QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl You don't see a "hitch" with a 3 mile tunnel?
23 17 46 11
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Tom and Ed, Please never again respond to anymore of my posts of specificity. You are both completely ignorant of PNW rail issues, and you only play to ****. And Tom, PS, it's about grades.
Originally posted by futuremodal Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply TomDiehl Member sinceFebruary 2001 From: Poconos, PA 3,948 posts Posted by TomDiehl on Friday, April 14, 2006 6:32 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Tom and Ed, Please never again respond to anymore of my posts of specificity. You are both completely ignorant of PNW rail issues, and you only play to ****. And Tom, PS, it's about grades. Well, when the problem with your "solution" is this obvious, there's little knowledge of PNW issues necessary. Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply edblysard Member sinceMarch 2002 9,265 posts Posted by edblysard on Friday, April 14, 2006 6:59 AM Dave, Un-wad your panties, man... If you can’t laugh at yourself, then you can’t laugh... And if you can’t laugh, then what’s the point in saving the planet in the first place? Ed 23 17 46 11 Reply kenneo Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Upper Left Coast 1,796 posts Posted by kenneo on Friday, April 14, 2006 8:21 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed If the BNSF is purposely holding up the UPRR then why does not the UPRR do the same to the BNSF at say Bakersfield or Mojave as a tit for tat situation? The UPRR could also do it on the old WPRR toute thru the FRC[:p] Originally posted by futuremodal What it boils down to is "This is my railroad, and I will run my trains first. Then yours". As I mentioned in my "note", the BN is not going to advance the UP's interest. The UP is not going to repay the BN for its alturism. The same attitude displays itself with the railroad running its through trains and holding its own locals because they make more money off the through trains. We see the same attitude with AMTK. The railroad makes more money off of freight than passenger. Whatever makes the bigest heap on the bottom line gets the priority. This is the real "trickle down theory" in action. Believe me, if Ed's switch job made the biggest contribution to the bottom line, his job would get nothing but high green -- and get them a LONG time before he needed them. Eric Reply nanaimo73 Member sinceApril 2005 From: Nanaimo BC Canada 4,117 posts Posted by nanaimo73 on Friday, April 14, 2006 8:55 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed If the BNSF is purposely holding up the UPRR then why does not the UPRR do the same to the BNSF at say Bakersfield or Mojave as a tit for tat situation? Probably because BNSF has the PRB lines, which are more important than those you mentioned. The two railroads have enough problems with capacity without getting into a war. Dale Reply Murphy Siding Member sinceMay 2005 From: S.E. South Dakota 13,567 posts Posted by Murphy Siding on Friday, April 14, 2006 9:59 AM Would it be worth the money to build this line, just to speed up transit times of some UP trains? Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar. Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Friday, April 14, 2006 10:26 AM Funny you mention what you posted cause at the site of the recent derailment I observed at Sullivans Curve I met a BNSF manager & asked him why would you not divert the trains to the UPRR track & he related the following story. According to him the BNSF & UPRR have dispatch offices in San Bernandino next to each other but according to him they NEVER speak to each other. He went on to say that is the reason the UPRR would not premit BNSF to use that track while the derailment was being cleaned up & in the same regard he stated that unless a UPRR train was in a position to move from the BNSF to the UPRR owned track they would just have to wait like the BNSF has to do for the track to reopen. I realize that the 2 RRs compete against each other but that managers comments seem to me to be ultra extreme[:)] QUOTE: Originally posted by kenneo QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed If the BNSF is purposely holding up the UPRR then why does not the UPRR do the same to the BNSF at say Bakersfield or Mojave as a tit for tat situation? The UPRR could also do it on the old WPRR toute thru the FRC[:p] Originally posted by futuremodal What it boils down to is "This is my railroad, and I will run my trains first. Then yours". As I mentioned in my "note", the BN is not going to advance the UP's interest. The UP is not going to repay the BN for its alturism. The same attitude displays itself with the railroad running its through trains and holding its own locals because they make more money off the through trains. We see the same attitude with AMTK. The railroad makes more money off of freight than passenger. Whatever makes the bigest heap on the bottom line gets the priority. This is the real "trickle down theory" in action. Believe me, if Ed's switch job made the biggest contribution to the bottom line, his job would get nothing but high green -- and get them a LONG time before he needed them. Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply edblysard Member sinceMarch 2002 9,265 posts Posted by edblysard on Friday, April 14, 2006 12:02 PM It is a tit for tat world... I have watched the UP park a switch jobs power in the middle of the diamond at the west end of Basin yard...just to block the TexMex and trap them in Basin yard for a few hours to kill their schedule and hog out a crew... If my yard fills up with outbound UP trains, or BNSF for that matter....we refuse to allow them to bring any trains in, no matter how important...they come pull a few tracks, we will take their grain train in. If they want to use us as a storage facility, we can leave their trains out on the main blocking the North Shore, and their access to the Baytown refineries. So when one road plays hardball, about the only response is to play hard back. EdQUOTE: Originally posted by spbed Funny you mention what you posted cause at the site of the recent derailment I observed at Sullivans Curve I met a BNSF manager & asked him why would you not divert the trains to the UPRR track & he related the following story. According to him the BNSF & UPRR have dispatch offices in San Bernandino next to each other but according to him they NEVER speak to each other. He went on to say that is the reason the UPRR would not premit BNSF to use that track while the derailment was being cleaned up & in the same regard he stated that unless a UPRR train was in a position to move from the BNSF to the UPRR owned track they would just have to wait like the BNSF has to do for the track to reopen. I realize that the 2 RRs compete against each other but that managers comments seem to me to be ultra extreme[:)] QUOTE: Originally posted by kenneo QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed If the BNSF is purposely holding up the UPRR then why does not the UPRR do the same to the BNSF at say Bakersfield or Mojave as a tit for tat situation? The UPRR could also do it on the old WPRR toute thru the FRC[:p] Originally posted by futuremodal What it boils down to is "This is my railroad, and I will run my trains first. Then yours". As I mentioned in my "note", the BN is not going to advance the UP's interest. The UP is not going to repay the BN for its alturism. The same attitude displays itself with the railroad running its through trains and holding its own locals because they make more money off the through trains. We see the same attitude with AMTK. The railroad makes more money off of freight than passenger. Whatever makes the bigest heap on the bottom line gets the priority. This is the real "trickle down theory" in action. Believe me, if Ed's switch job made the biggest contribution to the bottom line, his job would get nothing but high green -- and get them a LONG time before he needed them. 23 17 46 11 Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, April 14, 2006 9:54 PM Eric and any legitimate interested parties: Remember, this is all speculative "what if" stuff, although there's probably enough of a congestion problem developing in Spokane and through the "Funnel" between Spokane and Sandpoint to look at possible solutions. And yes, the BNSF through downtown Spokane does represent a certain ambience of a nuisance. That being said, what I would like to do is compare the recent UP trench project through Reno Nevada with any prospective Spokane realignments. If I remember correctly, what UP did there was take grade level tracks and stuck them in a trench, so there was no need to purchase additional property for this project. UP simply built a few shoo flys around the project until it was finished. There was no need to buy new ROW through high priced commercial properties. With the Spokane situation, it's not as easy (if indeed the UP Reno trench can be called "easy"). The BNSF tracks run via a viaduct with commercial buildings on both sides, so there is no room for simply adding additional tracks on the right or left side of the ROW. Also, the bridges over