I wouldn't assume all the decisions made by corporate are the right ones for their company, much less society. The classic economist, Adam Smith, is always held up as the paragon of the virtues ofmarket capitalism: "The Invisible Hand." Turns out he is often misquoted and thought decisions by big capitalists were often quite wrong for the public.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Murphy Siding [snip] Related subject: We keep discussing electrification. Wouldn't the Cascade Tunnel be a prime candidate for it?
Yes, from a 'need' perspective; but probably not from any other.
Clearances there are so close with a double-stack that overhead catenary is not possible to install. See the photo at:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/9131426@N06/4141586631/
However, I wonder if a 600 volt 3rd rail installation could be fit in at the lower side of the tunnel - see the photos at:
http://media-2.web.britannica.com/eb-media/45/124945-004-B7B379EA.jpg and
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=282858
as in the New York City operations. That could power either dedicated electrics for there only, or pick-up shoes on a western mountain version of the old New Haven dual-power FL-9's and whatever the Amtrak/ Metro-North current replacement is called - I believe it is P32AC-DM - see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GE_Genesis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MNR_P32_Tremont.JPG and
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=265278
Also, as an isolated electric operation, the electrics would have to be added on and taken off before and after going through the tunnel; otherwise, as a run-through the motive power districts and utilization would get all messed up. On the other hand, as compared to the current wait for the bore to clear out, maybe that delay would be acceptable, or no worse. Also, if a train has to wait for either an opposing or preceding move to clear through the tunnel, the connect and disconnect operations might not take all that much additional time anyway.
As much as I like electrification, I also have to wonder if this problem cannot be solved more economically by installing a souped-up ventilating system, and/or drilling a couple of ventilating shafts down from the top of the mountain, and installing high-power exhaust fans.
- Paul North.
Paul_D_North_JrAlso, as an isolated electric operation, the electrics would have to be added on and taken off before and after going through the tunnel; otherwise, as a run-through the motive power districts and utilization would get all messed up. On the other hand, as compared to the current wait for the bore to clear out, maybe that delay would be acceptable, or no worse. Also, if a train has to wait for either an opposing or preceding move to clear through the tunnel, the connect and disconnect operations might not take all that much additional time anyway.
The story begins falling apart with the sentence, "Because the sun directly strikes south-facing peaks, they're susceptible to avalanches in the spring." Every study I have read on avalanches from the Rockies to the Cascades concludes that the main causes (to describe here in the most simple of terms) are periods of heavy snowfall followed by rain and/or sudden warming, often after cycles in which layers of ice or crusted snow have formed between larger snow slabs. None of these studies have ever mentioned exposure to sunlight. In fact, history says the 1910 Wellington avalanche cited in the story happened during rainfall, with thunder reported as a possible trigger.
The worst avalanche zone on the Stevens Pass route, for the railroad anyway, was the stretch between Wellington and Scenic on the loops which were abandoned in 1929. But the route proposed in this story would not protect trains from avalanches, as the author claims. Between Scenic and Wellington alone, his proposed route would take trains through 13 documented avalanche chutes, half of which are rated as "high" to "frequent" for slide potential. To say nothing of the large slide zone west of Deception Creek.
Before claiming the old Cascade Tunnel would afford BNSF greater capacity than the current Cascade Tunnel, there needs to be a more thorough comparison of the two. (I trust RWM and PDN will crunch the numbers against speed, emissions, etc., and give us the results.)
Old Cascade Tunnel: 2.63 miles long, 1.75 percent grade eastward, 3375-foot summit at east end.
New Cascade Tunnel: 7.79 miles long, 1.57 percent grade eastward, 2883-foot summit at east end.
20 minutes to clear fumes from new tunnel. How long to clear from old tunnel?
It seems to me the biggest shortcoming of both tunnels is their steep grade within, resulting in more exhaust build-up than should have been for a summit tunnel. Closest counterparts at Snoqualmie Pass and Stampede Pass have minimal grades within.
The story's comparison to Donner is like comparing apples to avacados. Donner in its day had two main lines over/through the summit. The most cursory look at their topography shows how CP (later SP) was able to follow ridgelines and hilltops, avoiding most avalanche areas, whereas GN through the Cascades had few such options.
And please don't pluralize Sierra Nevada with an "s". Call them the Sierras, maybe.
Bruce KellyIt seems to me the biggest shortcoming of both tunnels is their steep grade within, resulting in more exhaust build-up than should have been for a summit tunnel. Closest counterparts at Snoqualmie Pass and Stampede Pass have minimal grades within.
I remember reading in a ''history of American railroads'' book by either Holbrook or Stover about the latter-day locating engineer, Edward Gillette* (1854-1936), for whom the Burlington named a town in Wyoming, which we now know as the heart of the Powder River Basin coal and railroad operations. (See, for example, the ''Gillette and Campbell County Historical Outline'' at: http://www.ccgov.net/departments/museum/gillette_history/index.html and also "Gillette Photos - From Wyoming Tales and Trails - This page: Gillette, The coming of the Railroad, Edward Gillette." at: http://www.wyomingtalesandtrails.com/gillette2.html ). One of his principles was to locate the railroad on the sunny, southward-facing side of a valley, to avoid the snow-build-up and avalanche risk. The proposition in the article is directly contrary to that principle.
*He might be worthy of a thread and discussion all by himself. He did write a book, which is referenced in the 2nd link above, as follows: Gillette, Edward, Locating the Iron Trail (Boston: Christopher Publishing House, 1925), pp. 74-76. You just know I'm now going to be looking for a copy to borrow or buy . . . Any other comments or suggestions will be appreciated, since this thread is more likely than most to attract an audience with knowledge and interest in such matters. Murphy, you're such an 'agitator' . . .
The rest of Bruce's comments seem 'right on' to me, and don't need much further elaboration. The grade difference is negligible; more important is the elevation difference of almost 500 ft., tot he disadvanatge of the Old Cascade Tunnel. A grade up to it of 1.75 % = 92.4 ft. per mile without any compensation for curvature; but deducting from that for, say, half of the track being curved on a typical 8-degree = 716 ft. radius curve at the rate of 0.04 % per degree would be 0.32 % in the curves or 0.16 % on average; accordingly, the actual rise/ increase in elevation on the compensated grade would be only about 1.60 % or 85 feet per mile. Thus, to rise that 500 ft. would require an additional 5.9 miles; at 20 MPH that would add about 0.30 hr. or 18 minutes to each side of the tunnel, or 0.60 hr. = 36 minutes total. As compared to that, the delay to add and remove electric helpers through the New Cascade Tunnel might be a 'wash' with regard to time.
Obviously, the exhaust fumes could be cleared faster from the much shorter Old Cascade Tunnel, even without a ventilating system equivalent to that in the New Cascade Tunnel. Therefore, the intervals between trains could be shortened up, and hence train frequency could be increased somewhat. But first the Old Tunnel would have to be enlarged to clear double-stacks - and that ventilating system added, among other major capital expenditures. I have no knowledge or recollection of either its lining or geological conditions - though I would not be surprised to learn that they are poor - but until BNSF got done with that, I expect that either electrifying with 3rd rail or greatly improving the ventilation at New Cascade Tunnel would be competitive, and likely more economical.
Bruce KellyThe story begins falling apart with the sentence, "Because the sun directly strikes south-facing peaks, they're susceptible to avalanches in the spring." Every study I have read on avalanches from the Rockies to the Cascades concludes that the main causes (to describe here in the most simple of terms) are periods of heavy snowfall followed by rain and/or sudden warming, often after cycles in which layers of ice or crusted snow have formed between larger snow slabs. None of these studies have ever mentioned exposure to sunlight. I
Although what you say is true, sunshine does have an important effect: (from Wikipedia)
Slab avalanches account for around 90% of avalanche-related fatalities, and occur when there is a strong, cohesive layer of snow known as a slab. These are usually formed when falling snow is deposited by the wind on a lee slope, or when loose ground snow is transported elsewhere. When there is a failure in a weak layer, a fracture very rapidly propagates so that a large area, that can be hundreds of meters in extent and several meters thick, starts moving almost instantaneously. A third starting type is an isothermal avalanche, which occurs when the snow pack becomes saturated by water. These tend to also start and spread out from a point.
I concur with what beaulieu and zardoz wrote above - they got to those very valid points before I could.
Flathead Tunnel is about 7 miles in length - references vary on that - but it appears to have a somewhat larger cross-section, which would promote train-induced ventilation. See this photo:
http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=756678
I'll see if I can find the typical actual dimensions to the top center of the crown and for width of each.
Snoqualmie Pass was the Milwaukee Road's more southerly crossing, before it was abandoned and removed in the 1980s.
What are the pros and cons of that, from an operating persepctive, as best as we can discern them ? Tunnels and clearances for double-stacks and multi-level auto-racks ? Profile, grades and elevations ? Bridges still in place ? Connections to other BNSF lines - and which ones, with what kinds of traffic ? Are they more or less congested than the present routes ? Might this be part of a trade or swap to give up or sell other routes for commuter or passenger service ? Comparative distances and times across Washington state ? A different/ better/ southern approach to the Seattle-Tacoma region ? Any decent on-line traffic sources ? Liklihood of serious NIMBY objections ? Is any of it a trail now ? Etc., etc.
Snoqualmie would pose only a 0.7 percent climb against WB grain headed for Puget Sound ports, coal headed for Centralia, WA, and coal, petroleum coke, and potash headed for Vancouver, BC, area ports (Roberts Bank, Neptune Terminals), vs. 2.2 percent on either Stevens or Stampede (and vs. the long way around via Wishram and Vancouver, WA).
EB loaded stacks (if able to clear the tunnel and if Americans ever get back to buying foreign stuff in droves again) would face 1.74 percent on the west slope, which tapers down to only 0.4 percent through Snoqualmie Tunnel.
New trackage over Snoqualmie would likely connect to the current BNSF Stampede Sub near Easton on the east side of the mountains. Don't have my fleet of maps handy here at work to tell you exactly where the connection would be on the west side.
I believe there's one bridge on the west slope that would need rebuilding.
MILW grade is currently a trail. I imagine BNSF would face some major P.R., legal, and environmental hurdles to get that property back from the public.
