I could see a joint line between Bill and Edgemont.
Help me out here....does BNSF send all or some coal trains north to Donkey Creek and then turn right or do they send all or some south and then east to Northport and then north to Alliance?
I have no knowledge of the operations and do not know if it all goes one way or split. This is for the eastbound coal, not for the coal heading south thru Denver.
ed
YoHo1975 wrote:It would cost billons for a redundant route.
So you're saying it'd cost BNSF more to build a new line from Bill to Edgemont, than it will for DM&E to build a new line from Wall to Bill and beyond?
Bill to Edgemont is roughly 60 miles.
Here's an interesting new tatic BNSF could try - get a sudden urge to build a new line from Bill to Edgemont, one that just happens to follow DM&E's prefered route.
At the very least, that'd be a despicable tacit that I could respect (as opposed to this Mayo/ICE crossing stuff)!
Why not ask them?
I doubt if they would be interested and here is why. If they get the line up and running they could have a pretty good line. They will have the shortest route to the upper midwest and based on rail/barge rates they could tap into the Ohio River power plants.
They are not going to want efficient competition on those routings.
MP173 wrote: Who said "takeover"? Wasnt me. ...just to hand over it's franchise to BNSF?
Who said "takeover"? Wasnt me.
...just to hand over it's franchise to BNSF?
Hmmmm, doesn't handing over the franchise equate to a takeover? Perhaps you were just refering to the DM&E PRB extension.
They are doing the heavy lifting to get this thing approved and find $$$ to do it. I dont think with all the effort being put forth that I would want to share my franchise with BNSF or UP or anyone.
My understanding is that DM&E is still soliciting for private funds. What better source than someone who can offer you some added capacity in return?
If BNSF and UP can share, why not DM&E?
ericsp wrote: It sounds like BNSF is threatening to hold its breath and beat its fists on the ground until it gets its way. Perhaps BNSF should stop hauling coal so it can speed up its intermodal trains.
It sounds like BNSF is threatening to hold its breath and beat its fists on the ground until it gets its way. Perhaps BNSF should stop hauling coal so it can speed up its intermodal trains.
And people say that UP is a bully.
Lionel collector, stuck in an N scaler's modelling space.
MP173 wrote: Yeah, I agree with Yo on this. Why would DME go to all of the trouble to upgrade a line and fight the wonderful city of Rochester...just to hand over it's franchise to BNSF? Perhaps they will if they are closet Open Accessers and choose that time to exit the closet.Dave, you should contact DME and see if they are available for such a deal. ed
Yeah, I agree with Yo on this. Why would DME go to all of the trouble to upgrade a line and fight the wonderful city of Rochester...just to hand over it's franchise to BNSF? Perhaps they will if they are closet Open Accessers and choose that time to exit the closet.
Dave, you should contact DME and see if they are available for such a deal.
Not sure how we went from sharing trackage between Bill and Edgemont to a BNSF takeover of DM&E?
spokyone wrote: futuremodal wrote: And in the larger picture, given US federal policy over the last century, a large corporation is either going to get competition, or they're going to get regulation. Given that in this particular case BNSF would benefit more from the former than the latter, since the former is no real threat to BNSF's PRB dominance and (as I have pointed out) a potential partner in dual track usage agreements, in this case BNSF is "dumb".Least you forget FM, BNSF already has competion and has dual track usage agreements with UP
futuremodal wrote: And in the larger picture, given US federal policy over the last century, a large corporation is either going to get competition, or they're going to get regulation. Given that in this particular case BNSF would benefit more from the former than the latter, since the former is no real threat to BNSF's PRB dominance and (as I have pointed out) a potential partner in dual track usage agreements, in this case BNSF is "dumb".
And in the larger picture, given US federal policy over the last century, a large corporation is either going to get competition, or they're going to get regulation. Given that in this particular case BNSF would benefit more from the former than the latter, since the former is no real threat to BNSF's PRB dominance and (as I have pointed out) a potential partner in dual track usage agreements, in this case BNSF is "dumb".
Least you forget FM, BNSF already has competion and has dual track usage agreements with UP
So is that "smart" or "dumb" on BNSF's part?
You're making a lot of assumptions that I just don't see as likely.
The assumption that DME would even seriously offer BNSF, a direct competitor any meaningful access is unfounded and of course, Given that all reregulation attempts since Staggers have failed, I find it unlikely that there's a significant concern on that front.
Sure, people get screwed when a train goes of the rails, but it screws BNSF too.
The short answer on this one is that BNSF is argueably the most successful US railroad, they didn't get that way by being dumb.
YoHo1975 wrote: FM's insistance that BNSF is dumb for not wanting competition is just strange.
FM's insistance that BNSF is dumb for not wanting competition is just strange.
