Did Burlington, or whoever owned the rail at the time, ever consider using The Snoqualmie Tunnel instead of Cascade... would it have been possible.?
Maybe my geography is way off...I thought they were pretty close...relative to train traffic needs.
Thank You
It was the Milwaukee Road that ran through a tunnel in Snoqualmie Pass right next to where I 90 runs now. Both the Milwaukee Road and Great Northern ran side by side from Ellensburg up to Easton on the eastern slope of the Cascade Mountains then Great Northern splits off to go through Stampede Pass which is a howling wilderness compared to Snolqualmie Pass. The BNSF now uses the Great Northern Route to get to Auburn just south of Seattle.
Yeah...I was not asking about who used/built the tunnel, but rather who Could/Might have used it, after TMR was ditched.
Would/Could it have been a better alternative for, once again Burlington or whoever Owned/Owns it, getting under The Cascades than what BNSF uses now...that 7.5 mile long tunnel with all the fume, fan, and waiting problems.?
BN bought the Snoqualmie Pass line all the way across Washington to where it connected to their lines in Eastern Washington for the reason you mention when the Milwaukee closed it in 1980, and kept it until 1987 or so. But they had one other route paralleling both the GN and MILW, the former NP Stampede Pass line, shut down for lack of traffic already, and decided one had to go and it was the Milwaukee, and the rails were taken up. Ironically, just five or so years later the Cascade Pass route had so much extra grain traffic that they had to reopen Stampede Pass at great cost, it has worse grades than the old Milwaukee and I recall reading that they rued their choice. I'm not sure why they chose to save the Stampede Pass route, it may just have been in better shape than the Milwaukee Snoqualmie Tunnel route.
Crank,
All of your references to Great Northern should be Northern Pacific.
Dwight,
The MILW route had its issues, particularly street running through Renton WA. I have heard tales BN contemplated a connection out Ravensdale (NP)/Maple Valley(MILW) way, which would have avoided Renton and kept the connection at Auburn. Of course, since Stampede was shut down there was no need for it and was never done.
Between Ellensburg and Lind MILW was much shorter, but with a long 2.2% grade westward and a few mile 1.6% eastward grade. Would have been OK for intermodal but not good for carload traffic in terms of power.
BN's big mistake in Eastern Washington was tearing out SP&S between Spokane and Pasco, but that is a whole different kettle of fish that the MILW over Snoqualmie Pass.
Mac
OK...I do not have your guys knowledge of rails but.....I guess there was more at hand than just simply using the "better" tunnel at Snoqualmie.? The route to and from the tunnel may have presented problems of its own I guess...more trouble than using the other tunnels apparently.
Thanks
kenny dorhamWould/Could it have been a better alternative for, once again Burlington or whoever Owned/Owns it, getting under The Cascades than what BNSF uses now...that 7.5 mile long tunnel with all the fume, fan, and waiting problems.?
Kenny,
If the MILW would clear auto racks and double stacks, and if the new connection I mentioned in the previous post had been built, then using the MILW from Easton to the west would give a better profile than the NP from Easton west.
BN wants to route all cross state intermodal via Stevens pass and the 7.79 mile long Cascade Tunnel since it is only about 330 miles between Spokane and Seattle. If Stevens Pass is full, stack trains have to take the much longer route via the Columbia River Gorge since they can not clear the Stampede Pass tunnels.
With traffic growth of the last decade or so, especially in heavy unit trains of grain coal and oil, the former SP&S along the Columbia River Gorge has become congested. BNSF recently got smart and is now making the best use of what they have without investing a LOT of money. The have instituted what they call the "iron triangle" plan. At Pasco a crew works west on a loaded unit train. Next day they work north, I think to Seattle, on another loaded unit train or an empty grain train from say Kalama to Auburn, Next day they work west over Stampede Pass with an empty unit train. This gives directional running for the unit trains in the Gorge and over Stampede which minimizes the number of meets in the Gorge and on Stampede. Vancouver WA to Seattle is two main tracks all the way. It also minimizes power requirements since loads see no more than 1% and that power is more than sufficient for the returns over the 2.2% of Stampede Pass.
