BNSF Pacific Northwest to Chicago Via Nebraska

[Victrola1]

With oil shipments increasing, BNSF Railway is shifting some trains to make room for current and future crude oil trains. Senior management recently communicated that most double stack trains operating between Chicago and the Pacific Northwest would be rerouted away from the Northern Corridor, via Minot, N.D., and shifted to the Central Corridor via Lincoln and Alliance, Neb....

http://trn.trains.com/en/Railroad%20News/News%20Wire/2012/11/Bakken%20oil%20increase%20shifts%20other%20traffic%20around%20BNSF.aspx

How much greater in terms of transit time and operating expenses per container is running the Central Corridor when compared to the Northern Corridor? Is the current traffic trend justification for expanding Northern Corridor capacity?

[MidlandMike]

It seems the ex-NP route across ND is only minimumly involved in the Bakken oil play.  I wonder why that route isn't more utilized?

[Bruce Kelly]

I can't answer your first question in specific time or cost figures. Logistically, this would leave BNSF stack trains two options between Sandpoint, ID, and Laurel/Billings, MT. Option 1 would be all-BNSF via Marias Pass and Great Falls. Problem here would be slow going on the Shelby-Great Falls-Mossmain route due to dark/TWC operation and existing traffic base of manifest, coal, and grain. Option 2 would be MRL. Problem here would be two mountain grades to cross and a heavy traffic base of everything including the kitchen sink. BNSF may be leaning more toward oil business now because domestic-use coal is declining, but if export coal continues to climb, they'll be revisiting this subject again. To answer your last question, yes, the oil now and the coal later should be justification for northern transcon capacity improvements.

[MidlandMike]

Bruce Kelly

... To answer your last question, yes, the oil now and the coal later should be justification for northern transcon capacity improvements.

While oil will probably continue to be hauled by rail to the East and West coasts, pipelines are in the permitting stage, and at least one will likely be built toward the Gulf Coast.  If traffic can be rerouted around the northern transcon, then it may be risky to spend on capacity improvements for what may be a temporary boom.

[Bruce Kelly]

Which is why I said oil AND coal. I do not expect them to invest much toward expanding main line route capacity just for oil.

[PNWRMNM]

Capital investment will be driven by discounted cash flow analysis which is simply a structured way of addressing the question What will I save if I make the investment vs how much will it cost"

We can safely assume that the new route involves more miles. If anyone cares to do so, you can go to BNSF web site and calculate the difference via the three routes involved.

The mileage difference is the first element of increased cost. Next is what investments does BNSF have to make on alternate routes. This is highly route specific and far beyond the scope of what anyone outside of BNSF could get the data required to support the analysis.

I concur with Bruce, BNSF will be reluctant to invest just for oil due to its perceived short shipping life, AKA pipeline diversion. The exception to this would be if the investment is relatively modest and the savings associated are substantial. For example, if two or three new sidings in North Dakota would solve the problem, then this diversion could be very short lived.

My guess as to route between Sandpoint and Laurel is the former GN. Yes it is dark track, but the maximum freight train speed differential is only 10 MPH, 49 vs 59. The big issue is how BNSF is handling switches at meeting points. Even with spring switches they would need a caboose and a rear brakeman to line back the main traick switch after heading in. The other option is what they did on Stampede Pass, "Poor man's CTC", which is dispatcher control of siding switches under Track Warrant Control.

Power requirements via the MRL would be about double that of former GN, and fuel would be higher on the NP. Plus they have to pay MRL a toll. For those reasons my money is on the former GN.

[diningcar]

BNSF has already decided to use the MLR. To me this means they have done the computations and at least for the short term the decision has been made.

[Dakguy201]

I look at the timekeeping record for the California Zephyr quite a bit.  Although BNSF installed additional crossovers in the Iowa portion of the Central Corridor this year, it is very common for the Zephyr to lose an hour westbound between Galesburg and Omaha.   From that I assumed this route was running pretty close to its capacity.  Apparently I'm mistaken.  

[beaulieu]

MidlandMike

It seems the ex-NP route across ND is only minimumly involved in the Bakken oil play.  I wonder why that route isn't more utilized?

There are several loading points either on the former NP or branches off of it. Bakken Oil Express is located just west of Dickinson, ND and there is another on the branch northwest of Mandan, ND.

[MidlandMike]

beaulieu

MidlandMike

It seems the ex-NP route across ND is only minimumly involved in the Bakken oil play.  I wonder why that route isn't more utilized?

There are several loading points either on the former NP or branches off of it. Bakken Oil Express is located just west of Dickinson, ND and there is another on the branch northwest of Mandan, ND.

