply extend the grade on the north slope above Avery all the way to Marble Creek, where the old water level roadbed could be re-attained?

Or, if the southern routing is chosen, it is relatively simple to cross over to the south side of the St. Joe, run up Marble Creek to Davies Pass (at 3800' elevation), wherein it is basically downhill all the way to Lewiston (albeit a mix of new trackage/new construction and current branchline trackage) and the water level grade trackage along the north side of the Snake River to Pasco. The one particular of this alignment is that it effects the possibilities of rail to barge transfer at the far end of the Columbia/Snake Waterway system. There's nothing like multimodal interoperability to enhance optimized capacity utilization! Plus, with the Columbia Gorge fully occupied by both BNSF on the north side and UP on the south side (both of which are extremely difficult to expand for capacity enhancement), this rail to barge option allows direct service to Portland and the lower Columbia ports for non-time sensitive traffic, aka hot TOFC service Portland to the east might be out for this new railroad, but everything else is a go.

From Pasco to Puget Sound, you hope for trackage rights over the Stampede Pass line. If that's out, then a revival of the ex-Milwaukee Hanford branch between the Tri-Cities and the foot of PCE's Saddle Mountain grade might be a possibility. It should be mentioned that this routing could result in a reduced westbound grade to the summit at Boylston by starting the upgrade nearer Vernita Bridge. Again, that would be all new construction, and it abuts the Yakima Firing Range. But it does allow for revived Milwaukee service areas of yore, and reduces the 2.2% of the Beverly to Boylston line.

QUOTE:
I have a possible problem with this solution in that there is quite a tourist trade utilizing the PCE between Avery and St. Regis. Also, there is the possibility of a "Snow Train or Ski Train" to the Lookout Pass Ski Area which is just a few feet from the old roadbed for the NP branch at the Continental Divide. This alignment would bring the line up to Spokane using the alignment the MILW used for its passenger trains and PVR branch trains to a connection with the UP at the Spokane International Yard and thence via UP to Pasco. Where this line crosses the old PCE at Marengo, the PCE could be rebuilt west. This would permit a more nearly "straight line" from the MRL to Seattle.

UP has trackage rights over BNSF through Spokane over the ex-NP viaduct, but would BNSF allow another carrier to use that congested segment? UP has a hard enough time getting it's trains from Fish Lake to East Spokane, they'll often sit for hours waiting for permission to enter BNSF territory. How could a third player expect to fit in there?

But you are right, once you hit UP tracks at Fish Lake, you could make it easily to Marengo since UP has excess capacity on it's "Washy" line. From Marengo, either rebuild the PCE to the Cedar River valley via Othello and Beverly (keeping in mind you can't really mitigate the 2.2% up to Boylston since the grade starts at the end of the Columbia River bridge at Beverly), or take UP down to Wallula, then UP up to the Tri-Cities, then either BNSF's Stampede Pass line or the aforementioned Hanford alternative with it's mitigation prospects up to Boylston.

QUOTE:
The PCE R-o-W over Snoqualmie still exists and is a rails-to-trails for nearly its entire distance (John Wayne Trail) - all the way to Marengo and somewhat byond towards Plummer. And I never did understand why the MILW climbed out of the Columbia to Ellensburg the way it did. An easier grade and lower "pass" exist through the alignment of I-90, the top of the hill for I-90 is where the MILW crosses over the freeway. The alignment may have been rather putrid, though. And they could have gone around the South end of the hills north of the Tri-Cities to Sela and then used the Yakima River Canyon along with the NP.

As mentioned above, I too have always questioned the compatibility of the 2.2% up the Saddles, when you compare the ruling grades of the rest of the PCE. Since the MIlwaukee chose to cross the Columbia at Beverly, they really had no choice but straight up the Saddles. If Milwaukee had crossed closer to Vernita or White Bluffs, they could have started the Saddle Mountain grade farther east and kept the ruling westbound grade at 1% by following Umtanum Ridge in a manner similar to the old CP/SP Donner Pass grade of the nation's first transcon. Umtanum Ridge runs southeast to northwest on a straight line between the Tri-Cities and Ellensburg, with a summit slightly lower elevation than that at Boylston. Would have made a legendary grade for showing off engineering and locating skills, and given the Milwaukee an unheard of "near water" level grade over the Saddles and Cascades of 1% and 0.7% respectively. Compare that with NP's 2.2% over Stampede and GN's 2.2% over Stevens!

As for the Yakima River Canyon between Yakima and Ellensburg, that's way slow trackage even now, I think 25 mph max. It's a steep canyon with a curvy river to follow. That being said, the curvature could be mitigated by a few well placed tunnels to shorten and straighten the line. And that would keep things at water level grade.