Personally, I believe that the Milwaukee ROW in the PNW should be rebuilt, as means of easing the chronic rail bottleneck in that park of the country.
Your thought(s)?
I believe that Stampede Pass is not at capacity. However, with the new rush of oil trains, and the possibility of major coal and bulk cargo export terminals, the number of trains is rising. The big question is whether or not it is cost effective, and if Washington State, who IIRC owns the ROW, allows it. I would expect tons of NIMBYism,.
NorthWest I believe that Stampede Pass is not at capacity. However, with the new rush of oil trains, and the possibility of major coal and bulk cargo export terminals, the number of trains is rising. The big question is whether or not it is cost effective, and if Washington State, who IIRC owns the ROW, allows it. I would expect tons of NIMBYism,.
Well...if done properly a rail trail and ROW could co-exist. I also wonder about Washington State....they are becoming more and more like California.
One of the tall steel trestles was damaged during a flash flood in the 1980s. One of the support towers collapsed. That and the expected traffic never developing led BN to abandon the line.
The trestle was repaired for trail use, but I don't think to the point that it could support rail traffic. To make it rail worthy again I would guess would require more extensive work.
Jeff
MurrayWell...if done properly a rail trail and ROW could co-exist.
They could switch the rail and the trail between Stampede and Snowqualmie. Seattle would probably like to get the rail corridor away from the Green River Reservoir.
mudchickenMurrayWell...if done properly a rail trail and ROW could co-exist. Highly questionable statement from any railroad's or risk manager's point of view.
MidlandMike They could switch the rail and the trail between Stampede and Snowqualmie. Seattle would probably like to get the rail corridor away from the Green River Reservoir.
The Stampede line goes through Tacoma's watershed area, not Seattle's. Tacoma does not allow visitors, even just walking, in their watershed (an exception is made for foot traffic to Lester from the west, but not by Tacoma's choice).
There is a lot of anti-coal transport and anti-oil transport politics in the west side of Washington state. Given the political realities, it would be very difficult politically to get approval to put BNSF rails back on the former MILW right-of-way now owned by the state.
Rader Sidetrack MidlandMike They could switch the rail and the trail between Stampede and Snowqualmie. Seattle would probably like to get the rail corridor away from the Green River Reservoir. The Stampede line goes through Tacoma's watershed area, not Seattle's. Tacoma does not allow visitors, even just walking, in their watershed (an exception is made for foot traffic to Lester from the west, but not by Tacoma's choice). There is a lot of anti-coal transport and anti-oil transport politics in the west side of Washington state. Given the political realities, it would be very difficult politically to get approval to put BNSF rails back on the former MILW right-of-way now owned by the state.
Understand about the state owning the ROW.
My questions is....is that former MILW ROW considered to be "railbanked" insofar that it could possibly be restored if necessary?
Murray,
You are beating a long dead horse. BNSF can have no desire to spend $250-300 million dollars for a Cascade Mountain crossing that is not significantly better than Stampede.
PNWRMNM Murray, You are beating a long dead horse. BNSF can have no desire to spend $250-300 million dollars for a Cascade Mountain crossing that is not significantly better than Stampede. Mac
Well...not so much beating a dead horse Mac....rather than I am figure out how the rail bottleneck in the PNW could be improved from its current state.
And if for nothing else, you would at least have available another cross state rail line.
Murray PNWRMNM Murray, You are beating a long dead horse. BNSF can have no desire to spend $250-300 million dollars for a Cascade Mountain crossing that is not significantly better than Stampede. Mac Well...not so much beating a dead horse Mac....rather than I am figure out how the rail bottleneck in the PNW could be improved from its current state. And if for nothing else, you would at least have available another cross state rail line.
Keep beating that horse, it is the proper horse to beat. A second outlet for traffic is worth it. Besides, horsemeat is a growing trend.
MurrayWell...not so much beating a dead horse Mac....rather than I am figure out how the rail bottleneck in the PNW could be improved from its current state.
To what rail bottleneck across Washington State are you referring and what is your source?