the city streets are constricted for vehicle traffic, with some clearances as low as 12', and support struts right in the middle of streets. I'm sure the city engineers would prefer at least 15' clearances on all city streets not to mention unobstructed street widths. In other words, there would be no tears shed by city officials if the old NP viaduct was eliminated. Now, consider the costs of the Reno trench. Isn't it possible that compared to building a trench or raised viaduct through Spokane, the idea of a de facto tunnel under solid bedrock, out of sight and out of mind for most city residents, might actually be the prefered option, and may even be the less costly solution? The tunnel idea would not require any additional property purchases, since it can start right at railroad ROW near Hamilton Street and end at undeveloped city property on the west end. From there, a crossing of Latah Creek similar to BNSF's Latah Creek Bridge near the Interstate would connect the west portal to either the old UP/Milwaukee grade ( which is mostly preserved as a future rail trail), or to the old NP and current BNSF eastbound tracks. In addition, the tunnel would knock a few miles off the total track mileage for Pasco/Hinkle bound traffic. Now, would this be all UP, or UP and BNSF, and/or a railroad and city/state combined project? Remember, BNSF has all but convinced the State of Washington to aid in paying for a potential clearance project at Stampede Pass tunnel, so why not a Spokane rail project? If this was a joint BNSF/UP project, there would need to be additional study of connecting this new alignment with the ex-GN line near Indian Canyon bridge. Not too hard a problem since the ex-SP&S line can be converted to a new Seattle bound line. As for the "hitch" I described, it may not be as simple as it seems for UP to rebuild the old ROW into Spokane proper. BNSF now has a crossover between the ex-NP line and the ex-SP&S line that wiped out the old UP grade that ran between those lines. Thus, UP would need to either elevate their tracks over the BNSF crossover, which would require a massive amount of fill on the east side of the crossover for a few miles, or an underpass under the crossover, which might not be feasable as it may approach the flood level of the little lake east of the crossover and also increase the westbound ruling grade for a half mile or so by 1%. As for using the ex-Milwaukee PCE south of Spokane, that might work for BNSF out of Montana, but all UP's traffic through Spokane is coming off the CP at Eastport, well north of the PCE. How would the UP/CP traffic be routed onto the PCE? Reply Edit TomDiehl Member sinceFebruary 2001 From: Poconos, PA 3,948 posts Posted by TomDiehl on Friday, April 14, 2006 10:20 PM If you need a little historic background on tunneling through a populated area, pick up a copy of "The Late Great Pennsylvania Station" by Loraine Diehl (no relation) These show up on Ebay on a regular basis. Add to this the fact that this happened about a century ago and things have gotten worse in the lawsuit happy society these days. Just the potential liabilty issues would be staggering. Then there's the actual costs of tunneling, issues of ownership of the property to be tunneled through, just to mention a few. I'd hate to even think about the enviornmental impact study for something like this. Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply kenneo Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Upper Left Coast 1,796 posts Posted by kenneo on Saturday, April 15, 2006 4:06 AM Dave ----- Please refer to my comment about your idea a few posts up. I said it was an inovative idea for this problem. It is, for sure. It is also doable from an engineering standpoint. If the government (any or any combination of branches) foots the bill, there probably would be no resistance to only a little resistance on the part of the railroads. What I tried to do was to explain why your idea was "dead on conception" in terms of the political and economic realities that now exist. "Dead on conception" does not make the idea a bad one, but does mean that it will be one very hard sell. And then to offer a practical (or at least, more practical) solution. Yes, we are, to a large extent, engaging in a "what if" "fantisy railroad" excercise. But part of that excercise is practicality. Does that mean we do not talk about the non-practical ideas? No, it does not - we just have to recognize the difference. For instance, I can plot the approximate location of a potential 1% from Beverly Jct to Boyalston, but it would need to be about 40 miles long to keep the grade to 1%. The topography would require additional miles to avoid the tallus slopes and avoid the rimrock that is exposed as a cliff about 600 feet high in places. Sometimes the more desireable grade simply is not practical and a helper grade is the only practical alternative solution. Those are big mountains and the rise from Beverly Jct is about 2,000 feet to Boyalston. I-90, which goes up Ryegrass from Vantage approaches 8% in several places and is only marginally shorter in miles than the PCE grade up Johnson Creek which is about a 2% grade to cross the ridge line within 5 miles of each other. Johnson Creek is the easiest grade and Ryegrass is the next easiest. The above two paragraphs are just to illustrate the points. Eric Reply kenneo Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Upper Left Coast 1,796 posts Posted by kenneo on Saturday, April 15, 2006 8:31 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal As for using the ex-Milwaukee PCE south of Spokane, that might work for BNSF out of Montana, but all UP's traffic through Spokane is coming off the CP at Eastport, well north of the PCE. How would the UP/CP traffic be routed onto the PCE? You are correct, mostly. The MRL would get a MAJOR short cut using St. Paul instead of going up to Sandpoint for Pasco trains. Almost an 80 mile saving. They would save about 20 using St. Paul and then up to Spokane from Plummer for traffic going via the (former) GN. Having the UP "detour" from Sandpoint to St. Maries, over St. Paul and back to Marengo would not save any mileage, would add a helper district, but avoid Spokane. It would be better for the SI traffic to continue to East Spokane and then down to the PCE at Plummer. That would leave only the "High Line" traffic between Sandpoint and Spokane and eliminate the former NP trackage out of Spokane down to Connell, at least. And that would put the Ritzville mega-loader shuttle elevator -- on the WATCO. The UP could use St. Paul as a detour around the Blue's if it wanted to, rejoining its own tracks at Silver Bow. The Blue's and Burnt River have capacity problems. It makes a good alternate for PNW-LA traffic, also, eliminating the congestion over Willamette Pass, Grass Lake, Sacramento and Tehatchepie(spelling) but adding to Cajon. Eric Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, April 15, 2006 12:07 PM Remember, part of the basis of this excercise (from my perspective) is to compare solutions in other cities across the country to rectify railroad passage through those cities and apply that "train of thought" to Spokane's situation. That's why I think the Reno trench porject is a good comparative model for Spokane. Eric, if I understand your perspective correctly, you are suggesting that a distant bypass to the south using part of the PCE and UP's Plummer branch is preferable to either trenching, tunneling, or raising the viaduct through Spokane. Is this correct? Regarding the Beverly to Boylston section of the PCE, there are other ways to reduce the ruling grade without increasing the mileage at all (or at least all that much). One ambitious solution would be to build a high bridge over the Columbia at Sentinal Gap. This would be a tricky project due to it's potential length (over a mile long), height above the river, and the winds that ru***hrough that gap, but if these can be overcome safely you'd reduce the ruling grade to about 65 feet to the mile, and that's just about the max grade you'd want for grain trains and the like. The next possible solution would be to shift the ROW alignment to the south side of the Saddle Mountains on the east side of the river from Othello to Mattawa, then cross the river there about 10 miles south of Beverly and begin the grade up to Boylston. You add about 10 miles total to the length of the PCE, but keep the ruling westbound grade in the 65 - 70 feet per mile range. Of course, I expect Michael would argue for simply re-erecting the catenary, which by itself mitigates grades to a near non-factor. This being the case, it raises the possibility of constructing a 3% or so fly-by track to eliminate most of the curvature between Beverly and Boylston, and which as a second track could be used by TOFC's, eastbound empties, etc. Perhaps you could then keep a helper district strictly between Beverly and Boylston. Regarding UP using MRL as an alternative to the Blue Mountains is something I brought up before. Assuming UP can make the connection between Silver Bow and Garrison, and then be willing to construct a more modern connection from MRL to UP at Sandpoint, it is conceivable. But all that is contingent on what happens to the MRL lease in 2050 (or whenever the current lease is up). If BNSF decides to take back the property, that would leave UP in the proverbial lurch. But if you are talking in terms of rebuilding the entire PCE sans MRL, then the idea has long term merit. Of course, I have always been an advocate of connecting the barge port at Lewiston Idaho directly to an eastbound railhead. Whether via Missoula to Lewiston, Idaho Falls-Salmon to Lewiston, or Boise to Lewiston, the idea would play into UP's plans for it's current routes. Heck, all I advocate is the concept of discharging grain and aggregates from rail to barge at Lewiston, thus keeping the rail lines west of Lewiston more fluid for all those intermodals and perishables, but most folks on this forum seem to have a problem with rail to barge multimodal operations. Oh well...... Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, April 15, 2006 3:26 PM The Reno Trench cost roughly $282 million for 2.2 miles of project, or $128 million per mile. I would venture that 1 mile of rebuilt track from Napa Junction to Hamilton Street, plus a 3 mile tunnel through basalt, plus a 4,000' viaduct over Latah Creek, plus the cost of re-aquiring the old UP/Milwaukee ROW from Fish Lake Junction to the west end of the new viaduct, plus relaying ballast and track, AND the cost of an underpass under the BNSF crossover near Scribner, would cost less per mile than the cost per mile of the Reno Trench AND cost less per mile than a southern bypass via the old PCE grade and the UP Plummer branch. Basalt is easier (read - less costly) to tunnel through than granite and more stable than sandstone or clay. I will have to check this, but one website I perused stated that the BN project west of Spokane over Latah Creek plus the reroute of the ex-GN main cost $16 million in the early 1970's, so that's what? Maybe $50 million today adjusted for inflation? The total mileage of that project was about 8 miles give or take. This prospective UP project would be about 12 miles total from Fish Lake to Napa Junction. Reply Edit nanaimo73 Member sinceApril 2005 From: Nanaimo BC Canada 4,117 posts Posted by nanaimo73 on Saturday, April 15, 2006 3:49 PM Dave, Perhaps you could look at the proposed Long Island Railroad tunnel to Grand Central Station as well. I believe that will be over $1 billion. Dale Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, April 15, 2006 4:13 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by nanaimo73 Dave, Perhaps you could look at the proposed Long Island Railroad tunnel to Grand Central Station as well. I believe that will be over $1 billion. But that's a whole different animal - underwater, commuter rail, and a host of *public* agencies (ir)responsible who seem to like nothing more than to somehow find a way to make even the most rudimentary projects subject to the highest possible costs. We'd all be better off if they spent the money to move businesses and people out of New York to roomier places in the Midwest and Rocky Mountain West. Heck, we'd take Wall Street in a pinch here in beautiful downtown Butte![:D] Reply Edit TomDiehl Member sinceFebruary 2001 From: Poconos, PA 3,948 posts Posted by TomDiehl on Saturday, April 15, 2006 6:29 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by nanaimo73 Dave, Perhaps you could look at the proposed Long Island Railroad tunnel to Grand Central Station as well. I believe that will be over $1 billion. But that's a whole different animal - underwater, commuter rail, and a host of *public* agencies (ir)responsible who seem to like nothing more than to somehow find a way to make even the most rudimentary projects subject to the highest possible costs. We'd all be better off if they spent the money to move businesses and people out of New York to roomier places in the Midwest and Rocky Mountain West. Heck, we'd take Wall Street in a pinch here in beautiful downtown Butte![:D] And New York is the only place in the country that this happens? The PNW is completely devoid of this type corruption? Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, April 15, 2006 7:44 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by nanaimo73 Dave, Perhaps you could look at the proposed Long Island Railroad tunnel to Grand Central Station as well. I believe that will be over $1 billion. But that's a whole different animal - underwater, commuter rail, and a host of *public* agencies (ir)responsible who seem to like nothing more than to somehow find a way to make even the most rudimentary projects subject to the highest possible costs. We'd all be better off if they spent the money to move businesses and people out of New York to roomier places in the Midwest and Rocky Mountain West. Heck, we'd take Wall Street in a pinch here in beautiful downtown Butte![:D] And New York is the only place in the country that this happens? The PNW is completely devoid of this type corruption? With the exception of Seattle, yes. Reply Edit TomDiehl Member sinceFebruary 2001 From: Poconos, PA 3,948 posts Posted by TomDiehl on Saturday, April 15, 2006 9:59 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by nanaimo73 Dave, Perhaps you could look at the proposed Long Island Railroad tunnel to Grand Central Station as well. I believe that will be over $1 billion. But that's a whole different animal - underwater, commuter rail, and a host of *public* agencies (ir)responsible who seem to like nothing more than to somehow find a way to make even the most rudimentary projects subject to the highest possible costs. We'd all be better off if they spent the money to move businesses and people out of New York to roomier places in the Midwest and Rocky Mountain West. Heck, we'd take Wall Street in a pinch here in beautiful downtown Butte![:D] And New York is the only place in the country that this happens? The PNW is completely devoid of this type corruption? With the exception of Seattle, yes. Now we KNOW Dave is living in a fantasy world. Maybe you should take these speculations over to the Model Railroader side of the forums. You can even build your own mountains and move buildings and tunnels wherever you want them. Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, April 15, 2006 10:39 PM While the BNSF trackage rights can be problematic from time to time, it's just one problem in a sea of problems. If a train coming from Hinkle has less than a hour to work on their 12 hour limit, then BNSF won't take them unless some arrangement was worked out ahead of time between the BNSF and UP dispatchers. In that case, the outbound crew has to be taken out to Fish Lake to get on the train. The situation actually was worse up until a few months ago. About 5-6 months ago, a link was setup between Omaha and Fort Worth that allows UP dispatchers to see the BNSF's dispatchers screen of the Spokane Area, and a new direct phone line was also establish between the dispatchers. No more lost UP trains on the BNSF. And it's not like UP has no part of the blame. The BNSF dispatchers put a stop to the 3 on 3 meets on the BNSF a while back. For a couple years there, UP was using the BNSF like one big long passing siding, and that strained the BNSF's ability to handle their own trains. Imagine being the BNSF dispatcher getting bombarded by 6 UP trains all at one, and they all need to be one your railroad at once before they start to clear back onto the UP. Even still, last Wednesday ther were 6 northbounds and 5 southbounds all within 60 miles of Spokane, that was quite a day. Gary was a bit flustered trying to read out track warrants with three "not in effect until after the arrival of" trains. Of course UP's dispatchers leaving something to be desired, from Gary in the morning, and mister Happy Gilmore in the afternoon. Today got a "sun uv au b-tch" out of Gill. Mike "Taz" who was the weekend relief dispatcher, but now the full time night dispatcher is probably the best one on the UP Ayer/Spokane subs. Anyways, the larger problems for UP's Spokane/Ayer sub are Hinkle, which has been a on again, off again meltdown ever since they closed Eugene. Part of the problem is the "12 unlocks" a interlocking at the west end of the yard that can only be used by one train at a time. So if a train is lined into the recieving yard, or down the main, then nothing can come off the Ayer Sub. Conversly if a train is parked in the interlocking changing crews, or a airhose, everything else is screwed. the interlockings on either end of Hinkle need to be replaced with CTC. The other problems is lack of siding capacity, but that is about to change. Two brand new switch machines are sitting behind the signal maintainers building in the east Spokane Yard, ready to be installed at Joso. UP's going to start pushing CTC limits north, and filling the gap between Page and Ayer. CTC will prevent crews from having to stop trains to line back switches on the Ayer Sub. You know, the "Ex box seventeen...other specific instructions....leave the north switch at Merango lined for siding....leave the south switch at Wells lined for siding". Then the southbound has to line those two swtiches back. Even though UP installed the new Trentwood siding a year ago, it's been used more as a stroage track for Hinkle than anything. They stuff a QEDHK in there because