QUOTE:
As I understand it, using an already existing R-o-W nearly to completely eliminates the EIS requirements because all that's missing is the ties and rails - very little to change in the "environment". New construction, however, takes the whole nine yards and lots of time and much much money which is why I suggested trackage rights over (mostly) the former NP while the rest of these items are taken care of.

That's why I ask if it is cheaper to build less miles of new tracks and utilize existing tracks, than it is to mostly re-lay new tracks on existing ROW? Is building maybe 100 miles of brand new construction more or less expensive than re-laying 500 miles of ballast and tracks?

[nanaimo73]

QUOTE: Originally posted by kenneo


What is the grade over Lookout Pass (I-90) over the old UP and NP branches between Plummer and Saltese. From Saltese going east the NP branch operated over the PCE to St. Maries. The grades still exist, so perhaps that may be a reasonable alternative to the original PCE via St. Paul Pass.

BN abandoned the Lookout Pass line in the fall of 1980, and had to keep the St. Regis to Haugan section running for a few months.[;)]

I'm not sure if a line could be put through Wallace now that the interstate is there.
http://terraserver.microsoft.com/image.aspx?T=1&S=12&Z=11&X=726&Y=6572&W=1&qs=%7cwallace%7cidaho%7c

[samfp1943]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH

What I find interesting here is that all the proposals for resurrecting the Pacific Coast Extension seem to center on building from the Northern Plains west to Seattle/Tacoma, which would make the line a long, expensive, glorified granger branch. Nobody has even looked at what would be required to rebuild or re-acquire the eastern portions, some of which are operated by BNSF or shortlines, and would terminate at the Twin Cities anyway, about 400 or so miles short of eastern connections.

Paul:
When I started this thread, I had a lot of questions that I was hoping that some of the members who also had interests, and knowledge in the area of the PNW; the old MILW, and what was happening up in Montana with the farmers, grain, and BNSF, There has been a lot of interesting information offered and I have certainly enjoyed the speculation and discussion.THe information shared has offered some new insights as to the dynamics of what has been happening over the past with the BNSF, and area politics.
It was purely and excercise into posibilities of that the reconstitution of the MILW lines to the PNW, and coastal terminal points would be. Since the traffic flow was in that major direction. Your interest and input, of for that matter, anyone else who is interested in speculation as to what might happen in the event the MILW might be reconstituted eastward, is certainly welcome.With their input and speculation as to what "iF", how or why, would be of interest to most.
Apparently some members have been personally involved in areas of interest revolving around the rate structures of the area [PNW], and the remediation and mitigation of environmental issues in the wake of the abandonment of the MILW in the Northwest , they have shared spome interesting info with us.
Sam

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

What I find interesting here is that all the proposals for resurrecting the Pacific Coast Extension seem to center on building from the Northern Plains west to Seattle/Tacoma, which would make the line a long, expensive, glorified granger branch. Nobody has even looked at what would be required to rebuild or re-acquire the eastern portions, some of which are operated by BNSF or shortlines, and would terminate at the Twin Cities anyway, about 400 or so miles short of eastern connections.

[samfp1943]

QUOTE: Originally posted by kenneo

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE:
What about an electric railway operation, PRB coal for power?
Sam

QUOTE:
A third option is to relocate a new PCE further south west of Missoula, connecting Missoula to Lewiston ID wherein WATCO's ex-Camas Prairie lines operate and connect with both UP and BNSF at Ayer. BNSF runs a local from Pasco to Ayer to pick up it's share of the WATCO traffic via trackage rights over UP.

There is yet another option, at lease physically. From the location where the PCE leaves the valley to climb Pipestone Pass, continue south on the old NP branch, extending it to Dillon and then utilize the basic alignment of the old UP branch to Leadore, ID and then down the Lemhi Valley to Salmon, ID, thence down the Salmon to the Snake and thence the Snake to Lewiston.

Yes, I know about the "River of No Return Primitive Areas and the Scenic River Recreation area, but - espicially if the line is electrified - this might be a doable thing. This (from Leadore) was "the other choice" for the OSL. With a new alignment over Bannock Pass, a train could go from Chicago to Seattle without benefit of a helper. The other "bad" part is that although there was once a railroad between Leadore and Salmon, and the R-o-W is still there, it is now known as Idaho 28.

