I have wondered for some time why BNSF hasn't shut down Stampede Pass. It layed dormant from 1983, when BN embargoed it, to late 1996 when it was rebuilt by BNSF for heavy west coast future traffic they thought was coming, but never did.
With only 2 regular trains per day running the line, I just don't understand why BNSF doesn't shut the line down and route those trains over the Scenic Sub or the southern Washington line. I know it would be hard to shut something down that you had just spent millions on to fix, but surely it would be more economical to shut the line down and save yourself the regular maintenence costs that come with it. As a railfan I'm glad it's open, but the way the railroads do things these days it just doesn't make sense to me.
Any Ideas?
Go to this thread regarding the Washington State Rail study update.....
http://www.trains.com/trccs/forums/1010875/ShowPost.aspx
..or straight to the source itself....
http://www.wstc.wa.gov/Rail
There you can scroll down and find a capacity map for the rail lines in Washington. According to their map, the Stampede Pass line runs 6 trains a day and has a "practical" capacity for 10 per day. To find out why BNSF needs this line, just look at the usage of the Stevens Pass line, which has a practical capacity of 22 trains per day but is currently hosting 27 trains per day e.g. it is currently in a state of overusage.
Why BNSF only hosts 6 trains max is that the tunnel clearances do not allow for double stacks and auto racks, and the 2.2% grades each way (not to mention the curvature) make it unpractical for loaded grain trains.
The question many of us have asked on this forum is why the ex-Milwaukee grade over Snoqualmie Pass wasn't utilized by BNSF and/or the State to replace Stampede. That line had ruling grades of 1.6% eastbound and 0.7% westbound, ideal for grain trains bound for the Puget Sound ports, and had tunnel clearances ready made for double stack heights. In truth, it is a superior line to not only Stampede Pass but also Stevens Pass.
One reason that was hypothesized is that BNSF has some old Northern Pacific bonds that would be due with a balloon payment in full if any part of the ex-NP mainline was abandoned. So BNSF just keeps it in trackage for that reason, even when it was embargoed. BNSF did buy the Snoqualmie Pass line but let it go, apparently not realizing how valuable it would be right now.
If BNSF was to ask my advice....
...I'd tell 'em to go ahead and embargo the Stampede Pass line with tracks in place, and go ahead and develop the ex-Milwaukee corridor with the help of the State. Seems to me if the State is willing to rebuild the ex-Milwaukee line from Ellensburg to Lind, they would be just as willing to rebuild the Snoqualmie Pass line. Just enhancing the tunnel clearances of Stampede as seems to be the current preferred plan is akin to that old Bible lesson of putting new patches on old wineskins......
futuremodal wrote: ...I'd tell 'em to go ahead and embargo the Stampede Pass line with tracks in place, and go ahead and develop the ex-Milwaukee corridor with the help of the State. Seems to me if the State is willing to rebuild the ex-Milwaukee line from Ellensburg to Lind, they would be just as willing to rebuild the Snoqualmie Pass line. Just enhancing the tunnel clearances of Stampede as seems to be the current preferred plan is akin to that old Bible lesson of putting new patches on old wineskins......
NP asked for all sorts of conditions on the MILW/CNW merger -- including use of the Ellensburg -- Lind line, use of Pipestone Pass, and an assortment of "fixes" for the old NP line using the superior Milwaukee line.
The cost of $51 million to bring 1400 miles of PCE up to Class IV compared with the $120 million it cost to reactivate just Stampede Pass -- and the price didn't include tunnel clearance. A remarkable amount of money to pay and not get a particularly useful line out of it.
The timing is the issue, at the time of the reactivation of Stampede Pass, the major viaduct on the Snoqualamie Pass (Hull Creek?) was damaged. so Stampede was the least expensive choice. On another forum one of the people who worked on the study said the agreed plan was to do limited work on the trackage and move the SeaTac manifests and empty grain trains off the other two lines to the Stampede line, the MILW east of Ellensburg wasn't even considered since it missed Pasco Yd. After the line was reopened Bob Krebs authorized further upgrading than what was in the original plan. This was not covered in the original CBA and might have tipped the choice to Snoqualamie. The fact that the west side of Snoqualamie Pass in in the Tacoma watershed was a big factor as the planners did not want to risk getting tied up in litigation, their mandate was to get a route open within a year and a half. Look at how the NIMBYs have the DM&E tied up.
Further to my previous reply, timing is a big issue, the situation in 1982 was different from that of the mid-90s, as were the options. BNSF's Board authorized the limited expenditures to get Stampede Pass opened, Bob Krebs' put the money that was spent on further upgrading into the maintainence budget. The money spent on Stampede Pass over and above that specifically authorized by the Board is one of the things that got Bob Krebs in trouble with his BOD. Bob Krebs got Board approval based on the idea that costs would be low and the return would be above the required amount. When he put money in the budget to install welded rail and such it raised the money invested in the Stampede Pass line, such that the reutrn on investment fell below the level that the Board required.
For the original poster the BNSF has too much money invested to close Stampede Pass, and it would also have to turn away traffic if it did close the line.
beaulieu wrote: On another forum one of the people who worked on the study said the agreed plan was to do limited work on the trackage and move the SeaTac manifests and empty grain trains off the other two lines to the Stampede line, the MILW east of Ellensburg wasn't even considered since it missed Pasco Yd.
On another forum one of the people who worked on the study said the agreed plan was to do limited work on the trackage and move the SeaTac manifests and empty grain trains off the other two lines to the Stampede line, the MILW east of Ellensburg wasn't even considered since it missed Pasco Yd.
I'm curious - what has changed with regard to the importance of Pasco hubbing from this earlier BN consideration to the current WSDOT rail plan, which has the Ellensburg-Lind rebuild as a major component? I expect WSDOT officials consulted with BNSF when they considered that part of the current rail plan, so perhaps Pasco throughput is not as critical now as it was a few years ago?
That is an amazing report. I wish Indiana would do something like that. Could stay on that website for days and read.
Ok, I dont know anything about state of Washington and the rail lines. Excuse the idiotic question, but what happened to the MILW route across the state? Still there? or trails?
ed
futuremodal wrote: beaulieu wrote: On another forum one of the people who worked on the study said the agreed plan was to do limited work on the trackage and move the SeaTac manifests and empty grain trains off the other two lines to the Stampede line, the MILW east of Ellensburg wasn't even considered since it missed Pasco Yd. I'm curious - what has changed with regard to the importance of Pasco hubbing from this earlier BN consideration to the current WSDOT rail plan, which has the Ellensburg-Lind rebuild as a major component? I expect WSDOT officials consulted with BNSF when they considered that part of the current rail plan, so perhaps Pasco throughput is not as critical now as it was a few years ago?
Decline of carload freight originating on BNSF lines in the PNW perhaps. I don't know.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.