A bit of a mischaracterization there, Yo. I said BNSF is foolish for not taking this opportunity of other-financed PRB infrastructure expansion to garner a new outlet for their share of the PRB coal market. Here it is, a brand new east-west rail corridor from Bill to Edgemont that would potentially add a third more direct route for eastbound coal trains, and all BNSF had to do to use it would be to play nice and perhaps offer to build a few sidings between those two points in exchange for overhead rights.
JOdom wrote: YoHo1975 wrote: C&NW certainly also spent plenty of their own money to get to Powder River. Of course, how would CB&Q and C&NW have done without government subsidies in the 19th century? Actually C&NW spent plenty of UP's money - C&NW didn't have any of its own. That's why "C&NW's" line was jointly owned by UP before UP swallowed C&NW.
YoHo1975 wrote: C&NW certainly also spent plenty of their own money to get to Powder River. Of course, how would CB&Q and C&NW have done without government subsidies in the 19th century?
C&NW certainly also spent plenty of their own money to get to Powder River.
Of course, how would CB&Q and C&NW have done without government subsidies in the 19th century?
Actually C&NW spent plenty of UP's money - C&NW didn't have any of its own. That's why "C&NW's" line was jointly owned by UP before UP swallowed C&NW.
Well yes, but they also spent their own cash to build lines into Wyoming. Many of which were then abandoned in favor of CB&Q trackage rights.
So BNSF is politically correct in protesting DME's expansion plans.
However, if a potential "situation" at Savanna is the best they can come up with, it probably won't work.
Maybe they should ship all of their coal to Winona--I can think of a couple of railroads that might welcome the interchange business!
Carl
Railroader Emeritus (practiced railroading for 46 years--and in 2010 I finally got it right!)
CAACSCOCOM--I don't want to behave improperly, so I just won't behave at all. (SM)
I'm not sure how much fear they should have. They can't get to the Pacific coast.
Incidently, someone asked why intermodal would be higher priority. Intermodal is almost always higher priority then unit train comodities. Generally the goods are more time sensitive.
youngengineer wrote: BNSF I'm sure is also scared of what could happen with DM@E if later down the road they were to be absorbed by another road, possibly even an eastern road.
BNSF I'm sure is also scared of what could happen with DM@E if later down the road they were to be absorbed by another road, possibly even an eastern road.
Now that is an interesting thought.
Lets go back in history the BN bought heavily into the PRB with its own money, they kept rates down to insure future loadings. Now FM wants the DM@E to come on with the governments money, investor dollars, and just get everything handed to them. It would be idiotic for the BNSF and UP to sit by and let the DM@E get a free ride into the PRB.
Jeffr:Thanks for clarifying the operations of the interlocker. With it being automatic, that would tend to slow it down also. As I understand "automatic" it is first come, first serve. I believe BNSF is single track thru there, so they would have to "take turns". Often on the double track crossing of CN and CSX at Wellsboro, In., I will hear the CN talking about CSX slowing down on one track to allow a second train to come thru.
I have crossed at Fort Madison and remember once sitting on the bridge waiting for a barge to cross. Interesting operation there. The toll gate keeper controls the bridge and the railroad. Now, that would be an interesting and busy job.
Imagine that? BNSF = NIMBY...lol. The elk of Abo canyon must be snickering into their thistle over this one.
It would be interesting to know more about the laws that govern the politics of diamonds, if BNSF has any leg to stand on with their claims of hardship, then I'd bet the history books would be full of instances where competing railroads did similarly hoping to box in their competition. THAT might make a great article for trains magazine as far as recapping similar struggles of the past .
When first reading this article, my gut hunch fell towards exactly what Oltmann seems to suspect , everybody loves to to milk the cash cow when it's in the barn. In fact I half suspected that the news item at the core of the "RR's can't keep pace with coal demand" might have been more of a planted thought process with similar ambition than it was a real news story, it sure would not surprise me.
Control of the diamond is an interesting possibility, too.
I have an old video of the Mississippi valley during winter that includes savanah I think. Shot during the 80s. This is a fairly congested location. BNSF has a point.
Here's something to consider though, they may be rattling the trees looking for money to improve that interlocking.
FM's insistance that BNSF is dumb for not wanting competition is just strange. It flys in the face of what's been normal business practice for 200+ years in this country. BNSF has to look out for one thing and that's BNSF.
So they file and hope they get a new flyover out of the deal.
MP173 wrote: Several years ago BNSF purchased and took control of the IC track a few miles up the river near East Dubuque. My guess is that IC saw they could get a couple of bucks out of the deal, reduce their costs, and not affect their operations. BNSF gained control.
Several years ago BNSF purchased and took control of the IC track a few miles up the river near East Dubuque. My guess is that IC saw they could get a couple of bucks out of the deal, reduce their costs, and not affect their operations. BNSF gained control.
In another case, CN wanted to gain control of the DMIR line around Duluth. They ended up buying the DMIR, the B&LE and a few lake boats.
Looking through some out of date employee timetables from when the SOO owned the ex-MILW and also one from the IMRL days, it appears that the BNSF/ICE crossing is an automatic interlocking. It shows the drawbridge as being manual, but the at grade crossing has a symbol for an automatic one.
