A Response to Going Long: BNSF’s Own Strategy for Megatrains (November 2021)

[greyhounds]

ADRIAN BALLAM

I see Waynoka is in Oklahoma. I am not sure where Mendota is. Where's that? To any event, I found it odd that the double-tracking combination would occur in Oklahoma, where are no significant rail yards, as compared to Barstow, Belen, Amarillo, Kansas City, or Galesburg which major rail yards reside. It sounds like there is too many authorities involved in setting up the "Megatrains" that run on BNSF. I agree that the strategy described there doesn't sound that efficient and logical.

There is a "Mendota" in north central Illinois on the old CB&Q line through Galesburg, IL to the Mississippi River crossing at Burlington, IA.  The BNSF has two "Two Main Track" lines between Chicago and the river crossings.  

Barstow, Belen, Amarillo, Kansas City, and Galesburg are already on Two Main Track routes.  In fact, Galesburg is on two two main track routes.

[MidlandMike]

Waynoka is where the ex-Frisco trains from St Louis and Memphis join the Transcon.

[ADRIAN BALLAM]

I see Waynoka is in Oklahoma. I am not sure where Mendota is. Where's that?

To any event, I found it odd that the double-tracking combination would occur in Oklahoma, where are no significant rail yards, as compared to Barstow, Belen, Amarillo, Kansas City, or Galesburg which major rail yards reside. It sounds like there is too many authorities involved in setting up the "Megatrains" that run on BNSF. I agree that the strategy described there doesn't sound that efficient and logical.

[ADRIAN BALLAM]

That's not quite true of the routes being completely single tracked in the region. There are significant sections of double-track on the Lakeside Sub. Providence Hill is part of a double-track section that is around 15 miles long. There are also other double-track sections easily capable of handling 10,000 foot trains, including west of Spokane; east of Ritzville; Connell; and east of Pasco. The Funnel is also mostly double-tracked between Spokane and Sandpoint, Idaho (there are at least two short sections that are still single, one of which is being double-tracked right now). There are also significant sections of double-track (despite these capacity constraints that hinder expansion along the Kootnai River, which is a very short stretch) east of Sandpoint, Idaho into Montana and North Dakota. Overall, I believe there is more double-track on BNSF's Northern Transcon than there is on CP's Transcon between Vancouver and Moose Jaw (and CP frequently run trains over 10,000 feet). It just doesn't make sense to me that they would not run them this short in the Pacific Northwest. It would be nice (and I am hoping a commenter refers this to me) to provide an updated timetable of the subdivisions that comprise BNSF's Pacific Northwest mainline, then I would determine further on many sections can currently handle 10,000 foot trains.

Also, it does make business sense to run longer trains in the Pacific Northwest. It saves train start-ups and also makes crews more available for BNSF, among other reasons. Since Stevens Pass is primarily for empty commodity trains, it would make sense to combine oil/coal or oil/grain or grain/coal into one. Even Stampede since that is exclusively now reserved for empty commodity trains as well. Westbound trains could be combined from Spokane to Vancouver, Tacoma, and Seattle via the Columbia Gorge. In fact, westbound loaded trains only use the Columbia Gorge and do not traverse Stampede or Stevens. They could then split the trains at another point to send them to their specific destination. I think that 41 trains in 17 hours is rather surprising and I think this stresses the line more than to run trains combined in two miles or longer sections.

[SFbrkmn]

greyhounds

I went back and reread Bill Stephens’ article on “Going Long” at the BNSF.

 

I see his writing as accurate and truthful.  If you want to see BNSF mega trains watch the Ft. Madison, Iowa Virtual Railfan camera.  Not all BNSF trains through Ft. Madison are mega trains, but some certainly are.

 

Stephens pretty much explains BNSF’s operations as meeting customer expectations while reducing costs.  That’s the way to run a business.

 

An example he cites is an eastbound stack train from Los Angeles being combined with eastbound ethanol empties.  There’s no reason not to do that.  At some point, maybe Kansas City, the trains are split with the containers going on to Chicago and the tank cars going to the ethanol plant.  In between the BNSF saved train miles and crew miles.  That’s good business efficiency.

 

Another example Stephens cites is the operation of a stack train from Chicago to LA being combined with a domestic Q train to northern California.  The trains are split at Barstow, CA.  But between Chicago and Barstow the BNSF saved a lot of train miles and crew miles.