Paul_D_North_JrAlso, as an isolated electric operation, the electrics would have to be added on and taken off before and after going through the tunnel; otherwise, as a run-through the motive power districts and utilization would get all messed up. On the other hand, as compared to the current wait for the bore to clear out, maybe that delay would be acceptable, or no worse. Also, if a train has to wait for either an opposing or preceding move to clear through the tunnel, the connect and disconnect operations might not take all that much additional time anyway. As much as I like electrification, I also have to wonder if this problem cannot be solved more economically by installing a souped-up ventilating system, and/or drilling a couple of ventilating shafts down from the top of the mountain, and installing high-power exhaust fans.
Or how about GE's hybrid locomotive???
IIRC, the battery pack on the hybrid was capable of putting out the equivalent of 2,000HP for one hour (the batteries have a power limit). One approach would be to run the locomotives with the diesel engine running at half power with the batteries making up the rest. While not in the same league as using electric locomotives, I would think a 40 to 50 % reduction in exhaust and waste heat would ease the ventilation requirements.
- Erik
beaulieuWhere some problems with ventilating occur, they happen because the Dispatcher doesn't begin the ventilation promptly. This can happen because the Dispatcher is distracted by things happening elsewhere on his district, or if he (she) just isn't paying attention
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Item: The Stampede Pass & Tunnel serves as a 'safety valve' for the Stevens Pass & Cascade Tunnel route. The Stampede Pass line is still in service, but not used much. I don't think BNSF management would consider changing the route to the old Cascade Tunnel route. That's talking mega-$$$. Item: Mike Walker lists the Flathead Tunnel as 7.0 miles long. I don't know the exact length. My old BN ETT notes that it must be "flushed" after each train by the fan system. Anyone know how long that takes? Item: I have a friend in Seattle that rides the old MILW Homestake Pass ROW on his motorcycle. He says he never sees hikers (litterers) on the path, but you can bet there would be a huge howl if it was converted back to a railway, just for "General NIMBY drill".
Mike Power has overlooked some important operating characteristics when he judged the Cascade Tunnel as “An Engineering Mistake” in the January 2010 issue of TRAINS. In constructing Cascade Tunnel, Great Northern advertised that the route through the “new” (1929) tunnel would be 7.66 miles shorter than through the first tunnel. Mike indicates that 19.85 miles of the old line could be abandoned, but 18.6 miles would have to be rebuilt under his proposal. That means that his route would only save 1.25 miles, and that the “new” Cascade Tunnel route would be some 6.41 miles shorter than his proposal.
6.4 miles might not seem like much, but considering that track speed would be probably no more than 25 MPH (as it is today) and that the ruling grade would be 2.2 percent, most trains (especially those going uphill) would probably be going no faster than 20 MPH at best. This equates to an additional 20 minutes of running time with his proposal. Mike also failed to mention that the first Cascade Tunnel, though “only” 2.63 miles long, was an operation with electric locomotives to avoid the problem with fumes in the tunnel. Since the first Cascade Tunnel was even slightly steeper (eastbound) than the “new” version, logic would dictate that under his proposal, the first Cascade Tunnel, when changed to a diesel locomotive operation, would also have needed a tunnel flush. The “new” tunnel can sometimes require up to 30 minutes for a flush after an eastbound train. Since the first Cascade Tunnel was about 1/3 the distance of the “new” tunnel, estimating a 10-minute flush would not be unreasonable. Adding a 10 minute flush time to the extra running time caused by a longer route (20 minutes) and you get 30 minutes, equal to an eastward flush with the “new” tunnel. Therefore, there would be no capacity advantage to Mike’s proposal, and for westward trains, that require a minimal flush even with the longer tunnel (they’re going downhill), the “new” tunnel’s shorter route would probably give it the advantage. There would extra costs associated with both Mike’s proposal and the current operation to compare, but Mike’s proposal would not yield more capacity.
In the same vein, Mike says that the capacity of the “new” tunnel route dropped in 1956 when GN ended electric operations. Again, not true; it actually increased. The only way his statement could be true is if GN, in keeping its electric operation, would have extended electrification west from Skykomish to Everett, Seattle, and beyond. Far outweighing the time restraints of a tunnel flush would be the need to stop and modify locomotive power at Skykomish and Wenatchee. Taking an eastward train as an example, today’s trains depart origin with enough power to make the top of the hill. Upon arrival at Wenatchee, some power may be cut to return west, but no power is cut or added at Skykomish. In the days of an electrified operation, 100 percent of the inbound power would be useless for moving the train east from Skykomish. Given the increasing size of trains to today’s distributed power operations, the amount of power that would have to be available for an all-electric operation for the 33 trains Mike cites as the limit with today’s increased tonnages, would be a huge capital investment, yet these locomotives would be captive to a 72-mile segment of track; a very poor investment. The amount of time necessary to add and cut power to EVERY train would probably exceed that of an eastbound tunnel flush by a factor of at least three, creating such bottlenecks at either end of the electrification that overall capacity would be much less than today’s operation. In addition, there would also be the added costs of crews to perform the locomotive modifications, personnel to maintain the locomotives and other infrastructure associated with the electric operation, and the certain delays that would result when necessary to reposition locomotives from one side of the hill to the other when flows were not balanced.
The primary limiting factor for traffic through Cascade Tunnel today is the grade, rather than the tunnel, which is the case with most such heavy grades. And, before I would label something as a “mistake,” I would also remember that of all the routes cresting the Cascades in Washington State ever constructed, only one has warranted continuous operation since it was built: the “new” or current Cascade Tunnel. Clearly, more than one railroad manager over the past 80 years has seen value in keeping it running.
**
This is the letter I wrote last week to TRAINS about Mike Power's article....it's probably too long to print.
All I said and and other stuff was basically covered in the excellent posts by Bruce Kelly and Paul North and others.
--Mark Meyer(Mark- forgive me. I added some artificial paragraph indentions to your text. Otherwise, it was darn near impossible for folks with eyes like mine to read it on the screen. -Norris (Murphy Siding) )
Mark Meyer
beaulieuIn a discussion on the Trainorders forum, a former Chief Dispatcher for BN who was in charge of the line through the Cascade Tunnel said that the Tunnel Ventilation issue being a limiting factor on line capacity is a bunch of Horsefeathers. If it was a problem, then adding a mid-tunnel door like the Mount MacDonald Tunnel on CP has would solve the problem at a reasonable cost. .....
The Mount MacDonald Tunnel has more than a door at mid-tunnel. There are also fans, and a large diameter shaft about 1/4 mile deep leading down to the tunnel. This shaft has a divider for the full length to keep the two halves of the tunnel separate during the ventilation process. The tunnel alignment was given some curves so that the mid-tunnel facility could be located at a point where reaching the surface was feasible. The cost for something similar for the Cascade Tunnel could easily by quite UNreasonable.
John
Bruce Kelly MILW grade is currently a trail. I imagine BNSF would face some major P.R., legal, and environmental hurdles to get that property back from the public.
This is true. I believe the primary push in increasing capacity over Stampede or rebuilding over Snoqualmie will be how successful the Washington DOT is in expanding rail passenger service between Seattle and Portland in the future. One way to add capacity is to get rid of all UP trains destined to and from Seattle and Tacoma and the heavy BNSF grain and coal trains to and from the same places that use this route. But this will need another route over the mountains, and there it will not be the Cascade Tunnel route, because it has to be one that can be used by UP trains to and from the east.
Murphy SidingbeaulieuWhere some problems with ventilating occur, they happen because the Dispatcher doesn't begin the ventilation promptly. This can happen because the Dispatcher is distracted by things happening elsewhere on his district, or if he (she) just isn't paying attention If it were an issue that affected train capacity, wouldn't it become a priority to see that the dispatcher began ventilation in a timely fashion? How hard would it be to set up something that automatically alerts the dispatcher when the train clears the tunnel? If I read it right, the doors are closed (?) to ventilate? how does that work?
If it were an issue that affected train capacity, wouldn't it become a priority to see that the dispatcher began ventilation in a timely fashion? How hard would it be to set up something that automatically alerts the dispatcher when the train clears the tunnel? If I read it right, the doors are closed (?) to ventilate? how does that work?
The normal position for the door which is located at the east (uphill) end of the tunnel is closed. When a train occupies a track circuit on either side of the door it opens and stays open until there is no train in the circuit. For an eastbound train climbing the grade through the tunnel the door is closed until it nears the east end and one of the two fans which are located at the east end is blowing air down towards the train. With a typical train pretty well filling the cross-section of the tunnel this keeps the exhaust fumes behind the locomotives, but does not pressurized the tunnel in front of the train. As soon as the last car of the EB train clears the tunnel the door will close and the Dispatcher should start the second fan. If this is done promptly, a WB train can leave the siding at the east end of the tunnel as soon as the EB clears the siding switch and the switch and signals clear for him. When the tunnel door opens for the WB the near end of the exhaust plume from the EB should have been pushed 1000' or so down the tunnel, when the tunnel door opens both fans should be shut off. The WB freight will act like a plunger and force the EB's exhaust plume ahead of itself while the turbulence around its cars will drag the plume from the WB behind it. Once the WB is completely in the tunnel the door again closes and the Dispatcher should start one fan. The problem requiring a time consuming flush of the tunnel comes when you have multiple EB trains closely following each other. WB trains act as natural method of flushing the tunnel of fumes, as since they are traveling downhill they generate relatively little exhaust themselves, and their speed is faster which creates its own airflow.
beaulieuWB trains act as natural method of flushing the tunnel of fumes, as since they are traveling downhill they generate relatively little exhaust themselves, and their speed is faster which creates its own airflow.
This does bring up the required throttle setting for the dynamic brakes operating. Another thread a while back listed different setting for the dynamics to operate on different models. So the locomotive in the consist requiring the highest throttle setting for dynamics (coolin traction motors and grids) would be controlling. Anyone know what models are usually on this route and their settings?
A very expensive alternative would be for BNSF to temporarily shut down Stampede pass tunnel and enlarge it for all traffic including any future electrification; improve exhaust removal, provide sidings ( 10 - 16k long) on both side of tunnel for fluidity, improve signaling, Maybe a mid tunnel vent shaft?, etc.. Again another question would be what are the grades in this tunnel? This would need to be weighed against rebuilding the MILW line. Both capital costs and operating costs paybacks of each alternative would need to be carefully considered.
The NP route through Stampede would probably need earlier reconstruction because once P-NW traffic rebounds much that route will be needed to prevent delays to traffic This will be certainly an early decision for BH that we will never be made aware of the internal process!.