Kenneo:
Naniamo 73 is, I believe is doing some research on the history ,and locations of crossings of the Continental Divide. Maybe, he could weigh in with some information or possible alternate route suggestions.
Sam

[kenneo]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE:
What about an electric railway operation, PRB coal for power?
Sam

QUOTE:
A third option is to relocate a new PCE further south west of Missoula, connecting Missoula to Lewiston ID wherein WATCO's ex-Camas Prairie lines operate and connect with both UP and BNSF at Ayer. BNSF runs a local from Pasco to Ayer to pick up it's share of the WATCO traffic via trackage rights over UP.

There is yet another option, at lease physically. From the location where the PCE leaves the valley to climb Pipestone Pass, continue south on the old NP branch, extending it to Dillon and then utilize the basic alignment of the old UP branch to Leadore, ID and then down the Lemhi Valley to Salmon, ID, thence down the Salmon to the Snake and thence the Snake to Lewiston.

Yes, I know about the "River of No Return Primitive Areas and the Scenic River Recreation area, but - espicially if the line is electrified - this might be a doable thing. This (from Leadore) was "the other choice" for the OSL. With a new alignment over Bannock Pass, a train could go from Chicago to Seattle without benefit of a helper. The other "bad" part is that although there was once a railroad between Leadore and Salmon, and the R-o-W is still there, it is now known as Idaho 28.

[kenneo]

Dave (futuremodal) and Michael Sol ------ (or anyone else who knows)

What is the grade over Lookout Pass (I-90) over the old UP and NP branches between Plummer and Saltese. From Saltese going east the NP branch operated over the PCE to St. Maries. The grades still exist, so perhaps that may be a reasonable alternative to the original PCE via St. Paul Pass. Even if it isn't and the Avery-St. Regis alignment needs to be utilized, it would be cheaper (and easier) to rebuild the Forest Service road higher on the hill and then relay the PCE on its original alignment than to build a new grade for those 10 miles.

I have a possible problem with this solution in that there is quite a tourist trade utilizing the PCE between Avery and St. Regis. Also, there is the possibility of a "Snow Train or Ski Train" to the Lookout Pass Ski Area which is just a few feet from the old roadbed for the NP branch at the Continental Divide. This alignment would bring the line up to Spokane using the alignment the MILW used for its passenger trains and PVR branch trains to a connection with the UP at the Spokane International Yard and thence via UP to Pasco. Where this line crosses the old PCE at Marengo, the PCE could be rebuilt west. This would permit a more nearly "straight line" from the MRL to Seattle.

The PCE R-o-W over Snoqualmie still exists and is a rails-to-trails for nearly its entire distance (John Wayne Trail) - all the way to Marengo and somewhat byond towards Plummer. And I never did understand why the MILW climbed out of the Columbia to Ellensburg the way it did. An easier grade and lower "pass" exist through the alignment of I-90, the top of the hill for I-90 is where the MILW crosses over the freeway. The alignment may have been rather putrid, though. And they could have gone around the South end of the hills north of the Tri-Cities to Sela and then used the Yakima River Canyon along with the NP.

As I understand it, using an already existing R-o-W nearly to completely eliminates the EIS requirements because all that's missing is the ties and rails - very little to change in the "environment". New construction, however, takes the whole nine yards and lots of time and much much money which is why I suggested trackage rights over (mostly) the former NP while the rest of these items are taken care of.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by kenneo

QUOTE: Originally posted by samfp1943

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Paul,

Why do you think eminent domain could not be utilized in a revival of the PCE (or a close approximation of an alternative)?

This was exactly my thought, eminent domain would be a tool used to reclaim ROW for reconstruction of the line.
What about some combination of the MRL plus DM&E, a pairing that would create a number of service options to the operators?
What about an electric railway operation, PRB coal for power?
As to the finances, I am sure there would be cost overruns, but to an organization that is already geared to fight issues thrown up to impede their PRB line, and already veted in a long political and economic battle, they would seem to have the knowledge to go forward to the Pacific coast. And success would help to increase access to needed investment funds.
Sam

Remember, the BN owns and controls the real estate, roadbed and tracks that the MRL runs on. The MRL is a lease. And, the BNSF will not permit any interchange connections to anyone other than the BNSF (except for MRL captive short lines). A new PCE could get the STB to force the BNSF to give trackage rights over the old NP main (BNSF Terry-Laurel; MRL Laurel-Sandpoint; BNSF thence West). The "Jawbone" part of the PCE is probably the most complete part of the line and may be the easiest to regian a right-of-way. Probably even all the way from Terry to Butte. From there to Seattle/Tacoma would probably require trackage rights over the NP, but if the right-of-way can be regained from St. Regis West, trackage rights probably would not be a real problem since the BN doesn't really want the old NP line all that much --- the State of Montana might be able to convince the BNSF to turn it over to a "PCE" company.