 

I reason that what you’re personally watching is the very busy Pacific Northwest portion of the BNSF.  This is generally single-track territory with relatively short passing sidings.  BNSF isn’t about to create congestion by running many mega trains that don’t fit the sidings.  (They do run some.)

 

BNSF has just spent $2 billion to buy out the lease to the MRL.  They’re hitting capacity on the Great Northern route and Stephens has pointed out in another article that they’ve added about all the capacity they reasonably can on that route.  So, the next best option was to get the old Northern Pacific back.

 

BNSF uses mega trains when they make good business sense.

 

Not so. There are very few crew & train miles saved and is not good busiess sense.Building a mega enroute saves nothing.  On the double-ended Wellks-Amaril pool over the Panhandle Sub, there are about 3-5 a day which will be put together at either Waynoka or Mendota. The process is slow and if all goes well, it can be done in "only" 3 hours while, in the meantine, single tracking around the stopped train delays other trains.                                                                                   The enroute combos always requires an extra board relief crew to take over from the pool crew as one cannot make it in hours of service. No savings there.            Other factors is just what type of trains are being combined. I have been involved where both trains ran 70mph but the combining of the pair put the TOB over 105, which knocks down max speed to 55--provided if you can get up to that speed.      One also has to carefully look over the proposed train make up to make sure it is in compliance, otherwise the condr is making phone calls to bring up the issue.      Labor relations looks at it in a perfect world that miles are being saved but again they are not. You maybe using one less pool crew over a district, but extra board crews are being called to relieve the train. Same number of crews--just different boards and the excuse the workforce hears is "it is from a different budget"           Sam 

[caldreamer]

I watch the Ft Madison, Iowa webcam daily.  Yesterday I watched a double stack megatrain.  Three engines up front and another three midtrain.  Did not count the cars, but when the mid train DPU locomotives passed the Ft Madison station the rear portion of train was still crossing the Mississippi river with cars on the east side of the river.

[greyhounds]

I went back and reread Bill Stephens’ article on “Going Long” at the BNSF.

 

I see his writing as accurate and truthful.  If you want to see BNSF mega trains watch the Ft. Madison, Iowa Virtual Railfan camera.  Not all BNSF trains through Ft. Madison are mega trains, but some certainly are.

 

Stephens pretty much explains BNSF’s operations as meeting customer expectations while reducing costs.  That’s the way to run a business.

 

An example he cites is an eastbound stack train from Los Angeles being combined with eastbound ethanol empties.  There’s no reason not to do that.  At some point, maybe Kansas City, the trains are split with the containers going on to Chicago and the tank cars going to the ethanol plant.  In between the BNSF saved train miles and crew miles.  That’s good business efficiency.

 

Another example Stephens cites is the operation of a stack train from Chicago to LA being combined with a domestic Q train to northern California.  The trains are split at Barstow, CA.  But between Chicago and Barstow the BNSF saved a lot of train miles and crew miles.

 

I reason that what you’re personally watching is the very busy Pacific Northwest portion of the BNSF.  This is generally single-track territory with relatively short passing sidings.  BNSF isn’t about to create congestion by running many mega trains that don’t fit the sidings.  (They do run some.)

 

BNSF has just spent $2 billion to buy out the lease to the MRL.  They’re hitting capacity on the Great Northern route and Stephens has pointed out in another article that they’ve added about all the capacity they reasonably can on that route.  So, the next best option was to get the old Northern Pacific back.

 

BNSF uses mega trains when they make good business sense.

 

[ADRIAN BALLAM]

Hello all railfans and Trains Magazine readers,

 

In the November 2021 issue of Trains Magazine, there was a feature article called “Going Long: BNSF’s Own Strategy for Megatrains”. While I recognize my posting is seven months after the article showed up in Trains Magazine, I wanted to respond to it when I had the evidence to back-up my concerns regarding this article.

 

In railfanning, I significantly focus on train lengths. When I see a train, I always count the number of cars that follow the locomotives. I have been counting trains since September 2000 and have journalized the vast majority of trains I have seen in my life. I am currently on my fourth journal.

 

Over the last few years, the major railroads have heavily adopted Precision Railroading, which has led to increasingly longer trains. Here in Canada, it has very apparent with CN and CP over the past decade (in CN’s case, over two decades now). With Union Pacific, it is also very apparent. In BNSF’s case, the railroad has been slower (and less interested based on service risk I believe among other factors) in adopting this strategy.