I grew up in Wenatchee, and am familiar with the geography and the traffic. Last time I talked to the Port of Tacoma, one of BNSF's chief complainers, they told me there was lots of capacity due to the fact that Port volumes were down due to the recession and capacity was up due to DPUs allowing longer heavier trains.
Since then BNSF added a siding in the Gorge, instituted the iron triangle, and is double tracking the former NP between Spokane and Pasco.
Even if there was a capacity problem between the Columbia River and Puget Sound there are many cheaper ways to expand capacity the resurecting the old MILW over Snoqualmie Pass.
PNWRMNM MurrayWell...not so much beating a dead horse Mac....rather than I am figure out how the rail bottleneck in the PNW could be improved from its current state. Murray, To what rail bottleneck across Washington State are you referring and what is your source? Mac
I live in Iowa, and have heard about the bottlenecks out there in the last few months. Mean time, grain is down in the PNW, while up in the Gulf. Source? One dispatcher, a lawsuit by Amtrak, and media articles. Even the USDA has reported the lower numbers in the PNW. How much more evidence do you need?
MurrayUnderstand about the state owning the ROW. My questions is....is that former MILW ROW considered to be "railbanked" insofar that it could possibly be restored if necessary?
The answer as to whether the former MILW line is legally railbanked is not entirely clear. There are plenty of web references that suggest it is railbanked. However, this 2011 map from the WA DOT says its status is "abandoned".
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/94126905-BDAD-47E5-86CD-21A5A264568F/0/2011_AbandonedActiveRailBanked.pdf
The 2010 version of this map includes a disclaimer statement about Railbanking* in the map legend that does not appear in the 2011 version.
* Includes only Surface Transportation Board decisions after 1996. May not reflect all Rail Banked lines. Rail Bank lines are eligible to revert to active lines if certain conditions are met. http://www.wsdot.gov/NR/rdonlyres/891C6021-26CF-4E49-8BFA-1CEBC4FC755B/0/AbandonedActiveRailBank.pdf
http://www.wsdot.gov/NR/rdonlyres/891C6021-26CF-4E49-8BFA-1CEBC4FC755B/0/AbandonedActiveRailBank.pdf
Enough loopholes to make any bureaucrat smile!
RRKen I live in Iowa, and have heard about the bottlenecks out there in the last few months. Mean time, grain is down in the PNW, while up in the Gulf. Source? One dispatcher, a lawsuit by Amtrak, and media articles. Even the USDA has reported the lower numbers in the PNW. How much more evidence do you need?
Ken,
I was hoping that Murrary would reply but since he has not, lets talk about the credibility of your sources.
One dispatcher says grain is down to PNW and up to the Gulf. Assuming that he can see both flows at the same time and assuming his report is correct, the statement is not evidence of capacity constraints in the PNW.
A much more likely reason for the observation is that grain consumers in the Pacific Rim are now buying less grain than they were when he started counting and that consumers better served from the Gulf have increased their purchases. It is also possible that ocean carriers, for reasons that I can not know, offfered extra cheap rates to the Pacific Rim from the Gulf Coast. It may or may not be relevant that BNSF mentioned a Fourth Quarter 2013 surge in Agricultural Shipment products in their announcement of their $5 billion Capex program for 2014.The point is that the observation is not evidence of the claim of rail constraints in the PNW
A lawsuit by ATK. About what? Where? What you provided is so vague as to be meaningless.
Media articles. What media articles? Published by whom? Give me a link. Again what you provided is so vague as to be meaningless.
If you are going to claim the moon is made of green cheese, you need to show some evidence. So far you have not.
Murray Rader Sidetrack MidlandMike They could switch the rail and the trail between Stampede and Snowqualmie. Seattle would probably like to get the rail corridor away from the Green River Reservoir. The Stampede line goes through Tacoma's watershed area, not Seattle's. Tacoma does not allow visitors, even just walking, in their watershed (an exception is made for foot traffic to Lester from the west, but not by Tacoma's choice). There is a lot of anti-coal transport and anti-oil transport politics in the west side of Washington state. Given the political realities, it would be very difficult politically to get approval to put BNSF rails back on the former MILW right-of-way now owned by the state. Understand about the state owning the ROW. My questions is....is that former MILW ROW considered to be "railbanked" insofar that it could possibly be restored if necessary?