By "minimumly involved' on ex-NP, I was talking relative to the ex-GN line.  The map on p.37. Trains, May 2012. shows two loadouts on NP, vs. several on GN and surrounding lines.  I presume the NP line was also affected by the downturn in coal.

[herdebu]

With the line thur Devils Lake ND now up and running again some of this traffic could move via Grand Forks, Fargo and Willmar and Minneapolis

[blue streak 1]

PNWRMNM

. Even with spring switches they would need a caboose and a rear brakeman to line back the main traick switch after heading in. The other option is what they did on Stampede Pass, "Poor man's CTC", which is dispatcher control of siding switches under Track Warrant Control.

 A much less expensive way and more fluid as well is do what NS did.

NS upgraded their line from Manassas -- Front Royal.  The siding switches were aligned for straight thru running with a spring switch. A train would enter straight thru at one end and after receiving clearance from dispatcher would trail thru the other end's spring switch. This set up requires no aligning of switch by either dispatcher or train crew. Much quicker and more fluid.

Of course do not let train move backwards ( even slack action ) thru these switches.

 

[VerMontanan]

Bruce Kelly

Option 1 would be all-BNSF via Marias Pass and Great Falls. Problem here would be slow going on the Shelby-Great Falls-Mossmain route due to dark/TWC operation and existing traffic base of manifest, coal, and grain.

 

This is not an option.  Doublestack trains don't fit in the tunnels between Great Falls and Mossmain/Billings.

[VerMontanan]

Victrola1

How much greater in terms of transit time and operating expenses per container is running the Central Corridor when compared to the Northern Corridor? Is the current traffic trend justification for expanding Northern Corridor capacity?

Between Chicago and Seattle:

.

BNSF, current intermodal route via New Rockford, Havre, Wenatchee: 2181

BNSF, current intermodal route except via Pasco-Wishram-Vancouver instead of Wenatchee: 2400

BNSF, current detour route via Lincoln, Billings, Wenatchee: 2345

BNSF, current detour route if via Pasco-Wishram-Vancouver instead of Wenatchee: 2568

UP via Boone, Blair, Sidney, Kemmerer, Kuna, The Dalles: 2421

.

BNSF has a huge mileage advantage over UP on its preferred route via Havre, some 200 miles. Even when BNSF chooses to route trains via the low-grade ex-SP&S route through Wishram instead of over the mountain, it's shorter. Amazingly, even detouring route is a bit shorter than UP (but not by a lot), except this is mileage for Seattle; for Tacoma, add 40 miles to the BNSF route via Wenatchee, and subtract 40 miles from the UP route (80 mile difference), which means for trains to/from Tacoma, the UP route is actually shorter.

.

Mileage really tends not to matter as much as profile and crews, however. Between Chicago and Seattle via Havre, BNSF uses 10 road crews and no helper crews (westbound); the route via Lincoln will use 14 road crews and 2 to 3 helper crews. UP uses 11 road crews, and like BNSF west of Wenatchee, relies on distributed power rather than helpers over the Blue Mountains.

.

On the preferred route via Havre westbound, the first grade over 1 percent is west of Havre, and only exceeds 1 percent one place between Havre and Wenatchee; it's 2.2 percent west of Wenatchee. The UP route is similar (depending on which track is used over Sherman Hill) and could not experience a grade over 1 percent until around Glenns Ferry, Idaho (southeast of Boise), and then there are pretty severe grades Nampa to Hinkle, which are dealt with by using distributed power. Hinkle to Seattle via Portland is just less than 1 percent. When BNSF detours loaded stack trains via Wishram westbound, the train makes the whole trip from Chicago to Seattle nothing over 1 percent grade except for the short hill at Bison, Montana at 1.3.

The BNSF detour route has its first grade over 1 percent at Burlington, IA, and then numerous places over 1 percent between Alliance and Billings. Bozeman Pass on MRL is 1.8 percent, Mullan is 2.2; these are dealt with by using helpers, as are trains in the Sheridan area if they need it.

.

Eastbound, BNSF's preferred route is 2.2 percent Seattle to Wenatchee, then beyond, 1 percent or less to Essex, Montana where helpers are used to Summit, and then from Summit, Montana on the Continental Divide to Chicago - over 1500 miles, nothing more than .8 percent. UP has eastbound grades similar to westbound between Hinkle and King Hill around Glenns Ferry (Idaho), but east of there, like east of Summit and BNSF, nothing dramatic, even Sherman Hill.

.

BNSF's detour route has severe grades all the way to Nebraska; in fact, after cresting the Continental Divide on MRL at Blossburg, Montana, trains still deal with 1.9 percent Bozeman Pass, 1.3 percent Parkman Hill, and the whopping 1.6 percent climbs out of Sheridan, Wyoming and Crawford Hill northwest of Alliance.