hinkle is too backed up to take it. I've seen three MSKHK's stuffed in the Spokane yard ready to go, but Hinkle won't take them (Wallula was in terrible shape because the MSKHK's weren't making their pickup their either). I could go on, but it's getting late. Reply Edit jeaton Member sinceSeptember 2002 From: Rockton, IL 4,821 posts Posted by jeaton on Saturday, April 15, 2006 11:26 PM Funnelfan- Do you mean to say that a direct phone line between dispatch centers, repeater for the dispatch screens, some extra yard track, reconfigured interlocking plants, and power switches at mainline sidings relieves the problem? You're going to ruin futuremodal's life. "We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics Reply edblysard Member sinceMarch 2002 9,265 posts Posted by edblysard on Sunday, April 16, 2006 4:54 AM Jay, Isnt having a life a requirement, before someone can ruin it? Ed[:D] 23 17 46 11 Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, April 16, 2006 12:10 PM Ted, Word of advice: Ignore everything posted by the "ilks". They have no knowledge of PNW operations nor geography. Now, on to more topical things..... What is the status of the proposal to move UP's funnel trains onto the BNSF between Athol and Napa St.? If I remember correctly, that move was predicated on BNSF triple-tracking that section, and I have not even seen any survey markers out there that would suggest such a project is forthcoming. Nice to know Joso and friends are getting modernized. Are there any plans to lengthen any of those sidings? It has been my opinion that UP made a big mistake back in the 70's in allowing the Expo folks to bully them off their own line (and in my opinion the most superior line through Spokane) and forcing UP to keep access via BN. Even now, I feel it would be advantageous for UP (and for BNSF) if UP had their own line through Spokane, thus the start of this topic. That being said, all the improvements south of Spokane for UP is not going to take care of the Spokane congestion problem. BNSF cannot expand trackage over the viaduct through town (well, maybe they could go double decker!), and the city seems stuck forever with low street clearances and mid-street support struts. Just my two cents. Reply Edit 123 Join our Community! Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account. Login » Register » Search the Community Newsletter Sign-Up By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy More great sites from Kalmbach Media Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy | Copyright Policy
Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub
QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed If the BNSF is purposely holding up the UPRR then why does not the UPRR do the same to the BNSF at say Bakersfield or Mojave as a tit for tat situation? The UPRR could also do it on the old WPRR toute thru the FRC[:p] Originally posted by futuremodal What it boils down to is "This is my railroad, and I will run my trains first. Then yours". As I mentioned in my "note", the BN is not going to advance the UP's interest. The UP is not going to repay the BN for its alturism. The same attitude displays itself with the railroad running its through trains and holding its own locals because they make more money off the through trains. We see the same attitude with AMTK. The railroad makes more money off of freight than passenger. Whatever makes the bigest heap on the bottom line gets the priority. This is the real "trickle down theory" in action. Believe me, if Ed's switch job made the biggest contribution to the bottom line, his job would get nothing but high green -- and get them a LONG time before he needed them. Eric Reply nanaimo73 Member sinceApril 2005 From: Nanaimo BC Canada 4,117 posts Posted by nanaimo73 on Friday, April 14, 2006 8:55 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed If the BNSF is purposely holding up the UPRR then why does not the UPRR do the same to the BNSF at say Bakersfield or Mojave as a tit for tat situation? Probably because BNSF has the PRB lines, which are more important than those you mentioned. The two railroads have enough problems with capacity without getting into a war. Dale Reply Murphy Siding Member sinceMay 2005 From: S.E. South Dakota 13,567 posts Posted by Murphy Siding on Friday, April 14, 2006 9:59 AM Would it be worth the money to build this line, just to speed up transit times of some UP trains? Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar. Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Friday, April 14, 2006 10:26 AM Funny you mention what you posted cause at the site of the recent derailment I observed at Sullivans Curve I met a BNSF manager & asked him why would you not divert the trains to the UPRR track & he related the following story. According to him the BNSF & UPRR have dispatch offices in San Bernandino next to each other but according to him they NEVER speak to each other. He went on to say that is the reason the UPRR would not premit BNSF to use that track while the derailment was being cleaned up & in the same regard he stated that unless a UPRR train was in a position to move from the BNSF to the UPRR owned track they would just have to wait like the BNSF has to do for the track to reopen. I realize that the 2 RRs compete against each other but that managers comments seem to me to be ultra extreme[:)] QUOTE: Originally posted by kenneo QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed If the BNSF is purposely holding up the UPRR then why does not the UPRR do the same to the BNSF at say Bakersfield or Mojave as a tit for tat situation? The UPRR could also do it on the old WPRR toute thru the FRC[:p] Originally posted by futuremodal What it boils down to is "This is my railroad, and I will run my trains first. Then yours". As I mentioned in my "note", the BN is not going to advance the UP's interest. The UP is not going to repay the BN for its alturism. The same attitude displays itself with the railroad running its through trains and holding its own locals because they make more money off the through trains. We see the same attitude with AMTK. The railroad makes more money off of freight than passenger. Whatever makes the bigest heap on the bottom line gets the priority. This is the real "trickle down theory" in action. Believe me, if Ed's switch job made the biggest contribution to the bottom line, his job would get nothing but high green -- and get them a LONG time before he needed them. Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply edblysard Member sinceMarch 2002 9,265 posts Posted by edblysard on Friday, April 14, 2006 12:02 PM It is a tit for tat world... I have watched the UP park a switch jobs power in the middle of the diamond at the west end of Basin yard...just to block the TexMex and trap them in Basin yard for a few hours to kill their schedule and hog out a crew... If my yard fills up with outbound UP trains, or BNSF for that matter....we refuse to allow them to bring any trains in, no matter how important...they come pull a few tracks, we will take their grain train in. If they want to use us as a storage facility, we can leave their trains out on the main blocking the North Shore, and their access to the Baytown refineries. So when one road plays hardball, about the only response is to play hard back. EdQUOTE: Originally posted by spbed Funny you mention what you posted cause at the site of the recent derailment I observed at Sullivans Curve I met a BNSF manager & asked him why would you not divert the trains to the UPRR track & he related the following story. According to him the BNSF & UPRR have dispatch offices in San Bernandino next to each other but according to him they NEVER speak to each other. He went on to say that is the reason the UPRR would not premit BNSF to use that track while the derailment was being cleaned up & in the same regard he stated that unless a UPRR train was in a position to move from the BNSF to the UPRR owned track they would just have to wait like the BNSF has to do for the track to reopen. I realize that the 2 RRs compete against each other but that managers comments seem to me to be ultra extreme[:)] QUOTE: Originally posted by kenneo QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed If the BNSF is purposely holding up the UPRR then why does not the UPRR do the same to the BNSF at say Bakersfield or Mojave as a tit for tat situation? The UPRR could also do it on the old WPRR toute thru the FRC[:p] Originally posted by futuremodal What it boils down to is "This is my railroad, and I will run my trains first. Then yours". As I mentioned in my "note", the BN is not going to advance the UP's interest. The UP is not going to repay the BN for its alturism. The same attitude displays itself with the railroad running its through trains and holding its own locals because they make more money off the through trains. We see the same attitude with AMTK. The railroad makes more money off of freight than passenger. Whatever makes the bigest heap on the bottom line gets the priority. This is the real "trickle down theory" in action. Believe me, if Ed's switch job made the biggest contribution to the bottom line, his job would get nothing but high green -- and get them a LONG time