 

In November 2021, writer Bill Stephens wrote an article on BNSF’s strategy in moving freight on longer trains. Even before I read this article, I found it rather strange that they would focus on the railroad that was least likely to run trains of at least 10,000 feet or almost two miles long. Having railfanned BNSF in the Pacific Northwest since 2002, seeing trains that long was extremely rare. Seeing trains, in fact, at least 130 cars, was also very rare. They are just not that long throughout the region.

 

The article discusses in length on how BNSF has combined trains to make them “Megatrains” throughout their network, including the Pacific Northwest. Since my railfanning revolves heavily around train car counts, I was excited to venture down to the Washington and Oregon once pandemic related travel restrictions eased between Canada and the USA. The first time I went down was April 13. During the course of five nights, I managed to count the cars of 94 BNSF trains, the vasty majority being observed on the Fallbridge (Pasco to Vancouver, Washington) and Lakeside (Spokane to Pasco, Washington) Subdivisions. Of these 94 trains, only one exceeded 10,000 feet: a 233 empty grain.

 

I was disappointed. I was expecting many more longer trains than just one over 10,000 feet. The average train length was only 110 cars, not an indication of a “Megatrain” strategy. In addition to the BNSF trains, I also the counted the cars of 22 Union Pacific trains and their average was 127 cars, more of an indication of a longer train strategy here. All the trains were seen on the Portland Subdivision between Hinkle and Portland, Oregon.

 

I compiled my data and sent it to Bill Stephens asking if this was expected that BNSF had perhaps scaled-back (or maybe jettisoned) their “Megatrain” strategy that Trains Magazine analyzed in an entire article. To my greater disappointment, he never responded.

 

Three weeks later, from May 5 to May 14, I did a second trip down to the USA. The focus of this trip was Union Pacific, in which much of the railfanning occurred on the Overland Route between Winnemucca, Nevada and Bitter Creek, east of Rock Springs, Wyoming. I also observed trains on UP’s mainline connecting Grainger, Wyoming to the Pacific Northwest. “Megatrains” were certainly present on this railroad, as I observed nine exceeding 200 cars (including three near Winnemucca which I did not expect on that leg of the Overland Route, and one near Glenns Ferry, Idaho). Altogether, I counted the cars of 108 UP trains, of which at minimum 35 were at least 10,000 feet or longer. The average length overall was 131 cars.

 

This trip culminated at Providence Hill near Lind, Washington, which is on BNSF’s Lakeside Subdivision. During the last 17 hours of railfanning on this trip, I counted the cars of 37 trains (it was a very busy period for the line as I also missed four trains on top of that). I also counted two other BNSF trains on the Seattle Sub and Oregon Trunk earlier on this trip. Not a single train of the 39 was at least 10,000 feet and the average car count was only 105. There was no indication of a “Megatrain” strategy used here. I was really disappointed by this as well.

 

I followed up with Bill Stephens again in the same e-mail chain regarding these numbers with BNSF and UP. Once again, no response has been received. Since I have waited enough days, I am now asking for insight from the railfanning and train expert community: what is going on here?

 

Trains Magazine profiled BNSF’s Megatrain strategy and in two trips over a two-month period, I saw 1 train out of a combined 133 trains between these two trips that was Megatrain. That seems like hardly a strategy and I feel the train count was enough for an accurate assessment. I find it rather bizarre that they would profile long trains on BNSF, when it does not seem all that apparent and when CN has been utilizing long trains since at least 2001 (my first experience with a 10,000 foot train was in August of that year east of Spences Bridge, BC). CP has been running “Megatrains” since 2009. UP has been also running trains this long for years as well and they have expanded throughout the system over the last four years, and yet the article focuses on BNSF, when based on the data that I compiled, they don’t engage in it throughout the Pacific Northwest.

 

A number of questions are raised here: is it is because they feel that running longer trains hampers their relationships with their clients (which does not look great these days as they have been testifying in front of the US Congress regarding service issues)? Or is it because this could impact their what appears to be already pretty strained relationship with their employees? Perhaps, as I have evidence to back this up now, Trains Magazine was so off the mark with this feature article that they wrote in November 2021 and having a writer based out of Massachusetts (as that is where Stephens is from and BNSF does not run there), put the accuracy of it all into greater limbo since perhaps he has not personally assessed this strategy like I have. Honestly speaking, I do not believe lack of double-track or grades is hampering BNSF’s ability to run “Megatrains” throughout the Pacific Northwest.

 

I would love to hear anyone's insight on this. Please comment away.