I took another look at the map/ plan and profile accompanying this article, and realized a few more aspects that make the proposal less than desirable, in addition to those capably pointed out above, such as by Mark Meyer:
- By the proposed route cutting out that 1.25 miles on the 2.2% grade, there is about 145 ft. of vertical rise that would have to be made up someplace else. It appears that a little of that would be accomplished by starting the proposed steeper grade a little further west of Skykomish, where the existing grade is still only 1.0 %. But the rest would have to be made up in the other 18 miles or so of the proposed route, which will add about 0.10 to 0.15% to the existing 2.2 % grade up to the new tunnel's alignment to make the proposed grade around 2.3 to 2.35 %. That's not a very attractive solution these days - a 2.2 % grade is pretty much unacceptable for new mainline construction, so why build or propose something that would be even a little worse to operate from a grade perspective, plus the added travel time as already noted above?
- The total rise or climb from sea level at Everett to the tunnel would increase by from 20 % to almost 25 % - from 2800+ ft. to 3300+ ft., or 500 ft. That too seems to be burdening the operation with having to do more work and for a longer time than is otherwise necessary.
- A clarification: Per the map, only the last 4 or 6 miles along the Tye River Valley of the westbound climb - in the vicinity of the 2 'loops' - would be moved by the proposal from the south-facing slopes to the north-facing slopes. Most of the line west of Scenic is already on the north-facing slopes overlooking the Tye River, if the map is correct. This was not clear to me after reading just the article.
Constructing a new line requires STB approval ...
... which means it's a Federal Action ...
... which means NEPA kicks in and in all likelihood an environmental impact statement is required ,..
... which requires a statement of Purpose and Need, and alternatives analysis of routes ...
... which means that the Snoqualmie Pass Route would have a tough time proving that it's necessary or essential, as opposed to improving Stampede Pass. Only if you could demonstrate that the environmental challenges of improving and operating Stampede Pass created more negative effects on air, water, endangered species, communities, safety, etc., would the outcome favor Snoqualmie Pass. That I think is unlikely.
RWM
Murphy SidingbeaulieuWhere some problems with ventilating occur, they happen because the Dispatcher doesn't begin the ventilation promptly. This can happen because the Dispatcher is distracted by things happening elsewhere on his district, or if he (she) just isn't paying attention If it were an issue that affected train capacity, wouldn't it become a priority to see that the dispatcher began ventilation in a timely fashion? How hard would it be to set up something that automatically alerts the dispatcher when the train clears the tunnel?
If it were an issue that affected train capacity, wouldn't it become a priority to see that the dispatcher began ventilation in a timely fashion? How hard would it be to set up something that automatically alerts the dispatcher when the train clears the tunnel?
I wouldn't obsess over this point. It's a matter of setting priorities in a dispatching office, workload, manning levels, and costs. If it's necessary to subdivide territories to reduce workload, that can be done. Or, changing priorities to make one action higher priority over others -- other priorities might be calling trains at the right moment to eliminate terminal delay or loss of hours of service; issuing Track & Time to get maximum production out of maintenance-of-way forces; sorting out trainlists to give trains their work events. It's not possible to do more than one thing at a time.
blue streak 1 A very expensive alternative would be for BNSF to temporarily shut down Stampede pass tunnel and enlarge it for all traffic including any future electrification; improve exhaust removal, provide sidings ( 10 - 16k long) on both side of tunnel for fluidity, improve signaling, Maybe a mid tunnel vent shaft?, etc.. Again another question would be what are the grades in this tunnel? This would need to be weighed against rebuilding the MILW line. Both capital costs and operating costs paybacks of each alternative would need to be carefully considered.
Stampede Tunnel wasn't named "Stampede Hell" by the crews that had to operate steam locomotives through it for nothing. The tunnel is peaked in the middle so it traps exhaust fumes. It has no ventilating system at the present time. It is a bit less than 2 miles long.
Kevin C. Smith For anyone that wants to wade through Locked Thread Oblivion, there are some informative...ah, discussions... [snip] But someone other than me is gonna have to tiptoe through those old minefields.
Good idea, though.
Here's a short one from late January 2007 - featuring a couple of the 'usual suspects' - that somehow never went far enough down the road to Purgatory to actually get locked, though:
"BNSF's Stampede Pass" at - http://cs.trains.com/trccs/forums/p/85855/1014329.aspx#1014329
- PDN.
Thanks for linking back to that thread, Paul. There was some interesting debate, and some good points raised.
Blue Steak, to answer your question on Stampede Tunnel's grades, at this early hour while my family is still asleep, I've quietly pulled out the November 1997 Trains rather than bang around through my file cabinets in search of my source documents. I wrote in my story that from the approximate mid-point of the tunnel, grades descended west at 0.74 percent and east at 0.2 percent.
beaulieu The WB freight will act like a plunger and force the EB's exhaust plume ahead of itself while the turbulence around its cars will drag the plume from the WB behind it........WB trains act as natural method of flushing the tunnel of fumes, as since they are traveling downhill they generate relatively little exhaust themselves, and their speed is faster which creates its own airflow.
zardozUnless, of course, the train goes into emergency for some reason; if it does, the crew will be trapped inside the exhaust
Unless, of course, the train goes into emergency for some reason; if it does, the crew will be trapped inside the exhaust
Which is why they issue Airpacs to each crew and have extras in all the refuge bays. The bigger problem comes when the Dispatcher thinks that an Airpac is a tool to make his job easier, rather than a safety device
Just think of all the carbon you would be saving by putting rails in over Snoqualmie. Ha!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GaxPh-zb4_A
The line looks to be in great condition, although I hear some of the tunnels have been closed to the public due to integrity issues.
My train videos - http://www.youtube.com/user/karldotcom
beaulieuWhich is why they issue Airpacs to each crew and have extras in all the refuge bays.
karldotcom Just think of all the carbon you would be saving by putting rails in over Snoqualmie. The line looks to be in great condition, although I hear some of the tunnels have been closed to the public due to integrity issues.
Just think of all the carbon you would be saving by putting rails in over Snoqualmie. The line looks to be in great condition, although I hear some of the tunnels have been closed to the public due to integrity issues.
karldotcom Just think of all the carbon you would be saving by putting rails in over Snoqualmie. Ha! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GaxPh-zb4_A The line looks to be in great condition, although I hear some of the tunnels have been closed to the public due to integrity issues.
Now just a man on a bike Trains, August 1988 page 33 signals remain along Milwaukee Road roadbed ( FRONTISPIECE, MILW, "MORGAN, DAVID P.", "RAYMOND, G., JR.", TRN )
That is a interesting topic and despite all the research I have done on the old Cascade tunnel I never thought about running a new line through the old tunnel.I'm not sure if you have ever been in the Cascades but terrian wise it is as brutal as it gets.Winters are very harsh and the main reason they built the new tunnel was to get away from dealing with all the snow.If I remember right they had to build around 23 miles of snowsheds extending West from the original Cascade tunnel.This was very expensive both to build and to maintain.Avalanches were common and wrecked havoc with the railroad destorying structures and track.There was also several tunnels some timber lined,some concrete lined.Steep grades,sharp curves,and slippery rail from the never ending rain didn't help matters.Great Northern was also eager to get far away from Tye (formally Wellington) where the worst rail diaster in Americas history happened.
I suppose you could run a new line through the old tunnel but no matter which way take you would have to run many miles leading up to the tunnel over the old grade and it was that last few miles before the tunnel where the snow was the worst.They would have many of the same problems the Great Northern had.New snowsheds would have to be built and snow removal would be costly.
In the interest of completeness, note that there's a rebuttal to this article and premise in the ''Letters to the Editor'' section on page 3 or 5 or so of the current - May 2010 - issue of Trains, together with a couple of panoramic photos of the location by Jerry A. Pinkepank. The photos are too small to discern what they are intended to depict, in my opinion - some super-imposed graphics would have helped to understand that. But the facts and opinions of Mr. Downing - a former high official of BN, and before that GN, I believe - in his accompanying letter leave no doubt that he thinks the suggested solution is not far from nonsense, and that the railroad and the country was well-served by the Cascade Tunnel, especially during World War II.
All things considered, would it have been easier to just build continuous concrete snowsheds over the troublesome, higher elevation lines?
Murphy,
Part of the problem is defining "troublesome". Vis Major makes clear that the biggest single problem in 1910 was that a forest fire above shed 3.3 the summer before enabled the snow to slide immediately east of the shed where it had not previously done so. This spot was about 300' long IIRC. The other approach whould have been to shed the entire line from Wellington to Scenic, a total of about 10 miles.
Even that 10 miles would not have solved the problem as there was a slide at Cascade, just east of the east end of the tunnel in 1910.
The tunnel shortened the line by about 8 miles IIRC and lowered the summit by more than 500 feet. That is a lot of energy savings over time that was attainable no other way.
Mac
Bruce Kelly Snoqualmie would pose only a 0.7 percent climb against WB grain headed for Puget Sound ports, coal headed for Centralia, WA, and coal, petroleum coke, and potash headed for Vancouver, BC, area ports (Roberts Bank, Neptune Terminals), vs. 2.2 percent on either Stevens or Stampede (and vs. the long way around via Wishram and Vancouver, WA). EB loaded stacks (if able to clear the tunnel and if Americans ever get back to buying foreign stuff in droves again) would face 1.74 percent on the west slope, which tapers down to only 0.4 percent through Snoqualmie Tunnel. New trackage over Snoqualmie would likely connect to the current BNSF Stampede Sub near Easton on the east side of the mountains. Don't have my fleet of maps handy here at work to tell you exactly where the connection would be on the west side. I believe there's one bridge on the west slope that would need rebuilding. MILW grade is currently a trail. I imagine BNSF would face some major P.R., legal, and environmental hurdles to get that property back from the public.
If such a proposal were to happen.. Would BNSF not want to connect at Lind? This would appear to be the easier connection. Avoiding NP's Yakima Canyon route with all it's curves.
SD60MAC: I think you will find that the Milwaukee line west from Lind disappeard several years ago.
SD60MAC9500Would BNSF not want to connect at Lind? This would appear to be the easier connection. Avoiding NP's Yakima Canyon route with all it's curves.
Note that it's been over a decade since the comment was made...
Note that it's been over a decade since the comment was made... and much longer since the fabled wars on the forum about restoring part of the PCE. I am not sure I'd recommend poking that particular lion, though, in case it isn't quite dead...
diningcar SD60MAC: I think you will find that the Milwaukee line west from Lind disappeard several years ago.
Yes I'm aware that it's a trail now, but wasn't there a proposal to restore it sometime ago?