There's still the question of bottleneck gateways that could raise the cost of either trackage rights or new rails precipitously.

1. Between Avery and Marble Creek (a distance of about 10 miles) the Forest Service built a new paved highway over the ROW. This is in a narrow canyon of the St. Joe River, with a lot of private property belonging to some wealthy people who would fight a realignment on the south side of the river, leaving a possible new alignment on the north side above the highway, still kind of tricky from an engineering standpoint.

2. If option "B" is chosen, namely trackage rights over the ex-NP all the way to Spokane and beyond, then you have another bottleneck through the "Funnel" between Sandpoint and Spokane/Fish Lake, wherein UP's line diverts (and which by the way has plenty of extra capacity all the way to the old PCE ROW at Marengo). Through Spokane I don't believe there is room for another railroad even if the feds pressured BNSF to allow it. UP is already considering shifting to the BNSF line away from the ex-Spokane International line through the Spokane Valley, how could a third player fit in there?

If those two bottlenecks can be gotten around (one or the other would be all you need to do), there isn't much left to block a revival (in the form of high priced lands and reroutes) until you approach Seattle/Tacoma and the high priced urban property of that locale.

A third option is to relocate a new PCE further south west of Missoula, connecting Missoula to Lewiston ID wherein WATCO's ex-Camas Prairie lines operate and connect with both UP and BNSF at Ayer. BNSF runs a local from Pasco to Ayer to pick up it's share of the WATCO traffic via trackage rights over UP. If trackage rights can be had over the Stampede Pass route from Pasco to Puget Sound, and these rights further extended east to Ayer, then over WATCO's line to Lewiston, then over BG&CM to it's end of line, you have roughtly 60 miles as the crow flies to MRL near Missoula. The advantage of this routing is that the rails from Auburn all the way to Lewiston are in pretty good shape for mainline traffic and underutilized, so the only cost is whatever mitigation is required by the feds, e.g. no cost of relaying ballast and tracks over old gradient. One would then have to upgrade the branchline tracks of the BG&CM to end of line, then finally build a brand new line connecting these two points. The question then becomes....

(1) whether the cost of brand new construction of roughly 60 to 80 miles through the mountains from MRL to BG&CM, plus upgrading another 50 miles of branchline BG&CM track (combined with the trackage rights from Lewiston to Auburn)

...... is less or greater than the cost of.......

(2) a new line between Avery and Marble Creek, plus the cost of relaying ballast and tracks between Avery and St. Regis, plus relaying between Marble Creek and St. Maries, plus upgrading the current tracks from St. Maries to Plummer, plus the cost of relaying ballast and tracks from Plummer to (a) at least Marengo, then via UP trackage rights to Wallula and Pasco, or (b) the ex-SP&S grade, then via the ex-SP&S grade to Pasco, and then finally trackage rights Pasco to Auburn.

Both alternatives assume getting trackage rights over MRL east to at least Butte, wherein the old PCE grade would be revived as Kenneo suggests.

[samfp1943]

QUOTE: Originally posted by solzrules

I found this on the internet a while ago...It is talking about using the old PCE ROW as a trail for bikers and what not. It is interesting in that it is a very in depth discussion of the currnet land owners in the state of Montana that own PCE ROW. THis is the fist time I have put in a link so I hope it works.

http://www.trailsandgreenways.org/resources/highlights/taserve/MontanaReport.pdf

Well, solzrules, you did pretty good, it is a large file, but seems to have a lot of the information we have been discussing and should make some interesting reading about what is left of the physical plant of the MILW. I plan to get into this evening.
Thanks,
Sam

[solzrules]

I found this on the internet a while ago...It is talking about using the old PCE ROW as a trail for bikers and what not. It is interesting in that it is a very in depth discussion of the currnet land owners in the state of Montana that own PCE ROW. THis is the fist time I have put in a link so I hope it works.

http://www.trailsandgreenways.org/resources/highlights/taserve/MontanaReport.pdf

[daveklepper]

Historically, that is exactly what was done.

And highways and airports and harbor expansion and sometimes schools and hospitals

[samfp1943]

QUOTE: Originally posted by kenneo

QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Paul,

Why do you think eminent domain could not be utilized in a revival of the PCE (or a close approximation of an alternative)?

It's quite apparent that you haven't noticed the political fallout in the wake of the Supreme Court's recent decision regarding the use of eminent domain as a development tool. Several states have legislative proposals in their respective General Assemblies which would severely restrict the use of eminent domain, especially where a privately-owned entity is involved. Even if the use of eminent domain to resurrect the Pacific Coast Extension was legal, it would be politically unfeasible.