before he needed them. 23 17 46 11 Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, April 14, 2006 9:54 PM Eric and any legitimate interested parties: Remember, this is all speculative "what if" stuff, although there's probably enough of a congestion problem developing in Spokane and through the "Funnel" between Spokane and Sandpoint to look at possible solutions. And yes, the BNSF through downtown Spokane does represent a certain ambience of a nuisance. That being said, what I would like to do is compare the recent UP trench project through Reno Nevada with any prospective Spokane realignments. If I remember correctly, what UP did there was take grade level tracks and stuck them in a trench, so there was no need to purchase additional property for this project. UP simply built a few shoo flys around the project until it was finished. There was no need to buy new ROW through high priced commercial properties. With the Spokane situation, it's not as easy (if indeed the UP Reno trench can be called "easy"). The BNSF tracks run via a viaduct with commercial buildings on both sides, so there is no room for simply adding additional tracks on the right or left side of the ROW. Also, the bridges over the city streets are constricted for vehicle traffic, with some clearances as low as 12', and support struts right in the middle of streets. I'm sure the city engineers would prefer at least 15' clearances on all city streets not to mention unobstructed street widths. In other words, there would be no tears shed by city officials if the old NP viaduct was eliminated. Now, consider the costs of the Reno trench. Isn't it possible that compared to building a trench or raised viaduct through Spokane, the idea of a de facto tunnel under solid bedrock, out of sight and out of mind for most city residents, might actually be the prefered option, and may even be the less costly solution? The tunnel idea would not require any additional property purchases, since it can start right at railroad ROW near Hamilton Street and end at undeveloped city property on the west end. From there, a crossing of Latah Creek similar to BNSF's Latah Creek Bridge near the Interstate would connect the west portal to either the old UP/Milwaukee grade ( which is mostly preserved as a future rail trail), or to the old NP and current BNSF eastbound tracks. In addition, the tunnel would knock a few miles off the total track mileage for Pasco/Hinkle bound traffic. Now, would this be all UP, or UP and BNSF, and/or a railroad and city/state combined project? Remember, BNSF has all but convinced the State of Washington to aid in paying for a potential clearance project at Stampede Pass tunnel, so why not a Spokane rail project? If this was a joint BNSF/UP project, there would need to be additional study of connecting this new alignment with the ex-GN line near Indian Canyon bridge. Not too hard a problem since the ex-SP&S line can be converted to a new Seattle bound line. As for the "hitch" I described, it may not be as simple as it seems for UP to rebuild the old ROW into Spokane proper. BNSF now has a crossover between the ex-NP line and the ex-SP&S line that wiped out the old UP grade that ran between those lines. Thus, UP would need to either elevate their tracks over the BNSF crossover, which would require a massive amount of fill on the east side of the crossover for a few miles, or an underpass under the crossover, which might not be feasable as it may approach the flood level of the little lake east of the crossover and also increase the westbound ruling grade for a half mile or so by 1%. As for using the ex-Milwaukee PCE south of Spokane, that might work for BNSF out of Montana, but all UP's traffic through Spokane is coming off the CP at Eastport, well north of the PCE. How would the UP/CP traffic be routed onto the PCE? Reply Edit TomDiehl Member sinceFebruary 2001 From: Poconos, PA 3,948 posts Posted by TomDiehl on Friday, April 14, 2006 10:20 PM If you need a little historic background on tunneling through a populated area, pick up a copy of "The Late Great Pennsylvania Station" by Loraine Diehl (no relation) These show up on Ebay on a regular basis. Add to this the fact that this happened about a century ago and things have gotten worse in the lawsuit happy society these days. Just the potential liabilty issues would be staggering. Then there's the actual costs of tunneling, issues of ownership of the property to be tunneled through, just to mention a few. I'd hate to even think about the enviornmental impact study for something like this. Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply kenneo Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Upper Left Coast 1,796 posts Posted by kenneo on Saturday, April 15, 2006 4:06 AM Dave ----- Please refer to my comment about your idea a few posts up. I said it was an inovative idea for this problem. It is, for sure. It is also doable from an engineering standpoint. If the government (any or any combination of branches) foots the bill, there probably would be no resistance to only a little resistance on the part of the railroads. What I tried to do was to explain why your idea was "dead on conception" in terms of the political and economic realities that now exist. "Dead on conception" does not make the idea a bad one, but does mean that it will be one very hard sell. And then to offer a practical (or at least, more practical) solution. Yes, we are, to a large extent, engaging in a "what if" "fantisy railroad" excercise. But part of that excercise is practicality. Does that mean we do not talk about the non-practical ideas? No, it does not - we just have to recognize the difference. For instance, I can plot the approximate location of a potential 1% from Beverly Jct to Boyalston, but it would need to be about 40 miles long to keep the grade to 1%. The topography would require additional miles to avoid the tallus slopes and avoid the rimrock that is exposed as a cliff about 600 feet high in places. Sometimes the more desireable grade simply is not practical and a helper grade is the only practical alternative solution. Those are big mountains and the rise from Beverly Jct is about 2,000 feet to Boyalston. I-90, which goes up Ryegrass from Vantage approaches 8% in several places and is only marginally shorter in miles than the PCE grade up Johnson Creek which is about a 2% grade to cross the ridge line within 5 miles of each other. Johnson Creek is the easiest grade and Ryegrass is the next easiest. The above two paragraphs are just to illustrate the points. Eric Reply kenneo Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Upper Left Coast 1,796 posts Posted by kenneo on Saturday, April 15, 2006 8:31 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal As for using the ex-Milwaukee PCE south of Spokane, that might work for BNSF out of Montana, but all UP's traffic through Spokane is coming off the CP at Eastport, well north of the PCE. How would the UP/CP traffic be routed onto the PCE? You are correct, mostly. The MRL would get a MAJOR short cut using St. Paul instead of going up to Sandpoint for Pasco trains. Almost an 80 mile saving. They would save about 20 using St. Paul and then up to Spokane from Plummer for traffic going via the (former) GN. Having the UP "detour" from Sandpoint to St. Maries, over St. Paul and back to Marengo would not save any mileage, would add a helper district, but avoid Spokane. It would be better for the SI traffic to continue to East Spokane and then down to the PCE at Plummer. That would leave only the "High Line" traffic between Sandpoint and Spokane and eliminate the former NP trackage out of Spokane down to Connell, at least. And that would put the Ritzville mega-loader shuttle elevator -- on the WATCO. The UP could use St. Paul as a detour around the Blue's if it wanted to, rejoining its own tracks at Silver Bow. The Blue's and Burnt River have capacity problems. It makes a good alternate for PNW-LA traffic, also, eliminating the congestion over Willamette Pass, Grass Lake, Sacramento and Tehatchepie(spelling) but adding to Cajon. Eric Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, April 15, 2006 12:07 PM Remember, part of the basis of this excercise (from my perspective) is to compare solutions in other cities across the country to rectify railroad passage through those cities and apply that "train of thought" to Spokane's situation. That's why I think the Reno trench porject is a good comparative model for Spokane. Eric, if I understand your perspective correctly, you are suggesting that a distant bypass to the south using part of the PCE and UP's Plummer branch is preferable to either trenching, tunneling, or raising the viaduct through Spokane. Is this correct? Regarding the Beverly to Boylston section of the PCE, there are other ways to reduce the ruling grade without increasing the mileage at all (or at least all that much). One ambitious solution would be to build a high bridge over the Columbia at Sentinal Gap. This would be a tricky project due to it's potential length (over a mile long), height above the river, and the winds that ru***hrough that gap, but if these can be overcome safely you'd reduce the ruling grade to about 65 feet to the mile, and that's just about