Overmod Interesting hypothetical ... might want to discuss exactly what BNSF would have to build out to make the connection at that point. Note that it's been over a decade since the comment was made... and much longer since the fabled wars on the forum about restoring part of the PCE. I am not sure I'd recommend poking that particular lion, though, in case it isn't quite dead...
Apparently I missed out on the flame wars throughout the years looking back through some of the old threads....
If I remember wasn't wsDOT considering restoring this portion of the MILW? I thought BN purchased this portion of the MILW? If anyone familiar with this matter has any more details it would be appreciated.
SD60MAC9500 Bruce Kelly Snoqualmie would pose only a 0.7 percent climb against WB grain headed for Puget Sound ports, coal headed for Centralia, WA, and coal, petroleum coke, and potash headed for Vancouver, BC, area ports (Roberts Bank, Neptune Terminals), vs. 2.2 percent on either Stevens or Stampede (and vs. the long way around via Wishram and Vancouver, WA). EB loaded stacks (if able to clear the tunnel and if Americans ever get back to buying foreign stuff in droves again) would face 1.74 percent on the west slope, which tapers down to only 0.4 percent through Snoqualmie Tunnel. New trackage over Snoqualmie would likely connect to the current BNSF Stampede Sub near Easton on the east side of the mountains. Don't have my fleet of maps handy here at work to tell you exactly where the connection would be on the west side. I believe there's one bridge on the west slope that would need rebuilding. MILW grade is currently a trail. I imagine BNSF would face some major P.R., legal, and environmental hurdles to get that property back from the public. If such a proposal were to happen.. Would BNSF not want to connect at Lind? This would appear to be the easier connection. Avoiding NP's Yakima Canyon route with all it's curves.
Going all the way east to Lind in the MILW would involve the stiff grade over the Saddle Mts, which I recall was a long 2%+ grade.
MidlandMike Going all the way east to Lind in the MILW would involve the stiff grade over the Saddle Mts, which I recall was a long 2%+ grade.
Thanks Mike I searched and found a PDF of the operating profile between Beverly and Boylston showing 2.2% Comp on the East Summit. West Summit 1.6% Comp.
If all diesels on all trains could be of one AC type. they could econoomically be converted to DC-dual-power, with the third rail voltage equal to the regular constant DC voltage integral to the existing AC-3-phase generator to DC to variable-frequency AC that is current practice for modern diesels.
I think such a program for the Cascade Tunnel by BNSF is long overdue.
Possibly a center-third rail with retractable rolling shoes makes more sense for this application than normal side third rail/..
daveklepper If all diesels on all trains could be of one AC type. they could econoomically be converted to DC-dual-power, with the third rail voltage equal to the regular constant DC voltage integral to the existing AC-3-phase generator to DC to variable-frequency AC that is current practice for modern diesels. I think such a program for the Cascade Tunnel by BNSF is long overdue. Possibly a center-third rail with retractable rolling shoes makes more sense for this application than normal side third rail/..
Center third rail?
I think this should be mandated by the new presidential administration. It should be supported on railroad aesthetic grounds, perhaps awarded a grant, if all the money hasn't been earmarked for bringing back the caboose?
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Paul: The new administration is going to MANDATE?
Paul Milenkovic daveklepper If all diesels on all trains could be of one AC type. they could econoomically be converted to DC-dual-power, with the third rail voltage equal to the regular constant DC voltage integral to the existing AC-3-phase generator to DC to variable-frequency AC that is current practice for modern diesels. I think such a program for the Cascade Tunnel by BNSF is long overdue. Possibly a center-third rail with retractable rolling shoes makes more sense for this application than normal side third rail/.. Center third rail? I think this should be mandated by the new presidential administration. It should be supported on railroad aesthetic grounds, perhaps awarded a grant, if all the money hasn't been earmarked for bringing back the caboose?
daveklepper Possibly a center-third rail with retractable rolling shoes makes more sense for this application than normal side third rail/..
A center third rail would allow for the train crew to walk along the train in case of a problem, and alternative would be and under-running outside third rail with a walkway on top. Since there would be no need for compatiblity with other third rail installations, the third rail could be placed further away from the track center than on the NYC GCT trackage.
I do recall a British proposal for a center third rail with a pair of shoes sliding on the sides of the third rail (think spring loaded vise).
The experience the B.A.&P. had with roller pantographs suggests that bearings and inertia could be a problem. One solutions could be having the contact cylinder being elastomer mounted on the roller axle to reduce effective unsprung weight.
Other concern is that 7.79 miles is a long way between substations for the power required. One workaround would be running an aluminum bus bar energized at 2 to 4kVDC with buck converters at frequent intervals to provide third rail power. Buck converters can be made to be very compact and very efficient compared to a transformer/rectifier running off 60Hz.
It worked for Lionel.
Jeff
This sounds awfully complicated... BNSF seems to get all traffic through today with minimal issue..
GN had electrics for Cascade until the middle 50's didn't they?
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
It sounds like someone wants their own Lionel life size 3 rail setup. It's all nice and safe until you have to go in between two cars to hook up an airbrake line or work on a balky coupler.
The only 'third rail' that would make any sense would be a higher-current version of the sectional-activation systems used for some modern streetcar setups, or alternatively a point-contact system like the old GE setup, with soft inrush upon activation and only activated when locomotive is present -- see the discussions of the various evolved systems in one of the recent transit threads.
I am reaonably sure this could be developed to have any desired cross-sectional area for pickup, and reasonable sliding contact in all weather; in fact it might be easier to keep a continuous sectional-activation rail either heated internally or 'scraped clear' in inclement weather than outside where flangers or plows would have difficulty keeping a third-rail structure with boards clear of snow or ice...
Erik can gin up the required sled length, area, suspension, etc. better that I could. The simplest thing, probably, would be to put the pickups into road-slug vehicles with bidirectional power leads to dual-mode-lite power's electrical gear.
I am reasonably sure this could be developed to have any desired cross-sectional area for pickup, and reasonable sliding contact in all weather; in fact it might be easier to keep a continuous sectional-activation rail either heated internally or 'scraped clear' in inclement weather than outside where flangers or plows would have difficulty keeping a third-rail structure with boards clear of snow or ice...
Erik can gin up the required sled length, area, suspension, etc. better that I could. The simplest thing, probably, would be to put the pickups into road-slug vehicles with bidirectional power leads to dual-mode-lite power's electrical gear. If keeping the 'special pickups' within a known territory while maximizing consist flexibility elsewhere were important, anyway...
BaltACD GN had electrics for Cascade until the middle 50's didn't they?
Yes. Tunnel ventilation was improved so diesels could continue thru with out having to change to and back from electrics.
SD60MAC9500This sounds awfully complicated... BNSF seems to get all traffic through today with minimal issue..
The length of time it takes for diesel exaust to clear the tunnel is the limiting capacity factor on the line.
MidlandMike SD60MAC9500 This sounds awfully complicated... BNSF seems to get all traffic through today with minimal issue.. The length of time it takes for diesel exaust to clear the tunnel is the limiting capacity factor on the line.
SD60MAC9500 This sounds awfully complicated... BNSF seems to get all traffic through today with minimal issue..
Any limiting factor in Cascade Tunnel would be its Eastbound grade of 1.57%. BNSF has been able to push through as much as 30+ trains a day through Cascade Tunnel. Westbound trains going through the tunnel actually help clear out exhaust going downgrade.
SD60MAC9500 MidlandMike SD60MAC9500 This sounds awfully complicated... BNSF seems to get all traffic through today with minimal issue.. The length of time it takes for diesel exaust to clear the tunnel is the limiting capacity factor on the line. Any limiting factor in Cascade Tunnel would be its Eastbound grade of 1.57%. BNSF has been able to push through as much as 30+ trains a day through Cascade Tunnel. Westbound trains going through the tunnel actually help clear out exhaust going downgrade.
It takes 20 minutes for a train to get thru the tunnel, but it takes 30 minutes after that to clear the fumes. 50 minutes per train gets you the 30 trains per day. Note that I used the word "capacity" in the limiting factor.
A perhaps hare-brained idea...
Have one or two battery locomotives fitted out with some of fixture (air bladder??) that would have a minimal gap (a few inches?) with the tunnel wallls. After a train clears the tunnel the locomotive(s) with fixture would act as a piston pushing the air out of the tunnel. At 30 mph, it would take about 16 minutes to traverse the tunnel.
Erik_Mag A perhaps hare-brained idea... Have one or two battery locomotives fitted out with some of fixture (air bladder??) that would have a minimal gap (a few inches?) with the tunnel wallls. After a train clears the tunnel the locomotive(s) with fixture would act as a piston pushing the air out of the tunnel. At 30 mph, it would take about 16 minutes to traverse the tunnel.
They could perhaps be operated crewlessly.
The battery loco/piston should be able to clear the tunnel from either direction, so shouldn't need repositioning after traveling through the tunnel. I would be very surprised if pushing the air through the tunnel didn't require a lot of power, but it is well within COTS battery technology. Also why I wrote locomotive(s).
Agian, this was proposed as an "way out of the box" idea.
Erik_MagHave one or two battery locomotives fitted out with some of fixture (air bladder??) that would have a minimal gap (a few inches?) with the tunnel wallls.
Depending on the tunnel wall construction, perhaps a better solution along these lines would be a series of brushes. These would not be affected by irregularities in the tunnel walls (ice, outcrops, etc). Two or three rows on one unit would be almost as functionally air tight as a bladder.
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...
Has anyone actually consulted the Train Dispatchers for the territory to learn and understand their philosophy's in operating the territory that includes the tunnel and its operating constraints?
BaltACD Has anyone actually consulted the Train Dispatchers for the territory to learn and understand their philosophy's in operating the territory that includes the tunnel and its operating constraints?
Go here:
https://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?1,2048593,2048720,nodelay=1
Scroll down to the explanation by TAW (Thomas White).
Key quote: "...the presence of a tunnel and the need for ventilation is irrelevant. Running time between Scenic and Berne is the capacity limiting factor."
That's been the take on Cascade Tunnel that I've read and heard from everyone who really knows anything about how things operate there.
Seems like there was an article in one of the RR mags in the not-too-distant past specifically about said tunnel.