Start with Dockets AB7-86(F) and FD-29328 and go forward from 1980 when BN applied to take over the PCE of the MILW.
Edit: So it's clear, BN only acquired a couple of pieces (69 miles)of the MILW PCE main track across Washington. The bulk of the line abandoned. The 54 mile chunk from Easton-Cedar Falls/Maple Valley-Snoqualmie Falls includes the Snoqualmie Pass tunnel and is now part of the Iron Horse/ John Wayne/Whatevertheycallitthissweek Trail. On the west end of that 54 mile acquisition, they abandoned some od their original line in favor of the Milw line.
mudchickenSpend some time with the STB librarian. 1986-1996 is in the donut hole for researchers at STB in the period between hand carried and computer records. [compounded by the reckless custodial actions of a Denver Law School Library and the joke Intermodal Institute]...there is no immediate record of any NITU or CITU. It's gonna take some digging to get an answer.
Is that in their main building at Evans and University roughly? I was in the Law library when the law school was in the old Colorado Women's College near Lowry but have never been in the new building even though I was a DU student and lived three blocks from there ten years ago. Would they have records of abandonment applications under the old ICC, say from the seventies? I have been searching for the original abandonment application for my namesake all over the place, at county courthouses etc.
PNWRMNM ... Since then BNSF added a siding in the Gorge, instituted the iron triangle, and is double tracking the former NP between Spokane and Pasco. ...
...
Was re-railing the SP&S considered, vs double tracking the former NP between Spokane and Pasco?
PNWRMNM One dispatcher says grain is down to PNW and up to the Gulf. Assuming that he can see both flows at the same time and assuming his report is correct, the statement is not evidence of capacity constraints in the PNW. A much more likely reason for the observation is that grain consumers in the Pacific Rim are now buying less grain than they were when he started counting and that consumers better served from the Gulf have increased their purchases.
A much more likely reason for the observation is that grain consumers in the Pacific Rim are now buying less grain than they were when he started counting and that consumers better served from the Gulf have increased their purchases.
Pure Humbug!
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/12/23/212551/oil-grain-trains-squeeze-amtraks.html
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/feb/9/nd-oil-freight-shipments-detour-amtrak-trains/?page=all
http://www.columbian.com/news/2014/jan/21/fix-bottlenecks-before-panama-canal-work-is-done/
Now, I need to go, tired of doing homework for others. This is not imagined, it has been the topic of discussion for a few months now.
None of these articles have anything to do with Snoqualmie Pass or alleged capacity constraints on BNSF between Spokane and the Lower Columbia River or Puget Sound.
The first, from McLatchy, has to do with ATK problems in North Dakota they attribute to new oil traffic from the Bakken, which their nice map shows centered on the ND/MT border. The article also notes doubled grain traffic on BNSF due to big harvest, but says nothing about problems handling that traffic. Anywhere.
The second, datelined Bismark ND, is a heart rending tale about how ATK's problems in ND are hurting ice fishing guides near Devil's Lake and funeral homes needing to ship bodies. Devils Lake and the Bakkan are well over 1000 miles away from Washington State and totally irrelevant.
The Columbian piece is a call for more highway spending in Washington State. IIRC the Columbian is published in VAncouver WA, so the geography is at least close. It is an opinion piece, so lots of generalities. It makes no claim that BNSF has cross state capacity problems, and even noted BNSF's 2013 capital investment in the State of Washington.
I am not asking you to do by homework. I am asking you for evidince to support your claims that Snoqualmie Pass should be rebuilt to relieve congestion on BNSF in Washington State. So far you are 0 of 4.
So Mac, what you are suggesting is that all is well with BNSF in Washington State and there is no freight stacked up and no congestion there at all?
NOTE: I used to live in Spokane, so I am familiar with the state.
I believe that BNSF is busy in Washington. I am not aware of any capacity constraint that has adversely affected service to a serious extent.
You have made claims without any evidence to support them. Since you are making the claims it is up to you to provide some evidence that the claim is true. Without evidence you look like chicken little.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.