.

All of these extra miles and extra hills equate to more locomotive power, be it more road power or just the need for helper power, more locomotive power having to run further, and of course more fuel consumption. Montana Rail Link expects all intermodal trains to be delivered to them with sufficient power to not need helpers, and when they do, it's not cheap.

.

Transit times for a normal operation are significantly shorter on the route through Havre, but I would imagine that unless infrastructure improvements are forthcoming, such an advantage would be offset somewhat by congestion in the area the detouring trains are trying to avoid.

.

In the end, it'll be interesting to see if BNSF can afford to keep the trains running this way or if they let UP have them, or actually invest in the route that will assure them the advantage.

.

[PNWRMNM]

Mark,

I did not realize that the line through Nebraska as so bad. MRL I knew.

My question is how long is the segment where these stack trains are headbutting with the oil trains?

If I were Mr. BNSF I would be looking at adding sidings in the congested territory, or fixing clearances between Laurel and Great Falls.

Mac McCulloch

[jrbernier]

PNWRMNM

Mark,

I did not realize that the line through Nebraska as so bad. MRL I knew.

My question is how long is the segment where these stack trains are headbutting with the oil trains?

If I were Mr. BNSF I would be looking at adding sidings in the congested territory, or fixing clearances between Laurel and Great Falls.

Mac McCulloch

  The general freight and stack trains will be running against coal traffic.  IIRC, most of the line has two main tracks already.

Jim

[VerMontanan]

PNWRMNM

My question is how long is the segment where these stack trains are headbutting with the oil trains?

 

Pretty much all the way across North Dakota, but now that the bridges on the Devils Lake line have been rebuilt, this route is now available as a safety valve east of Minot.  West of Minot, where the oil is loaded, and there is a lot of other Bakken-related business, is the main bottleneck.  The question I suppose is whether not upgrading the line is cost-effective compared to rendering some of the rest of the route underutilized and creating an alternate routing that is inferior with regard to cost.  We shall see...

[diningcar]

 

 

Pretty much all the way across North Dakota, but now that the bridges on the Devils Lake line have been rebuilt, this route is now available as a safety valve east of Minot.  West of Minot, where the oil is loaded, and there is a lot of other Bakken-related business, is the main bottleneck.  The question I suppose is whether not upgrading the line is cost-effective compared to rendering some of the rest of the route underutilized and creating an alternate routing that is inferior with regard to cost.  We shall see...

To upgrade is not a quick proceedure - see UP double tracking the Sunset Route for example. Also the current traffic on this line that precipitated this discussion would make upgrading impractical.

BNSF has made their decision and there is not sufficient knowledge commenting at this site to suggest there is a better way.

 

[PNWRMNM]

Dining car,

I would agree that we do not have the facts to support an investment decision, but disagree with the notion that we are incapable of discussion alternatives.

I also agree that expanding capacity can not be done instantly, in fact not before next spring in North Dakota. I disagree that the high volume of traffic makes upgrading the line impossible or impractical. The railroads have been doing upgrades under traffic since before the Civil War.

The additiional crew, MRL toll, and power costs of diverting the stack trains would make me think very seriously about expanding capacity across North Dakota if I were Mr. BNSF. I am confident they are studying the matter very closely. The key element in the decision will be how long the oil will be moving and in what volume.

Mac 

[ButchKnouse]

VerMontanan

Bruce Kelly

Option 1 would be all-BNSF via Marias Pass and Great Falls. Problem here would be slow going on the Shelby-Great Falls-Mossmain route due to dark/TWC operation and existing traffic base of manifest, coal, and grain.

 

This is not an option.  Doublestack trains don't fit in the tunnels between Great Falls and Mossmain/Billings.

Are the tunnels the reason the double stacks can't be diverted down the old Milwaukee Road mainline at Terry, MT and run through South Dakota and Minnesota to Minneapolis?

[VerMontanan]

ButchKnouse

VerMontanan

Bruce Kelly

Option 1 would be all-BNSF via Marias Pass and Great Falls. Problem here would be slow going on the Shelby-Great Falls-Mossmain route due to dark/TWC operation and existing traffic base of manifest, coal, and grain.

 

This is not an option.  Doublestack trains don't fit in the tunnels between Great Falls and Mossmain/Billings.

No, the ex-MILW basically has inadequate siding and crew capacity to handle this additional traffic.

Are the tunnels the reason the double stacks can't be diverted down the old Milwaukee Road mainline at Terry, MT and run through South Dakota and Minnesota to Minneapolis?