Out of curiosity, I know there is barely enough room for anything above a double stack in the tunnel, but is there zero room at all? I was watching a ride along video of the Caltrain highlighting some of the electrification efforts on that line and in at least one of the tunnels, rather than raising it, they are using some form of fixed metal rail along the top as the transmission method. the youtuber (who is an engineer) speculated aluminum. Could such a system which involves much less equipment overhead work in Cascade tunnel? Also, with the new Battery Locomotives under test, would a mixed consist reduce emissions enough to reduce flush time? I'd have to imagine not for an east bound train.
message deleted
To me, saying that the siding locations determine capacity, so electrification or other smokeless operation is rediculous, is a stqtment that is rediculous. Ever hear of "fleeting?" And I'm pretty certain BNSF uses or used the concept on the Transcon where single'track sections interrupred a double-and-multiple-track main line. On the Casdcade line, this would involve closely spaces multiple sections of long westbound trains meeting widely-speced siding-fitting single eastbound trains for half a day and then the reverseve for the other half of the day. But fleeting is not possible with the currrent ventillation time requirements.
David, if you're referring to TAW's description of Cascade Tunnel operations, he did not say that the siding locations determine capacity. He (and others) said that the running time between the sidings determines capacity. Those being the sidings at opposite ends of the tunnel, Scenic and Berne,
Running time is a factor of not just the distance between those two sidings, but also the grade and authorized track speed between them. Eastbounds departing Scenic have just climbed a 2 percent compensated grade and are entering a nearly 8-mile long tunnel where the climb continues at 1.57 percent. Westbounds departing Berne are climbing an undulating grade of up to 2.2 percent. The summit is just outside the tunnel's east portal. Maximum authorized speed between Scenic and Berne is 30mph passenger and 25mph freight.
A side note: does pushing all that smoke, carbon monoxide and etc. out the ends of tunnels for years kill all the vegetation at the ends of the tunnel?
Murphy Siding A side note: does pushing all that smoke, carbon monoxide and etc. out the ends of tunnels for years kill all the vegetation at the ends of the tunnel?
Pictures I have seen of the area do not give the 'moonscape' apperarance that I noticed as a child when our family vacation took us through Sudbury, ON.
No. Trees love the rain that characterizes the wet side of the Cascades and they love carbon dioxide. Happy, happy trees.
As was implied in the prior post, the east slope of the Cascades is a different story. The landscape around Wenatchee is signicificantly drier and the dominant color is a light brown.
The running-time problem can be solved (not of-course to the extent of a double-track railroad or closer-spaced sidings) by fleeting. Possibly I have not explained the concept well, and possibly someone else can explain it better. Fleeting can probably double existing capacity.
Isn't that similar to PSR and some of the 15k foot trains out there?
Is there a issue for DPUs or closely followed manned units being able to breath?
daveklepper The running-time problem can be solved (not of-coursec to the extent of a double-track railroad or closer-spaced sidings) b y fleeting. Possibly I have not explained the concept well, and possibly someone else can explain it better. Fleeting can probably double existing capacity.
The running-time problem can be solved (not of-coursec to the extent of a double-track railroad or closer-spaced sidings) b y fleeting. Possibly I have not explained the concept well, and possibly someone else can explain it better. Fleeting can probably double existing capacity.
Backshop daveklepper The running-time problem can be solved (not of-coursec to the extent of a double-track railroad or closer-spaced sidings) b y fleeting. Possibly I have not explained the concept well, and possibly someone else can explain it better. Fleeting can probably double existing capacity. Of course, "fleeting" implies that the originating yards can put together a number of outbound trains in a short amount of time.
Of course, "fleeting" implies that the originating yards can put together a number of outbound trains in a short amount of time.
Not really as their can be a intersection of lines that feed traffic into the direction that is being fleeted.
Yards that are constructed to dispatch complete trains - can depart trains from their 'Departure Yard' one right after the other. Yards where trains have to double tracks together cannot do that.
Fleeting through the Cascade tunnel would require a solution to the ventilation problem. Similar issue with very long trains, there will be a point where the trailing DP units do not have an adequate supply of cool clean air.
I would be suprised if the yards originating the bulk of the longer "Northern Transcon" trains cannot put several tgether without doubling. If I'm wong. then those yards need investment in anycase. Branch operation should not be a problem given the right analysis and schedule planning.
Erik_MagFleeting through the Cascade tunnel would require a solution to the ventilation problem. Similar issue with very long trains, there will be a point where the trailing DP units do not have an adequate supply of cool clean air.
I haven't seen this point made explicitly yet, but presumably a zero-carbon hydrogen locomotive with proper variable air compression would suffer comparatively less -- if indeed at all from an engineering standpoint -- from even high-demand operation in tunnels of this kind. The 'crew' issues then become protection from superheated humid air rather than breathing integrity -- and I'd argue that relatively simple changes to S-580 cabs would offer the necessary protection.
In any case, the combination of dual-mode-lite external power plus CBTC would allow any number of fleeted movements to pass through the tunnel at near to full allowable road speed, with minimum physical separation. That eliminates most if not all the practical concerns Mr. Kelly mentioned, although it does impose capacity limits if no effective yarding facilities for the fleeted trains cannot be provided within the operational segment of the railroad that contains the tunnel.
Note that the method that was mentioned as "efficient" -- routing trains alternately in opposing directions, net of all ventilation time required to clear -- is as much of a false 'economy' as the idea that container cranes should 'utilize the return travel' by picking up a container for unloading each time a different container is placed for loading. The idea of optimizing travel time across the fixed bottleneck imposed by physical running speed is valid, but it does not take account of percentage of effective track occupancy over the stretch, provided road speed can be maintained by all trains over it. Obviously effective CBTC alone will greatly increase that if traffic can be blocked directionally by daypart, which it seems to me is a premise of any real scheme of PSR in operations.
Of course the one relatively large question is how the power for electrification gets there. It might be less than expected, though, if the electricity to run a cycle of the ventilation system can be saved.
This thread has seen many fantastigorical solutions to a straight forward problem, which is that BNSF has more traffic that could/should use the former GN Cascade Tunnel, than the tunnel can physically handle. TAW is correct, the issue is running time between Scenic and Berne, and it is what it is. The solutions most of you have proposed all add cost, complication, and delay.
I grew up in Wenatchee, clerked for the GN, rode thru Stevens Pass on passenger trains in freight cabs, rode thru Stampede on my uncle's passenger trains, and am familiar with the rail geography of Washington.
Traffic on the Cascade tunnel line is first and foremost intermodal to and from South Seattle (domestic) Port of Seattle, and Port of Tacoma. Many of these trains are DPU powered. I do not know where the DPUs come on and off, but would bet the vast majority are on/off at Hauser Yard 15 miles or so east of Spokane where every train to and from Vancouver WA and Puget Sound points gets fueled westward and eastward.
The best way to increase capacity is to get the Empire Builder to go away. That has not happened for 50 years and there is no reason to expect Congress to quit pouring money down the ATK rathole, so assume that particular burden will not go away.
The line handles one pair of mixed carload trains between Everett and Spokane/Hauser. All else is intermodal. These trains have long operated in DPU mode, itself increasing capacity for intermodal traffic via Stevens Pass
There are Bulk traffic, grain, coal, and oil unit trains that would/should use the route IFF it had the capacity, which it has not for any years. BN's first response was to route carload and bulk, and even intermodal via Vancouver Washington then to the two main track line between Vancouver WA and Everett. Converting the intermodal trains to DPU seems to have been enough to get them off the long mile, longer time route via Vancouver WA. Today oil and coal trains continue up the single track former GN main line to their destinations north of Everett and south of Vancouver BC.
The bad thing about this route is that it is significantly longer than the Cascade tunnel route, say about 180 miles longer Spokane to Seattle. The good thing is that the ruling grade is significantly less, 1% vs 2.2%, so required horsepower per ton/train is only half what is needed to lift loads over the mountain. The reduction in horsepower hours is less than 50% due to the excess mileage. That excess mileage also generates higher operating costs than would otherwise be the case, but when the capital investment solution is very expensive, you live with higher than ideal operting costs.
The BNSF reopened Stampede Pass in the 1990's as a relief route for carload traffic. Stampede has had restricted clearance since the largest Z class steam engines came along in the late 1920s or so. BNSF chose not to clear the tunnel before restoring it to service, the best time to have done that work. Stampede is shorter than the route via Vancouver AND puts the carload traffic thru the former NP hump yard at Pasco. My very soft guess is that this amounts to one train a day to/from Everett, Seattle, Tacoma each. This too is a mountain route with 2.2% grades both ways between Easton and Lester.
A few years ago the BNSF and the operating crafts entered into an agreement for a three legged crew district; Pasco to Vancouver WA, Vancouver to Seattle, and Seattle to Pasco. Each crew works those segments in that order. The target traffic is the unit trains, and for them Pasco to Vancouver, and Seattle to Pasco is functionally a paired track. The objective was/is to reduce the number of meets on the Columbia Gorge line. Since eastward bulk trains are empty the power that brought them west can get them over Stampede.
This is practical railroading and avoids the high capital cost of engineering solutions. Is it perfect? No, but is much better than the alternative.
There has been discussion of the former MILW Snoquamie Pass line. It is a reasonable alternative between Easton and Renton. The problem is that while this middle is OK, the ends are not. On the West end, the line features street running for about a mile through downtown Renton. Considering how Auburn pitched a fit when BN reopened Stampede Pass, which had no physical impact on anyone or any thing, imagine how Renton would explode at the idea of running real trains through downtown. The track is intact and BNSF uses it to deliver airplane parts to Boeing's Renton plant. Two moves of 1-6 cars per trip.
The MILW east of Easton presents two unattactive features. First assume that the target traffic is intermodal. Carload needs to go to Pasco, and quicker time for intermodal is always a good thing. The map gazers look at old maps and say 'What a great short cut the MILW would make between Ellensburg and Lind' and 'The MILW was the shortest fastest line'.
What they do not see is Eastern Washington State University in Ellensburg which has grown up around, if not on, the MILW right of way. That is fixable with lots of money. Not reasonably fixable is the relatively short 1.6% eastward ascending grade and the 20+ mile 2.2% ascending grade westward from the Columbia River. This right of way is owned by the State of Washington. Can you really see them plowing through their own University? Finally, Stampede is not cleared fof double stack, so your intended traffic can not use the route.
I give you all lots of points for imigination, but not much for practicallity.
Mac McCulloch
PNWRMNMI give you all lots of points for imigination, but not much for practicallity.
Hey, you never know.