As to barge traffic, I believe river traffic has the right of way.
Jeff
MP173 wrote: Zardoz:I will attempt to explain the situation at Savanah. This is subject to correction by folks that are more of an authority than I am. 1. BNSF mainline crosses ICE at grade in Savanah. The BNSF mainline runs from Chicago to Twin Cities adn then on the Pacific Northwest. 2. I am guessing (subject to correction) that ICE runs about 6-8 trains daily over the crossing.3. Also speculating that ICE runs those trains at a reduced speed due to the Mississsippi River bridge crossing. Possibly 10-20 mph. 4. ICE has an operator which controls the bridge for rail or barge traffic. I am guessing that operator also controls the interlocked crossing (subject to correction).5. If DME/ICE increases the train frequency, based on previously reports to 3 loaded coal trains to Chicago and beyond, then that would be 6 more movements per day. 6. A 120 car coal train is about 6500 feet in length. At 10 mph it will take 7.5 minutes to move one mile. I am not a railroad operations guy, but my guess is that the movement from the Mississippi River line to the Chicago line (a right hand turn), crossing the river, crossing the BNSF, and then getting back to speed will consume close to 30 minutes. The operator will want to keep the train moving rather than stop it on the bridge. Perhaps more than 30 minutes per train will be consumed of red blocks for the BNSF trains.7. 30 minutes x 6 trains is 3 hours of additional non movement time for the BNSF. Throw in the 6-8 existing train movements and now you got some serious delay time. Throw in the barge traffic. I dont know who has the right of way...barge or trains, but suddenly this is a 'Hot Spot'.So, if in fact the train frequency doubles and if the ICE controls the plant, there could be backups of the fleet footed BNSF intermodal trains. Even if ICE does not control the plant, there is a lot more movement to be managed.Several years ago BNSF purchased and took control of the IC track a few miles up the river near East Dubuque. My guess is that IC saw they could get a couple of bucks out of the deal, reduce their costs, and not affect their operations. BNSF gained control. Similar situation is occuring in Chicago on the old GMO line to Joliet, although I am not sure how that is being managed.I see BNSF's point, but it is a real stretch, when one considers the amount of delay the BNSF's own coal trains cause for their operations, other railroads operations, and the driving public.Better be careful, or they will open a can of worms.I think it is about control of Savanah...tit for tat. Drop the objections and get the interlocking plant.ed
Zardoz:I will attempt to explain the situation at Savanah. This is subject to correction by folks that are more of an authority than I am.
1. BNSF mainline crosses ICE at grade in Savanah. The BNSF mainline runs from Chicago to Twin Cities adn then on the Pacific Northwest.
2. I am guessing (subject to correction) that ICE runs about 6-8 trains daily over the crossing.
3. Also speculating that ICE runs those trains at a reduced speed due to the Mississsippi River bridge crossing. Possibly 10-20 mph.
4. ICE has an operator which controls the bridge for rail or barge traffic. I am guessing that operator also controls the interlocked crossing (subject to correction).
5. If DME/ICE increases the train frequency, based on previously reports to 3 loaded coal trains to Chicago and beyond, then that would be 6 more movements per day.
6. A 120 car coal train is about 6500 feet in length. At 10 mph it will take 7.5 minutes to move one mile. I am not a railroad operations guy, but my guess is that the movement from the Mississippi River line to the Chicago line (a right hand turn), crossing the river, crossing the BNSF, and then getting back to speed will consume close to 30 minutes. The operator will want to keep the train moving rather than stop it on the bridge. Perhaps more than 30 minutes per train will be consumed of red blocks for the BNSF trains.
7. 30 minutes x 6 trains is 3 hours of additional non movement time for the BNSF. Throw in the 6-8 existing train movements and now you got some serious delay time. Throw in the barge traffic. I dont know who has the right of way...barge or trains, but suddenly this is a 'Hot Spot'.
So, if in fact the train frequency doubles and if the ICE controls the plant, there could be backups of the fleet footed BNSF intermodal trains. Even if ICE does not control the plant, there is a lot more movement to be managed.
Several years ago BNSF purchased and took control of the IC track a few miles up the river near East Dubuque. My guess is that IC saw they could get a couple of bucks out of the deal, reduce their costs, and not affect their operations. BNSF gained control. Similar situation is occuring in Chicago on the old GMO line to Joliet, although I am not sure how that is being managed.
I see BNSF's point, but it is a real stretch, when one considers the amount of delay the BNSF's own coal trains cause for their operations, other railroads operations, and the driving public.
Better be careful, or they will open a can of worms.
I think it is about control of Savanah...tit for tat. Drop the objections and get the interlocking plant.
Just to add to this: I have observed two solid hours of river traffic through the swing span at Fort Madison and because river has the ROW, trains are backed up. This could happen at Sabula. Perhaps four consecutive trains might tie up the diamond for hours.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.