“The bridge collapse has created a highly difficult and unusual situation for those having to travel the I-5 corridor and calls for extraordinary measures to temporarily add additional service,” said Mark Schulze, a BNSF official, in a press release. “We will do our best to accommodate the additional traffic, and we’re glad to do it.”
Actually, Bonas, I think CSX likes Amtrak. They are just misunderstood. John
I could see the same thing happen with MARC Service....One major problem on the Beltway like a Hazmat and DC is in Gridlock....Do you think CSX would step up to the plate?
John WR Actually, Bonas, I think CSX likes Amtrak. They are just misunderstood. John
Really? All I can tell about CSX's relationship with Amtrak is from their public statements, plus what actions they take, plus being calibrating using what I know about NS and Conrail's internal and external views.
I'd say CSX, is at best, ambivalent toward Amtrak. They cancel the southern LD trains any time a storm threatens. They got out from under the Hudson Line. They are stiff-arming NY about improved service west of Schenectady.
My hunch is that the top guys at CSX don't pay Amtrak any attention at all. That's what leads to those anecdotes about the poor handling of Amtrak trains south of Richmond that you hear from time to time.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Bonas “The bridge collapse has created a highly difficult and unusual situation for those having to travel the I-5 corridor and calls for extraordinary measures to temporarily add additional service,” said Mark Schulze, a BNSF official, in a press release. “We will do our best to accommodate the additional traffic, and we’re glad to do it.”
It's probably a pretty easy thing for them to accommodate, at least temporarily. I don't believe that line is all that heavy with freight. Finding a couple of slots for a few, short, temporary passenger runs probably wasn't that hard. They'll get lots of good press and political capital for doing it w/o giving up any long term capacity.
Don:
According to NorthWest there are about 16 freights a day on this section but BNSF want to more than double to 18 more trains a day to serve the Gateway Pacific bulk terminal. BNSF wants to double track this section to handle the traffic and definitely needs good PR to help slience the NIMBYs..
blue streak 1 Don: According to NorthWest there are about 16 freights a day on this section but BNSF want to more than double to 18 more trains a day to serve the Gateway Pacific bulk terminal. BNSF wants to double track this section to handle the traffic and definitely needs good PR to help slience the NIMBYs..
16 on single track isn't very heavy. When I rode the Cascade up there a few years ago, it didn't seem like there was much traffic. . Should be pretty simple to snake a couple more passenger trains in there. Problem would be crews, but in small numbers, that's not a killer.
If they want to run that much more freight up there, I can see why they are so "glad" to help in this case! They would be almost happy this fell into their laps!
Yes, in addition to the 18 (9 loaded, 9 empty) trains that could come through serving the Gateway Pacific Terminal, BP at their Cherry Refinery is planning a rail loop that could add a round trip per day through Bellingham. The Roberts Bank terminal in British Columbia will also be adding capacity, meaning 6 more trains may be funneled on this line. Life is getting more interesting up here... Just north of the bridge collapse is the Anacortes branch, where BNSF has just added a train a day to an oil refinery loop there. Regarding the terminal, much misinformation has been spreading lately, here are the two sides:
Gateway Pacific site:http://gatewaypacificterminal.com/
Opposition Site:http://www.coaltrainfacts.org/key-facts
NorthWest: I found the information about the bulk facility by both sides informative. Maybe you should get together a bunch of information and start a thread about it. Some items would be the capacity routing over the SP&S route, Cap[acity Spokane - Sand Point, posibly adding capacity to Stampeed Pass including electrification of the tunnel, add capacity & re-electrification of Cascade tunnel route , double tracking, passenger problems, etc.
Edit -- to correct Stampeede and Cascade tunnels.
Streak,
Neither Stampede Pass nor its Tunnel were never electrified.
Mac
PNWRMNM Streak, Neither Stampede Pass nor its Tunnel were never electrified. Mac
Also, Rocky Mountaineer's new train, the Coastal Passage, will likely use this route from Vancouver to Seattle, during the two day trial this August.
Streak- I'll consider making a new thread on the terminal proposal.
NorthWest
Under the exact same circumstances, including the PR angle, I think CSX would behave the same way.
daveklepper Under the exact same circumstances, including the PR angle, I think CSX would behave the same way.
No doubt. (Unless they are stupid - which, at least in recent years, they are not!)
BNSF has three lines across the State of WA. Former GN Cascade Tunnel, shortest SPO-SEA 2.2% grades both directions. Mostly all intermodal traffic to Port of Seattle and South Seattle. One pair carload trains per day and one pair ATK per day. At or near capacity.
Former NP, Stampede Tunnel 2.2% grades both ways, low tunnel will not clear autoracks or double stack.
Former SP&S via Vancouver WA river grade through Columbia Gorge. East of Pasco line is former NP. SP&S between Spokane and Pasco torn up early 1970's, a HUGE mistake.
North South two main track Vancouver to Everett, single track Everett to Vancouver BC.
BN/BNSF has run grain trains up to 130 cars west via the Gorge for decades. Now looking at more coal trains and oil trains which are comparable in size and weight to grain trains. Ruling grades between Spokane and Pasco, and Between Vancouver WA and Centralia WA are 1%.
Recently entered new labor agreement for "Iron Triangle" by which crews work Pasco to Vancouver, Vancouver to Balmer Yard in Seattle, Seattle to Pasco via Stampede Pass. This establishes semi directional running in the Gorge and on Stampede Pass, and is intended to reduce meets. Empty grain, coal, and oil trains can get over the mountain with same power required to get loads up the 1% grade.
North of Everett, my sense of things is that some more traffic could be handled on the existing fixed plant. Failing that may need 2-4 sidings to support double the current volume, which in the scheme of things is no big deal.
The anti's material is mostly uninformed the sky is falling stuff. Their real beef is that China is committed to burning more coal.
thanks fo revealing the hidden agenda of the anti's. makes sense now. but that is a state department problem and should not curtail improvement in rail service.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.