Mac said, “Traffic on the Cascade tunnel line is first and foremost intermodal to and from South Seattle (domestic) Port of Seattle, and Port of Tacoma. Many of these trains are DPU powered. I do not know where the DPUs come on and off, but would bet the vast majority are on/off at Hauser Yard 15 miles or so east of Spokane where every train to and from Vancouver WA and Puget Sound points gets fueled westward and eastward.”
You would lose that bet. DP units are rarely added at Hauser or Spokane simply because it’s too busy to do it there due to the fueling function. And not every train gets fueled at Hauser Yard. They try to do as many as possible, but it’s often a function of capacity, and trains like coal empties regular get fueled in Missoula. But it’s commonplace with congestion to “check the fuel” and continue east to places like Havre.
As to where the DP is added, this varies widely. Unit trains tend to be that way out of destination. Trains from Whitefish get add-on units as necessary at Great Falls or Havre. Intermodal trains run the full gamut. They come with distributed power out of St. Paul, add at Minot, Havre, or Wenatchee. Havre is the most-likely spot for adding power (distributed power or not) because it is the roundhouse for the west end of the Northern Transcontinental. (Interbay has a roundhouse, but they work mostly on power used for yard, locals, and intradivisional runs.) Where the DP power is cut depends on the current operation. When power is exceptionally tight, Wenatchee is the best place to cut off eastward intermodal trains (and then they get helped Essex to Summit). Power is then added to westward trains and that allows the train to operate to Wenatchee with the absolute minimum power. Of course, the standard today is to do as little power modification en route, so power can continue east to Havre or Minot (both inspection points) to avoid the helper cost at Essex. It all just depends on the need. It’s not usual to let power run through to Havre simply to have some available for origin grain trains or unit trains which require add-on power.
Mac said, “The best way to increase capacity is to get the Empire Builder to go away. That has not happened for 50 years and there is no reason to expect Congress to quit pouring money down the ATK rathole, so assume that particular burden will not go away.”
Your anti-Amtrak bias is well-known, but it specifically is inappropriate here. That it’s a short train that operates at track speed and takes up less capacity relative to other trains notwithstanding, the reality is that it’s a train that needs to be figured into the mix. That’s what railroaders do.
Mac said, “The line handles one pair of mixed carload trains between Everett and Spokane/Hauser. All else is intermodal. These trains have long operated in DPU mode, itself increasing capacity for intermodal traffic via Stevens Pass.”
Not everything else is intermodal. Coal and crude empties trains from north of Everett routinely operate via Wenatchee to avoid the Seattle terminal.
Mac said, “There are Bulk traffic, grain, coal, and oil unit trains that would/should use the route IFF it had the capacity, which it has not for any years. BN's first response was to route carload and bulk, and even intermodal via Vancouver Washington then to the two main track line between Vancouver WA and Everett. Converting the intermodal trains to DPU seems to have been enough to get them off the long mile, longer time route via Vancouver WA. Today oil and coal trains continue up the single track former GN main line to their destinations north of Everett and south of Vancouver BC.
The bad thing about this route is that it is significantly longer than the Cascade tunnel route, say about 180 miles longer Spokane to Seattle. The good thing is that the ruling grade is significantly less, 1% vs 2.2%, so required horsepower per ton/train is only half what is needed to lift loads over the mountain. The reduction in horsepower hours is less than 50% due to the excess mileage. That excess mileage also generates higher operating costs than would otherwise be the case, but when the capital investment solution is very expensive, you live with higher than ideal operating costs.”
Nope. Not the case, and we know this because running today’s unit trains via Wenatchee (and via Ellensburg) has been tried and proven to be fantastically inefficient. I know specifically because my team at BNSF was tasked with providing the locomotive power for it. The “reduction in horsepower hours is less than 50% due to the excess mileage” is especially inaccurate. Mac fails to mention that trains via Wenatchee need 100% to 167% more power than those operating via Wishram and Vancouver. (These trains normally operate with 3 or 4 units, mostly depending on origin). That’s a huge expense. When this was done in the 2010s, the additional power (most of the time) was added at Wenatchee. The trains were grain trains to Seattle and Tacoma. Not counting station dwell at Wenatchee to configure the power (most trains departed 3X3X2 distributed power), the average locomotive took 49 hours to get back to Wenatchee to be in place for another grain train. On average, two grain trains were operated daily, so that would mean that more than two days would elapse (with two trains each day) before the extra power required for this rotation could again be in place. That meant a minimum of 20 to 25 locomotives (depending on whether 4 or 5 units were added), a significant amount of resources. Running time via Wenatchee wasn’t great, either. During the test period, trains destined to Seattle were a whopping 8 minutes faster via Wenatchee and took 4 hours LONGER en route to Tacoma. Crew costs were higher via Wenatchee, too, because a crew had to be called at Wenatchee just to configure the power on the train (the big delay is cutting in the mid-train DP). Trains for Tacoma took a crew just to get the train from Seattle to Tacoma and additional delay to cut out the mid-train DP locomotives because TEMCO wouldn’t take it that way.
For unit coal and crude destined to Fidalgo, Cherry Point, Arco, or Roberts Bank, the inefficiency of a routing through Wenatchee might not be as acute, simply because the comparative route miles are fewer. But, the number of additional locomotive resources is similar, and – with the exception of Fidalgo – the trains are going just as far or father with that extra power than the Seattle and Tacoma grain trains. In a perfect world with unlimited capacity, crews, and flexibility, additional power added to these trains at Wenatchee would be cut at Gold Bar to be immediately moved back to Wenatchee for another train. But another crew would be required to remove mid-train DP units and the work would restrict the fluidity of the other traffic on the route while the train was doing the work. Then try to find an eastward train to Wenatchee with a crew that has enough time to stop and pick up the power….good luck.
The beauty of unit train operations on BNSF in the Pacific Northwest is that it is pretty much perfectly balanced: The loaded trains arrive from Montana with enough power to get the train to destination, handle the corresponding empties back to where the train will again be loaded, that’s sufficient power to launch yet another load, and the cycle continues. Adding a segment that doubles (or more) the power requirement adds cost on top of cost. And, there’s one other big cost: The cost of occupying track space. When trains have to cut in distributed power mid-train or add to the rear end and other locomotive work in general, scarce yard space is used for extended periods of time that can’t be used by other trains. And at Wenatchee, this can usually be cutting off eastward to trains to add to westward intermodal trains. Bottom line: Adding trains to any route with significant power modifications is the perfect thing to do if you want to stifle fluidity.
Mac said, “There has been discussion of the former MILW Snoqualmie Pass line. It is a reasonable alternative between Easton and Renton. The problem is that while this middle is OK, the ends are not. On the West end, the line features street running for about a mile through downtown Renton.”
Actually, it’s a rare proponent of this route that even mentions the route through Renton. The street running is the least of the problems. The major ones are the areas in Renton that have been completely developed as well as several sections east of Renton along Washington Highway 169, which has been widened significantly. I believe that there is zero chance of the Milwaukee route being revived, but for those who fantasize, the general consensus is that a 3- or 4-mile connection would be constructed from the Milwaukee line at Landsburg to the ex-NP line near Ravensdale.
Mac said, “I give you all lots of points for imagination, but not much for practicality.”
Agreed.
Thank you for the reality check Mark, I was hoping you would see this thread and comment.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
To the extent Mark's explanation differs from mine, use his. His knowledge of power use is much better than mine and his trips to Renton area are probably more recent.
As to power via the Columbia River Gorge/Vancvouver WA vs Stevens or Stampede passes, the mountains will require double to 2.5 times the power per ton that the Gorge will. Spokane to Puget Sound via the Gorge is 1% ruling grades Spokane to Pasco and over Napavine Hill. In DC motor days you could figure 1 HPPT. Over the mountains was about 2.5 HPPT. I do not know what the figures are today with AC, but it looks to be about the same ratio today.
While AC power can lug along at 2 MPH, you need to put enough power on the train to move with reasonable dispatch up the grades. Five or six hours from Skykomish to Scenic will limit line capacity more than the time between Scenic and Berne does now. Again the fundamental point that running time between stations is what counts.
Mark's details about power experiments confirm the overall point I was trying to make, which is that since 1970 BN and BNSF have provided enough capacity to handle the traffic without expensive engineering solutions or exotic geegas.
Battery locos or even an isolated electric distric are going to be just a pain in the neck. Since ventilation is a problem why not sink one or two ventilation shafts at the mid point or 1/3 point to ventilate the tunnel more quickly ? That way ventilation for tracks alreaady cleared behind train could start. Would require doors at mid point or 1/2 points. Once a train cleared a shaft it could suck smoke away from locos. definitely would require reversible fans to help clear tunnel.
If traffic increases over the next ( number unknown ) years causing this to become a necessity then additional sidings are going to be needed especially close to the tunnel.
EDIT. Additional shafts would need capacity to ventilate tunnel from both directions. also maybe ventilation at west end ?
Initial capital costs up front may be high. Certainly more feasible in long run reducing overall operating costs
blue streak 1 Battery locos are going to be just a pain in the neck. Since ventilation is a problem why not sink one or two ventilation shafts at the mid point or 1/3 point to ventilate the tunnel more quickly ? That way ventilation for tracks alreaady cleared behind train could start. Would require doors at mid point or 1/2 points. Once a train cleared a shaft it could suck smoke away from locos. definitely would require reversible fans to help clear tunnel.
Battery locos are going to be just a pain in the neck. Since ventilation is a problem why not sink one or two ventilation shafts at the mid point or 1/3 point to ventilate the tunnel more quickly ? That way ventilation for tracks alreaady cleared behind train could start. Would require doors at mid point or 1/2 points. Once a train cleared a shaft it could suck smoke away from locos. definitely would require reversible fans to help clear tunnel.
(2) There is no guarantee that meaningful reductions in time would result from one or two (how cavalierly we use numbers!) new vent shafts. There is still a cycle time, and perhaps issues for DPs in a given consist, compared to a 'solution' that reduces or eliminates substantial gas and perhaps heat in any part of the bore to begin with.
I thoroughly agree that trying to do that entirely with battery (I.e. enough 'hybrid' storage to take at least the head end through the bore with engines off or isolated) is less attractive than dual-mode-lite for only slightly less investment in the power and initially very limited mandatory investment in 'diesel-power-equivalent' external conductor in the tunnel area.
This is a generic argument about moving traffic through tunnels, not an organized colorista improvement scheme for traffic in the actual Pacific Northwest. I am reminded of the line in the Tom Lehrer song about "die Rockets go up, who cares where they come down" -- that's not my department, either. (Not to disparage the actual dueling Pacific Northwest experts in any respect.)