the max grade you'd want for grain trains and the like. The next possible solution would be to shift the ROW alignment to the south side of the Saddle Mountains on the east side of the river from Othello to Mattawa, then cross the river there about 10 miles south of Beverly and begin the grade up to Boylston. You add about 10 miles total to the length of the PCE, but keep the ruling westbound grade in the 65 - 70 feet per mile range. Of course, I expect Michael would argue for simply re-erecting the catenary, which by itself mitigates grades to a near non-factor. This being the case, it raises the possibility of constructing a 3% or so fly-by track to eliminate most of the curvature between Beverly and Boylston, and which as a second track could be used by TOFC's, eastbound empties, etc. Perhaps you could then keep a helper district strictly between Beverly and Boylston. Regarding UP using MRL as an alternative to the Blue Mountains is something I brought up before. Assuming UP can make the connection between Silver Bow and Garrison, and then be willing to construct a more modern connection from MRL to UP at Sandpoint, it is conceivable. But all that is contingent on what happens to the MRL lease in 2050 (or whenever the current lease is up). If BNSF decides to take back the property, that would leave UP in the proverbial lurch. But if you are talking in terms of rebuilding the entire PCE sans MRL, then the idea has long term merit. Of course, I have always been an advocate of connecting the barge port at Lewiston Idaho directly to an eastbound railhead. Whether via Missoula to Lewiston, Idaho Falls-Salmon to Lewiston, or Boise to Lewiston, the idea would play into UP's plans for it's current routes. Heck, all I advocate is the concept of discharging grain and aggregates from rail to barge at Lewiston, thus keeping the rail lines west of Lewiston more fluid for all those intermodals and perishables, but most folks on this forum seem to have a problem with rail to barge multimodal operations. Oh well...... Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, April 15, 2006 3:26 PM The Reno Trench cost roughly $282 million for 2.2 miles of project, or $128 million per mile. I would venture that 1 mile of rebuilt track from Napa Junction to Hamilton Street, plus a 3 mile tunnel through basalt, plus a 4,000' viaduct over Latah Creek, plus the cost of re-aquiring the old UP/Milwaukee ROW from Fish Lake Junction to the west end of the new viaduct, plus relaying ballast and track, AND the cost of an underpass under the BNSF crossover near Scribner, would cost less per mile than the cost per mile of the Reno Trench AND cost less per mile than a southern bypass via the old PCE grade and the UP Plummer branch. Basalt is easier (read - less costly) to tunnel through than granite and more stable than sandstone or clay. I will have to check this, but one website I perused stated that the BN project west of Spokane over Latah Creek plus the reroute of the ex-GN main cost $16 million in the early 1970's, so that's what? Maybe $50 million today adjusted for inflation? The total mileage of that project was about 8 miles give or take. This prospective UP project would be about 12 miles total from Fish Lake to Napa Junction. Reply Edit nanaimo73 Member sinceApril 2005 From: Nanaimo BC Canada 4,117 posts Posted by nanaimo73 on Saturday, April 15, 2006 3:49 PM Dave, Perhaps you could look at the proposed Long Island Railroad tunnel to Grand Central Station as well. I believe that will be over $1 billion. Dale Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, April 15, 2006 4:13 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by nanaimo73 Dave, Perhaps you could look at the proposed Long Island Railroad tunnel to Grand Central Station as well. I believe that will be over $1 billion. But that's a whole different animal - underwater, commuter rail, and a host of *public* agencies (ir)responsible who seem to like nothing more than to somehow find a way to make even the most rudimentary projects subject to the highest possible costs. We'd all be better off if they spent the money to move businesses and people out of New York to roomier places in the Midwest and Rocky Mountain West. Heck, we'd take Wall Street in a pinch here in beautiful downtown Butte![:D] Reply Edit TomDiehl Member sinceFebruary 2001 From: Poconos, PA 3,948 posts Posted by TomDiehl on Saturday, April 15, 2006 6:29 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by nanaimo73 Dave, Perhaps you could look at the proposed Long Island Railroad tunnel to Grand Central Station as well. I believe that will be over $1 billion. But that's a whole different animal - underwater, commuter rail, and a host of *public* agencies (ir)responsible who seem to like nothing more than to somehow find a way to make even the most rudimentary projects subject to the highest possible costs. We'd all be better off if they spent the money to move businesses and people out of New York to roomier places in the Midwest and Rocky Mountain West. Heck, we'd take Wall Street in a pinch here in beautiful downtown Butte![:D] And New York is the only place in the country that this happens? The PNW is completely devoid of this type corruption? Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, April 15, 2006 7:44 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by nanaimo73 Dave, Perhaps you could look at the proposed Long Island Railroad tunnel to Grand Central Station as well. I believe that will be over $1 billion. But that's a whole different animal - underwater, commuter rail, and a host of *public* agencies (ir)responsible who seem to like nothing more than to somehow find a way to make even the most rudimentary projects subject to the highest possible costs. We'd all be better off if they spent the money to move businesses and people out of New York to roomier places in the Midwest and Rocky Mountain West. Heck, we'd take Wall Street in a pinch here in beautiful downtown Butte![:D] And New York is the only place in the country that this happens? The PNW is completely devoid of this type corruption? With the exception of Seattle, yes. Reply Edit TomDiehl Member sinceFebruary 2001 From: Poconos, PA 3,948 posts Posted by TomDiehl on Saturday, April 15, 2006 9:59 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by nanaimo73 Dave, Perhaps you could look at the proposed Long Island Railroad tunnel to Grand Central Station as well. I believe that will be over $1 billion. But that's a whole different animal - underwater, commuter rail, and a host of *public* agencies (ir)responsible who seem to like nothing more than to somehow find a way to make even the most rudimentary projects subject to the highest possible costs. We'd all be better off if they spent the money to move businesses and people out of New York to roomier places in the Midwest and Rocky Mountain West. Heck, we'd take Wall Street in a pinch here in beautiful downtown Butte![:D] And New York is the only place in the country that this happens? The PNW is completely devoid of this type corruption? With the exception of Seattle, yes. Now we KNOW Dave is living in a fantasy world. Maybe you should take these speculations over to the Model Railroader side of the forums. You can even build your own mountains and move buildings and tunnels wherever you want them. Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, April 15, 2006 10:39 PM While the BNSF trackage rights can be problematic from time to time, it's just one problem in a sea of problems. If a train coming from Hinkle has less than a hour to work on their 12 hour limit, then BNSF won't take them unless some arrangement was worked out ahead of time between the BNSF and UP dispatchers. In that case, the outbound crew has to be taken out to Fish Lake to get on the train. The situation actually was worse up until a few months ago. About 5-6 months ago, a link was setup between Omaha and Fort Worth that allows UP dispatchers to see the BNSF's dispatchers screen of the Spokane Area, and a new direct phone line was also establish between the dispatchers. No more lost UP trains on the BNSF. And it's not like UP has no part of the blame. The BNSF dispatchers put a stop to the 3 on 3 meets on the BNSF a while back. For a couple years there, UP was using the BNSF like one big long passing siding, and that strained the BNSF's ability to handle their own trains. Imagine being the BNSF dispatcher getting bombarded by 6 UP trains all at one, and they all need to be one your railroad at once before they start to clear back onto the UP. Even still, last Wednesday ther were 6 northbounds and 5 southbounds all within 60 miles of Spokane, that was quite a day. Gary was a bit flustered trying to read out track warrants with three "not in effect until after the arrival of" trains. Of course UP's dispatchers leaving something to be desired, from Gary in the morning, and mister Happy Gilmore in the afternoon. Today got a "sun uv au b-tch" out of Gill. Mike "Taz" who was the weekend relief dispatcher, but now the full time night dispatcher is probably the best one on the UP Ayer/Spokane subs. Anyways, the larger problems for UP's Spokane/Ayer sub are Hinkle, which has been a on again, off again meltdown ever since they