I wouldn't dare to argue the politics of this subject. However, the recent fuss was about the government taking of private land by condemnation (eminant domain) at the request of a private group of inventers and then transferring it to that private group for their private gain.

The legal use of eminant domain is for a use that is to benefit the public good. Usually this is restricted to transportation and public utility rights-of-way be they private or publicly owned.

Could not an argument be made in an historical context, for the use of Eminent Domain to complete a railroad? Is there not a long legal history of its use all over the country? A
railroad is considered to be a use under the precept of a greater good for society?
Sam

[kenneo]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Paul,

Why do you think eminent domain could not be utilized in a revival of the PCE (or a close approximation of an alternative)?

It's quite apparent that you haven't noticed the political fallout in the wake of the Supreme Court's recent decision regarding the use of eminent domain as a development tool. Several states have legislative proposals in their respective General Assemblies which would severely restrict the use of eminent domain, especially where a privately-owned entity is involved. Even if the use of eminent domain to resurrect the Pacific Coast Extension was legal, it would be politically unfeasible.

I wouldn't dare to argue the politics of this subject. However, the recent fuss was about the government taking of private land by condemnation (eminant domain) at the request of a private group of inventers and then transferring it to that private group for their private gain.

The legal use of eminant domain is for a use that is to benefit the public good. Usually this is restricted to transportation and public utility rights-of-way be they private or publicly owned.

[kenneo]

QUOTE: Originally posted by samfp1943

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Paul,

Why do you think eminent domain could not be utilized in a revival of the PCE (or a close approximation of an alternative)?

This was exactly my thought, eminent domain would be a tool used to reclaim ROW for reconstruction of the line.
What about some combination of the MRL plus DM&E, a pairing that would create a number of service options to the operators?
What about an electric railway operation, PRB coal for power?
As to the finances, I am sure there would be cost overruns, but to an organization that is already geared to fight issues thrown up to impede their PRB line, and already veted in a long political and economic battle, they would seem to have the knowledge to go forward to the Pacific coast. And success would help to increase access to needed investment funds.
Sam

Remember, the BN owns and controls the real estate, roadbed and tracks that the MRL runs on. The MRL is a lease. And, the BNSF will not permit any interchange connections to anyone other than the BNSF (except for MRL captive short lines). A new PCE could get the STB to force the BNSF to give trackage rights over the old NP main (BNSF Terry-Laurel; MRL Laurel-Sandpoint; BNSF thence West). The "Jawbone" part of the PCE is probably the most complete part of the line and may be the easiest to regian a right-of-way. Probably even all the way from Terry to Butte. From there to Seattle/Tacoma would probably require trackage rights over the NP, but if the right-of-way can be regained from St. Regis West, trackage rights probably would not be a real problem since the BN doesn't really want the old NP line all that much --- the State of Montana might be able to convince the BNSF to turn it over to a "PCE" company.

[bobwilcox]

QUOTE: Originally posted by daveklepper

I think BNSF would throw in the towel long before the competition gets built. They will agree to:

Invest in additional capacitiy

Charge no more for captive shippers than for shippers on two or more lines

Become more resonsive to shipper demands, particularly with regard to car supply

I and my competitors used this approach with chemical shippers and found it works. If you offer to save a customer a million starting today vs. saving a million in a year a so the customer will take his money up front every time. If the DME is not very careful with two masters at this tactic they will be in deep trouble.

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Paul,

Why do you think eminent domain could not be utilized in a revival of the PCE (or a close approximation of an alternative)?

It's quite apparent that you haven't noticed the political fallout in the wake of the Supreme Court's recent decision regarding the use of eminent domain as a development tool. Several states have legislative proposals in their respective General Assemblies which would severely restrict the use of eminent domain, especially where a privately-owned entity is involved. Even if the use of eminent domain to resurrect the Pacific Coast Extension was legal, it would be politically unfeasible.

[daveklepper]

I think BNSF would throw in the towel long before the competition gets built. They will agree to:

Invest in additional capacitiy

Charge no more for captive shippers than for shippers on two or more lines

Become more resonsive to shipper demands, particularly with regard to car supply

They will be able to do this because by the time the extension west of Powder River Basin is even thought of, they will have solved all their problems on the Transcon, which will become a money mint, handling all the traffic available with the greatest of ease, possibly even putting back the UPS traffic just removed, and they will want to keep their N monopoly, with reduced running times making car and locomotive supply a lot easier on the whole system.