This might give you an idea of what the extra expenses are for the railroad based on what it costs an OTR carrier to run in the mountains. We have a dedicated team that runs out to SLC and back on an almost daily basis. Now going west they average about 1 MPG LESS than coming back East. Why the climbing of the mountains in WY and UT plus the gradual climbing going across NE. Their loads weigh the same each way trailers are maintained on a by monthly basis where they are shopped at our shop. Truck for now is a 2019 KW we have a new 2020 top of the line Volvo on order for them. Sorry I deal with figures all day long on MPG and you can be amazed on what can effect it. I discovered that we got worse MPG from a certain fuel stop chain than another and so we stopped getting fuel from them a .5 MPG average adds up very quickly on 250 trucks and can costs us thousands a week in extra expenses.
How the BNSF is going to have to deal with the Cascade Tunnel is simple they can not bypass it due to the terrian there. They can not double track it way to narrow of a pass in that area and the local enviromential wack jobs being the PNW would never allow anything that extreme. Forget about redoing the orginal for the same reason to allow a bypass for this one even though the railroad could technically claim they are just reactivating an old route if they never filed a formal abandonment of the old line. It might be a good westbound only route why going downhill all the way therefore. Just would need to redo the snowshed protection.
I'm sure fuel mileage is also affected at least as much by the predominant westerly winds.
Shadow the Cats ownerThis might give you an idea of what the extra expenses are for the railroad based on what it costs an OTR carrier to run in the mountains. We have a dedicated team that runs out to SLC and back on an almost daily basis. Now going west they average about 1 MPG LESS than coming back East. Why the climbing of the mountains in WY and UT plus the gradual climbing going across NE. Their loads weigh the same each way trailers are maintained on a by monthly basis where they are shopped at our shop. Truck for now is a 2019 KW we have a new 2020 top of the line Volvo on order for them. Sorry I deal with figures all day long on MPG and you can be amazed on what can effect it. I discovered that we got worse MPG from a certain fuel stop chain than another and so we stopped getting fuel from them a .5 MPG average adds up very quickly on 250 trucks and can costs us thousands a week in extra expenses.
Of course there was one truck stop chain that was convicted of cheating their customers on the amount of fuel pumped vs the amount of fuel billed.
PNWRMNM Mark's details about power experiments confirm the overall point I was trying to make, which is that since 1970 BN and BNSF have provided enough capacity to handle the traffic without expensive engineering solutions or exotic geegas.
There have been “expensive engineering solutions” in the Pacific Northwest to enhance traffic flow, though admittedly “expensive” is subjective. BNSF has laid out a lot of money for improvements in Washington State along the route of unit trains. Sidings and or 2 MT CTC have been lengthened and created between Spokane and Vancouver, and the extra capacity added to accommodate Amtrak Cascades and Sounder trains have enhanced fluidity between Vancouver and Everett. And let’s not forget the $200 million or so for opening the Stampede Pass route which ultimately made the current operating scenario work. While some improvements were made along the Stevens Pass route including in Cascade Tunnel, the obvious intent was to focus elsewhere. In the end, “expensive engineering solutions” did occur. Having said that, three years ago BNSF completed raising clearance in tunnels south of Bellingham to accommodate doublestack equipment from the port of Vancouver should BNSF wish to attempt to wrest some business from CN or CP. Hasn’t happened yet that I know of, but since such traffic would go east at Everett, it shows acknowledgement that current capacity over Stevens Pass is sufficient. It also shows that there is some capacity available for new traffic, and that still hasn’t lured any loaded unit trains to the route.
The enhancements to infrastructure in Washington State individually don’t rise to the glitziness of a second Sandpoint bridge or doubletracking the railroad from Minot to Williston for sure, but over the course of the past two decades, similar billions of dollars have been spent. And despite these “expensive engineering solutions,” there are myriad valid reasons loaded unit trains still don’t operate via Wenatchee.
VerMontanan Having said that, three years ago BNSF completed raising clearance in tunnels south of Bellingham to accommodate doublestack equipment from the port of Vancouver should BNSF wish to attempt to wrest some business from CN or CP. Hasn’t happened yet that I know of, but since such traffic would go east at Everett, it shows acknowledgement that current capacity over Stevens Pass is sufficient.
Mark I'm glad you mentioned this. I always had it in my mind that maybe one day BNSF would make a go at the Port of Vancouver's container traffic. It always appeared to be a logical market for BNSF to crack. Is there any coal still going to Roberts Bank, B.C.?
Yes, there is coal still going to Roberts Bank.
Bruce KellyHe (and others) said that the running time between the sidings determines capacity. Those being the sidings at opposite ends of the tunnel, Scenic and Berne,... Maximum authorized speed between Scenic and Berne is 30mph passenger and 25mph freight.
In your Februrary Trains article on the Flathead Tunnel, you mention that its tunnel speed limit is 50 mph. Also it takes 15-20 minutes to flush fumes. Can I presume this is why Flathead Tunnel (which is 9/10 the length of Cascade) still handles 40 trains a day? Could it handle more?
One difference between Flathead and Cascade is that Flathead has a 0.4% grade versus the 1.8% (?) grade in the Cascade tunnel. I'm assuming that Flathead has the higher speed limit due to the much lower gradient.
Erik_Mag One difference between Flathead and Cascade is that Flathead has a 0.4% grade versus the 1.8% (?) grade in the Cascade tunnel. I'm assuming that Flathead has the higher speed limit due to the much lower gradient.
Cascade Tunnels grade is 1.57%.
SD60MAC9500 Cascade Tunnels grade is 1.57%.
Thanks.
Still close to a factor of 4 steeper than the Flathead tunnel, which makes big difference in safe downgrade speeds as well as achieveable upgrade speeds.
Erik_MagStill close to a factor of 4 steeper than the Flathead tunnel, which makes big difference in safe downgrade speeds as well as achieveable upgrade speeds.
The issue of short-following fleeting remains an issue for practical throughput, again hinging somewhat on the ability of CBTC to flexibly extend "block" length without compromising the ability to run alternating-direction traffic as a couple of posters have advocated.
The use of fixed (a larger version of "wayside") storage for trains that alternate through the tunnel becomes an interesting subject for Erik to contemplate. Even a magnetic-bearing flywheel arrangement might have enough persistence to accommodate 'pairs' of downhill/uphill traffic to substantially reduce peak required external power supply for the uphill running, or permit more cost-effective 'full electric' operation for the power actually transiting the bore.
My comment about safe downgrade speeds has to do with brake fade. Assuming a train resistance of 0.2% of weight, a grade of 0.4% (Flathead tunnel) would need 0.2% of train weight worth of braking effort as opposed to ~1.4% of train weight worth of braking effort in the Cascade tunnel.
MidlandMike, I've seen past figures from BNSF that say the practical capacity of Flathead Tunnel is something like 44 trains per day. It would not surprise me if there have been occasions when the tunnel has handled more than that. Mark Meyer can speak with more authority, experience, and current insight into this.
A more detailed explanation of the geography of the Flathead Tunnel area and its impact on train operations was provided in my earlier story on the subject, in another magazine, a little over a year ago.
My son and I have observed during our visits there in peak season / fall rush months how Flathead Tunnel's flush times can take a toll on the flow of traffic, hence BNSF's recent efforts to shorten those times.
Whenever there was a fleet of three or more eastbounds making good speed toward the tunnel, the first one would roll right through (if the previous flush was finished), while the second train would come to a stop at the east switch at Rock Creek (the siding just west of the tunnel), the third train would stop at the west switch at Rock Creek, and any other following eastbounds would be stopping somewhere behind all of that. After the first train exited the east portal, the flush would begin (10 to 20 minutes), and once the flush was finished the second eastbound would enter the tunnel while the third eastbound pulled up to wait, and so on for any others following behind.
By the time this whole process has played out, even if there have been no westbounds routed through, a third or fourth train in an eastbound fleet can see upwards of an hour or more of total delay when you add up the running times and flush times of the trains ahead of it, including the time it takes for standing trains to get moving again and moving trains to ease to another stop.
Bruce KellyBy the time this whole process has played out, even if there have been no westbounds routed through, a third or fourth train in an eastbound fleet can see upwards of an hour or more of total delay when you add up the running times and flush times of the trains ahead of it, including the time it takes for standing trains to get moving again and moving trains to ease to another stop.
Smart begins when the calling time for the crews of the trains are considered and have to be based on the tunnel transit conditions.
Don't call the trains on 10 minute headway when you know you are going to have 40 minute cycle time on the tunnel operation.
In theory, spacing train departures out of Yardley or Hauser to the west or even Whitefish (which is much closer to the tunnel) to the east in order to minimize delay at the tunnel sounds nice, and on some occasions there may have even be an effort toward doing that. But in actual practice, it would often become futile.
In the case of that eastbound fleet I described, consider how their journeys likely started at either Yardley or Hauser. More like Hauser, since the vast majority of eastbounds are recrewed there, rather than at Yardley. But both yards face the pressure of having to keep trains moving through on the their adjacent main lines. At Hauser, that includes trains that refuel and recrew on Mains 3-6. Hauser can get by with letting a train or two occupy a fuel track for hours, well beyond the nominal 10-20 minutes it takes to fuel the head end (and additional time to respot and fuel DPUs), as long as other fuel tracks remain fluid. But when traffic is heavy, there's rarely the luxury to let trains sit. It's quite common to have two, three, even four eastbounds all call up the dispatcher at about the same time, saying that they're ready to depart.
So, even if the best laid plans of dispatchers and crew callers could manage to somehow send a fleet of eastbounds out of Hauser on generous 30-minute headways, they could easily stack up behind each other at East Algoma (the current east end of two main tracks on the Funnel) if there's a fleet of WBs approaching Sandoint off both the Hi Line and MRL, or just a single Z-CHCSSE-9 on its way. Such delay will be somewhat remedied once the second bridge over Lake Pend Oreille is placed in service, but the territory beyond Sandpoint and up around the horn via Bonners Ferry is mostly single track, with several sidings that are still unbonded and/or have road crossings through them. That translates into excrutiatingly slow meets.
East of Bonners Ferry, there's the Kootenai River Canyon with its roughly 18 miles of 30mph max for freights. Barrying any meets against them, an eastbound fleet that somehow manages to reach the canyon on generous headways will eventually compress into tighter headways because the first train entering the canyon at 30 has the next train still closing in behind it at 45-55 until it too reaches the canyon, and so on.