closed Eugene. Part of the problem is the "12 unlocks" a interlocking at the west end of the yard that can only be used by one train at a time. So if a train is lined into the recieving yard, or down the main, then nothing can come off the Ayer Sub. Conversly if a train is parked in the interlocking changing crews, or a airhose, everything else is screwed. the interlockings on either end of Hinkle need to be replaced with CTC. The other problems is lack of siding capacity, but that is about to change. Two brand new switch machines are sitting behind the signal maintainers building in the east Spokane Yard, ready to be installed at Joso. UP's going to start pushing CTC limits north, and filling the gap between Page and Ayer. CTC will prevent crews from having to stop trains to line back switches on the Ayer Sub. You know, the "Ex box seventeen...other specific instructions....leave the north switch at Merango lined for siding....leave the south switch at Wells lined for siding". Then the southbound has to line those two swtiches back. Even though UP installed the new Trentwood siding a year ago, it's been used more as a stroage track for Hinkle than anything. They stuff a QEDHK in there because hinkle is too backed up to take it. I've seen three MSKHK's stuffed in the Spokane yard ready to go, but Hinkle won't take them (Wallula was in terrible shape because the MSKHK's weren't making their pickup their either). I could go on, but it's getting late. Reply Edit jeaton Member sinceSeptember 2002 From: Rockton, IL 4,821 posts Posted by jeaton on Saturday, April 15, 2006 11:26 PM Funnelfan- Do you mean to say that a direct phone line between dispatch centers, repeater for the dispatch screens, some extra yard track, reconfigured interlocking plants, and power switches at mainline sidings relieves the problem? You're going to ruin futuremodal's life. "We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics Reply edblysard Member sinceMarch 2002 9,265 posts Posted by edblysard on Sunday, April 16, 2006 4:54 AM Jay, Isnt having a life a requirement, before someone can ruin it? Ed[:D] 23 17 46 11 Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, April 16, 2006 12:10 PM Ted, Word of advice: Ignore everything posted by the "ilks". They have no knowledge of PNW operations nor geography. Now, on to more topical things..... What is the status of the proposal to move UP's funnel trains onto the BNSF between Athol and Napa St.? If I remember correctly, that move was predicated on BNSF triple-tracking that section, and I have not even seen any survey markers out there that would suggest such a project is forthcoming. Nice to know Joso and friends are getting modernized. Are there any plans to lengthen any of those sidings? It has been my opinion that UP made a big mistake back in the 70's in allowing the Expo folks to bully them off their own line (and in my opinion the most superior line through Spokane) and forcing UP to keep access via BN. Even now, I feel it would be advantageous for UP (and for BNSF) if UP had their own line through Spokane, thus the start of this topic. That being said, all the improvements south of Spokane for UP is not going to take care of the Spokane congestion problem. BNSF cannot expand trackage over the viaduct through town (well, maybe they could go double decker!), and the city seems stuck forever with low street clearances and mid-street support struts. Just my two cents. Reply Edit 123 Join our Community! Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account. Login » Register » Search the Community Newsletter Sign-Up By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy More great sites from Kalmbach Media Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy | Copyright Policy
Originally posted by futuremodal
QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed If the BNSF is purposely holding up the UPRR then why does not the UPRR do the same to the BNSF at say Bakersfield or Mojave as a tit for tat situation?
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
QUOTE: Originally posted by kenneo QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed If the BNSF is purposely holding up the UPRR then why does not the UPRR do the same to the BNSF at say Bakersfield or Mojave as a tit for tat situation? The UPRR could also do it on the old WPRR toute thru the FRC[:p] Originally posted by futuremodal What it boils down to is "This is my railroad, and I will run my trains first. Then yours". As I mentioned in my "note", the BN is not going to advance the UP's interest. The UP is not going to repay the BN for its alturism. The same attitude displays itself with the railroad running its through trains and holding its own locals because they make more money off the through trains. We see the same attitude with AMTK. The railroad makes more money off of freight than passenger. Whatever makes the bigest heap on the bottom line gets the priority. This is the real "trickle down theory" in action. Believe me, if Ed's switch job made the biggest contribution to the bottom line, his job would get nothing but high green -- and get them a LONG time before he needed them. Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply edblysard Member sinceMarch 2002 9,265 posts Posted by edblysard on Friday, April 14, 2006 12:02 PM It is a tit for tat world... I have watched the UP park a switch jobs power in the middle of the diamond at the west end of Basin yard...just to block the TexMex and trap them in Basin yard for a few hours to kill their schedule and hog out a crew... If my yard fills up with outbound UP trains, or BNSF for that matter....we refuse to allow them to bring any trains in, no matter how important...they come pull a few tracks, we will take their grain train in. If they want to use us as a storage facility, we can leave their trains out on the main blocking the North Shore, and their access to the Baytown refineries. So when one road plays hardball, about the only response is to play hard back. EdQUOTE: Originally posted by spbed Funny you mention what you posted cause at the site of the recent derailment I observed at Sullivans Curve I met a BNSF manager & asked him why would you not divert the trains to the UPRR track & he related the following story. According to him the BNSF & UPRR have dispatch offices in San Bernandino next to each other but according to him they NEVER speak to each other. He went on to say that is the reason the UPRR would not premit BNSF to use that track while the derailment was being cleaned up & in the same regard he stated that unless a UPRR train was in a position to move from the BNSF to the UPRR owned track they would just have to wait like the BNSF has to do for the track to reopen. I realize that the 2 RRs compete against each other but that managers comments seem to me to be ultra extreme[:)] QUOTE: Originally posted by kenneo QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed If the BNSF is purposely holding up the UPRR then why does not the UPRR do the same to the BNSF at say Bakersfield or Mojave as a tit for tat situation? The UPRR could also do it on the old WPRR toute thru the FRC[:p] Originally posted by futuremodal What it boils down to is "This is my railroad, and I will run my trains first. Then yours". As I mentioned in my "note", the BN is not going to advance the UP's interest. The UP is not going to repay the BN for its alturism. The same attitude displays itself with the railroad running its through trains and holding its own locals because they make more money off the through trains. We see the same attitude with AMTK. The railroad makes more money off of freight than passenger. Whatever makes the bigest heap on the bottom line gets the priority. This is the real "trickle down theory" in action. Believe me, if Ed's switch job made the biggest contribution to the bottom line, his job would get nothing but high green -- and get them a LONG time before he needed them. 23 17 46 11 Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, April 14, 2006 9:54 PM Eric and any legitimate interested parties: Remember, this is all speculative "what if" stuff, although there's probably enough of a congestion problem developing in Spokane and through the "Funnel" between Spokane and Sandpoint to look at possible solutions. And yes, the BNSF through downtown Spokane does represent a certain ambience of a nuisance. That being said, what I would like to do is compare the recent UP trench project through Reno Nevada with any prospective Spokane realignments. If I remember correctly, what UP did there was take grade level tracks and stuck them in a trench, so there was no need to purchase additional property for this project. UP simply built a few shoo flys around the project until it was finished. There was no need to buy new ROW through high priced commercial properties. With the Spokane situation, it's not as easy (if indeed the UP Reno trench can be called "easy"). The BNSF tracks run via a viaduct with commercial buildings on both sides, so there is no room for simply adding additional tracks on the right or left side of the ROW. Also, the bridges over the city streets are constricted for vehicle traffic, with some clearances as low as 12', and support struts