That all being said, the dispatcher can somewhat balance the approach of WBs and EBs to the tunnel by how he or she executes meets on either side. But under the reality of circumstances, if there's a flow of traffic headed predominantly one way, a stack-up-and-wait cycle is pretty much unavoidable.
To say nothing of the many unexpected factors that can slow or stop the lead train in a fleet such as losing air, locomotive failure, signal malfunction, striking an animal (or automobile), etc.
Bruce KellySo, even if the best laid plans of dispatchers and crew callers could manage to somehow send a fleet of eastbounds out of Hauser on generous 30-minute headways, they could easily stack up behind each other at East Algoma (the current east end of two main tracks on the Funnel) if there's a fleet of WBs approaching Sandoint off both the Hi Line and MRL, or just a single Z-CHCSSE-9 on its way.
With CBTC those 'three eastbounds' depart and are operated with the safe stopping distance, varied with speed, between them. There is no need, and no purpose, for 'generous thirty-minute headways'. Then they reach East Algoma to find ... what? A surprise? Westbounds out of nowhere, or a Z train someone forgot to mention? And the difference between CBTC separation at 30mph vs. that for 45-55? Calculable, and not showstoppingly different. Translate it into the difference, in seconds, that that space takes to pass...
What becomes of greater potential interest is, if the formal restriction against close, if not faster, operation through the tunnel is relaxed, and we were to 'prioritize' achieving closer spacing through the tunnel, how that changes scheduling and priority at other points on the railroad in conducting PSR. Even if the effort is made to produce 'blocks' of fleeted traffic across the section of line containing the tunnel at discrete times of day, the greater throughput might be significant.
I thought through the details of an addition to track machinery that would spot, prepare, form, and test proper nested bonds on the field side of siding rail in a semiautomated manner, probably requiring no more than a few hours to rectify the bond issue end-to-end. The integrity can then be confirmed at regular intervals, including the electrical and visual observation of the bonds to determine if any one is deteriorating unduly. (Of course, the issue of the grade crossings is a more serious one, with no particularly easy technical, or even political, answers.)
I have to wonder if Flathead tunnel was built with the much easier grade based on what the RR had discovered was limiting Cascade? Not being familar with the topography around Cascade would it have been possible to build it with an easier grade? It might have been built with the original thought that it would always be electrified ?
"IF" That was the original design thought then that might be the engineering mistake !
Probably there was no need for a steeper Flathead tunnel.
No doubt Cascade's builders assumed it would always be electrified.
timzProbably there was no need for a steeper Flathead tunnel.
Reading the contemporary accounts of Cascade's construction, I got the clear impression it was the 'lowest grade' solution that made overall sense. There was an extensive line improvement (Chumstick?) conducted with the 'fill material' from the tunnel construction that was at least as important a route improvement.
The sobering thing to me is that it's been nearly a half-century since the dual-mode-lite work was first undertaken, and no railroad has even considered it for this kind of situation. That puts teeth in what the 'practical men' have been saying in this thread, and it means that very great care in prospective design needs to be done to make the idea practical in future.
Lets remember one thing about such engineering projects as the Cascade Tunnel - they were laid out by men on the ground without the benefit (or curse) of any of the modern engineering tools (GPS, Google Earth and a host of other tools I can't comprehend).
The original lines for the route having be determined by men on horseback with their transits etc.
BaltACDLets remember one thing about such engineering projects as the Cascade Tunnel - they were laid out by men on the ground without the benefit (or curse) of any of the modern engineering tools (GPS, Google Earth and a host of other tools I can't comprehend).
MC is probably the best authority on this here. There was no lack of skill, and probably experience, laying out either the original or the revised Cascade Tunnel. As I recall there was at least one lower-grade alternative (which one of the surveyors favored) but management rejected it. And it's the men who manage money that manage the men who manage men who manage the men who manage things.
Bruce Kelly MidlandMike, I've seen past figures from BNSF that say the practical capacity of Flathead Tunnel is something like 44 trains per day. It would not surprise me if there have been occasions when the tunnel has handled more than that.
MidlandMike, I've seen past figures from BNSF that say the practical capacity of Flathead Tunnel is something like 44 trains per day. It would not surprise me if there have been occasions when the tunnel has handled more than that.
Indeed, I am aware of several times when 54 trains have been operated through the tunnel in 24 hours in the mid-2010s. In the summer of 2009 during the Mullan Tunnel collapse (and most MRL traffic was routed through Flathead Tunnel), 45 to 50 trains daily was commonplace. One day in August 2009, BNSF dispatched 17 unit trains (coal and grain) west from Shelby in a 24-hour period from 0001 to 2359. During that same period, the westbound Empire Builder that operated arrived in Seattle on time the following day. While this is a better testimony to the superior operating characteristics of Marias Pass, it does show that, in the whole scope of things, Flathead Tunnel is just not that big of a headache. Grade is a more limiting factor, as was discussed earlier in this thread with regard to Cascade Tunnel. But the approach to Flathead is only 1% with a track speed through the tunnel of 50 MPH, in stark contrast to grades and track speeds on the UP over the Blue Mountains or westbound on MRL on Mullan Pass. Fifty trains a day - especially with many being heavy unit trains - doesn't work without a second main track, tunnel or not.
VerMontanan In the summer of 2009 during the Mullan Tunnel collapse (and most MRL traffic was routed through Flathead Tunnel)...
Is the ex-NP route over Homestake(?) Pass still "intact"? Could it have been reactivated at that time?
From what I've read, Homestake Pass would have taken a lot of work to be put back in service in 2009.
MidlandMike Is the ex-NP route over Homestake(?) Pass still "intact"? Could it have been reactivated at that time?
No, couldn't've been used in 2009. Had already been out of service (from Spire Rock to Butte) for 26 years by then.
It is still intact, however. Of the 122 miles from Logan to Garrison: 50 miles (Logan to Spire Rock) operated by MRL; 20 miles Spire Rock to Butte, still owned by BNSF - rails in place badly deteriorated; 52 miles Butte to Garrison, operated by BNSF (Copper City subdivision).
The route over Homestake Pass was steep (2.2% grades each way), had very short sidings and was the curvature champion of the world. Not easily revivable or worth reviving.
With the OP declaring the Cascade Tunnel was a mistake - what would have been the 'right' way to surmount the problems Cascade was intended to fix if it wasn't the Cascade Tunnel and the trackage leading to and from it.
BaltACD With the OP declaring the Cascade Tunnel was a mistake - what would have been the 'right' way to surmount the problems Cascade was intended to fix if it wasn't the Cascade Tunnel and the trackage leading to and from it.
Murphy Siding BaltACD With the OP declaring the Cascade Tunnel was a mistake - what would have been the 'right' way to surmount the problems Cascade was intended to fix if it wasn't the Cascade Tunnel and the trackage leading to and from it. Well, I'm the OP and that wasn't me that was saying that.We'd have go back 11 years and read the article to find out all the details. Here's from my first post that started this thread: That's the title of an article in the current (Jan. 2010) Trains Magazine. In a nutshell, the author, who worked for GN/BN/BNSF from 1963 to 1999, says that GN made a mistake in 1929 with its new tunnel and alignment. He feels, that GN could have kept the old tunnel, and moved the west approach to the south side of the valley, and (?) stretched out the rise on the west side.
Well, I'm the OP and that wasn't me that was saying that.We'd have go back 11 years and read the article to find out all the details. Here's from my first post that started this thread: That's the title of an article in the current (Jan. 2010) Trains Magazine. In a nutshell, the author, who worked for GN/BN/BNSF from 1963 to 1999, says that GN made a mistake in 1929 with its new tunnel and alignment. He feels, that GN could have kept the old tunnel, and moved the west approach to the south side of the valley, and (?) stretched out the rise on the west side.
It is easy to second guess decisons that were made a century ago based on data of the day in light of the data developed over the intervening century. People can only make decisions on the data presented to them - not guessing what the unknown of the next century will present.
BaltACD Murphy Siding BaltACD With the OP declaring the Cascade Tunnel was a mistake - what would have been the 'right' way to surmount the problems Cascade was intended to fix if it wasn't the Cascade Tunnel and the trackage leading to and from it. Well, I'm the OP and that wasn't me that was saying that.We'd have go back 11 years and read the article to find out all the details. Here's from my first post that started this thread: That's the title of an article in the current (Jan. 2010) Trains Magazine. In a nutshell, the author, who worked for GN/BN/BNSF from 1963 to 1999, says that GN made a mistake in 1929 with its new tunnel and alignment. He feels, that GN could have kept the old tunnel, and moved the west approach to the south side of the valley, and (?) stretched out the rise on the west side. It is easy to second guess decisons that were made a century ago based on data of the day in light of the data developed over the intervening century. People can only make decisions on the data presented to them - not guessing what the unknown of the next century will present.
Earlier in the thread there was mention of the new tunnel bypassing slide zones. Which would makes sense to include that in the survey of a new alignment. Given what happened at Wellington 19 years prior to the new Cascade Tunnel. I'm surprised this former GN employee didn't take that into account.. Along with lowering the summit for better operation compared to the even steeper and more dangerous profile of the original route..
Did the author do a detailed snow study? The original route on the north side of the valley would have been along south (sun) facing slopes, which have particular avalanch producing qualities. However, a line along the south side of the valley, along north facing slopes would have more long lasting snow and the original line was well up into the heavy snow level. In Colorado, the original Tennessee Pass line on the north end of the tunnel, ran along a north facing slope and had persistent snow and ice. They eventually relocated the line to a sunnier side of the valley.
Murphy Siding In a nutshell, the author, who worked for GN/BN/BNSF from 1963 to 1999, says that GN made a mistake in 1929 with its new tunnel and alignment.
In a nutshell, the author, who worked for GN/BN/BNSF from 1963 to 1999, says that GN made a mistake in 1929 with its new tunnel and alignment.
Well, just because he was an employee of the railroad in question, doesn't mean his assertion earns any additional validity. The rebuttal by someone whose opinion really does matter, Robert W. Downing, retired Vice-Chairman and Chief Operating officer of Burlington Northern (and now deceased, unfortunately) appeared in the May 2010 issue of TRAINS, page 5. The first sentence is: "Contrary T. Michael Power's article 'Cascade Tunnel: An Engineering Mistake', the Cascade Tunnel was no mistake" and then convincingly explains why.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.