right in the middle of streets. I'm sure the city engineers would prefer at least 15' clearances on all city streets not to mention unobstructed street widths. In other words, there would be no tears shed by city officials if the old NP viaduct was eliminated. Now, consider the costs of the Reno trench. Isn't it possible that compared to building a trench or raised viaduct through Spokane, the idea of a de facto tunnel under solid bedrock, out of sight and out of mind for most city residents, might actually be the prefered option, and may even be the less costly solution? The tunnel idea would not require any additional property purchases, since it can start right at railroad ROW near Hamilton Street and end at undeveloped city property on the west end. From there, a crossing of Latah Creek similar to BNSF's Latah Creek Bridge near the Interstate would connect the west portal to either the old UP/Milwaukee grade ( which is mostly preserved as a future rail trail), or to the old NP and current BNSF eastbound tracks. In addition, the tunnel would knock a few miles off the total track mileage for Pasco/Hinkle bound traffic. Now, would this be all UP, or UP and BNSF, and/or a railroad and city/state combined project? Remember, BNSF has all but convinced the State of Washington to aid in paying for a potential clearance project at Stampede Pass tunnel, so why not a Spokane rail project? If this was a joint BNSF/UP project, there would need to be additional study of connecting this new alignment with the ex-GN line near Indian Canyon bridge. Not too hard a problem since the ex-SP&S line can be converted to a new Seattle bound line. As for the "hitch" I described, it may not be as simple as it seems for UP to rebuild the old ROW into Spokane proper. BNSF now has a crossover between the ex-NP line and the ex-SP&S line that wiped out the old UP grade that ran between those lines. Thus, UP would need to either elevate their tracks over the BNSF crossover, which would require a massive amount of fill on the east side of the crossover for a few miles, or an underpass under the crossover, which might not be feasable as it may approach the flood level of the little lake east of the crossover and also increase the westbound ruling grade for a half mile or so by 1%. As for using the ex-Milwaukee PCE south of Spokane, that might work for BNSF out of Montana, but all UP's traffic through Spokane is coming off the CP at Eastport, well north of the PCE. How would the UP/CP traffic be routed onto the PCE? Reply Edit TomDiehl Member sinceFebruary 2001 From: Poconos, PA 3,948 posts Posted by TomDiehl on Friday, April 14, 2006 10:20 PM If you need a little historic background on tunneling through a populated area, pick up a copy of "The Late Great Pennsylvania Station" by Loraine Diehl (no relation) These show up on Ebay on a regular basis. Add to this the fact that this happened about a century ago and things have gotten worse in the lawsuit happy society these days. Just the potential liabilty issues would be staggering. Then there's the actual costs of tunneling, issues of ownership of the property to be tunneled through, just to mention a few. I'd hate to even think about the enviornmental impact study for something like this. Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply kenneo Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Upper Left Coast 1,796 posts Posted by kenneo on Saturday, April 15, 2006 4:06 AM Dave ----- Please refer to my comment about your idea a few posts up. I said it was an inovative idea for this problem. It is, for sure. It is also doable from an engineering standpoint. If the government (any or any combination of branches) foots the bill, there probably would be no resistance to only a little resistance on the part of the railroads. What I tried to do was to explain why your idea was "dead on conception" in terms of the political and economic realities that now exist. "Dead on conception" does not make the idea a bad one, but does mean that it will be one very hard sell. And then to offer a practical (or at least, more practical) solution. Yes, we are, to a large extent, engaging in a "what if" "fantisy railroad" excercise. But part of that excercise is practicality. Does that mean we do not talk about the non-practical ideas? No, it does not - we just have to recognize the difference. For instance, I can plot the approximate location of a potential 1% from Beverly Jct to Boyalston, but it would need to be about 40 miles long to keep the grade to 1%. The topography would require additional miles to avoid the tallus slopes and avoid the rimrock that is exposed as a cliff about 600 feet high in places. Sometimes the more desireable grade simply is not practical and a helper grade is the only practical alternative solution. Those are big mountains and the rise from Beverly Jct is about 2,000 feet to Boyalston. I-90, which goes up Ryegrass from Vantage approaches 8% in several places and is only marginally shorter in miles than the PCE grade up Johnson Creek which is about a 2% grade to cross the ridge line within 5 miles of each other. Johnson Creek is the easiest grade and Ryegrass is the next easiest. The above two paragraphs are just to illustrate the points. Eric Reply kenneo Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Upper Left Coast 1,796 posts Posted by kenneo on Saturday, April 15, 2006 8:31 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal As for using the ex-Milwaukee PCE south of Spokane, that might work for BNSF out of Montana, but all UP's traffic through Spokane is coming off the CP at Eastport, well north of the PCE. How would the UP/CP traffic be routed onto the PCE? You are correct, mostly. The MRL would get a MAJOR short cut using St. Paul instead of going up to Sandpoint for Pasco trains. Almost an 80 mile saving. They would save about 20 using St. Paul and then up to Spokane from Plummer for traffic going via the (former) GN. Having the UP "detour" from Sandpoint to St. Maries, over St. Paul and back to Marengo would not save any mileage, would add a helper district, but avoid Spokane. It would be better for the SI traffic to continue to East Spokane and then down to the PCE at Plummer. That would leave only the "High Line" traffic between Sandpoint and Spokane and eliminate the former NP trackage out of Spokane down to Connell, at least. And that would put the Ritzville mega-loader shuttle elevator -- on the WATCO. The UP could use St. Paul as a detour around the Blue's if it wanted to, rejoining its own tracks at Silver Bow. The Blue's and Burnt River have capacity problems. It makes a good alternate for PNW-LA traffic, also, eliminating the congestion over Willamette Pass, Grass Lake, Sacramento and Tehatchepie(spelling) but adding to Cajon. Eric Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, April 15, 2006 12:07 PM Remember, part of the basis of this excercise (from my perspective) is to compare solutions in other cities across the country to rectify railroad passage through those cities and apply that "train of thought" to Spokane's situation. That's why I think the Reno trench porject is a good comparative model for Spokane. Eric, if I understand your perspective correctly, you are suggesting that a distant bypass to the south using part of the PCE and UP's Plummer branch is preferable to either trenching, tunneling, or raising the viaduct through Spokane. Is this correct? Regarding the Beverly to Boylston section of the PCE, there are other ways to reduce the ruling grade without increasing the mileage at all (or at least all that much). One ambitious solution would be to build a high bridge over the Columbia at Sentinal Gap. This would be a tricky project due to it's potential length (over a mile long), height above the river, and the winds that ru***hrough that gap, but if these can be overcome safely you'd reduce the ruling grade to about 65 feet to the mile, and that's just about the max grade you'd want for grain trains and the like. The next possible solution would be to shift the ROW alignment to the south side of the Saddle Mountains on the east side of the river from Othello to Mattawa, then cross the river there about 10 miles south of Beverly and begin the grade up to Boylston. You add about 10 miles total to the length of the PCE, but keep the ruling westbound grade in the 65 - 70 feet per mile range. Of course, I expect Michael would argue for simply re-erecting the catenary, which by itself mitigates grades to a near non-factor. This being the case, it raises the possibility of constructing a 3% or so fly-by track to eliminate most of the curvature between Beverly and Boylston, and which as a second track could be used by TOFC's, eastbound empties, etc. Perhaps you could then keep a helper district strictly between Beverly and Boylston. Regarding UP using MRL as an alternative to the Blue Mountains is something I brought up before. Assuming UP can make the connection between Silver Bow and Garrison, and then be willing to construct a more modern connection from MRL to UP at Sandpoint, it is conceivable. But all that is contingent on what happens to the MRL lease in 2050 (or whenever the current lease is up). If BNSF decides to take back the property, that would leave UP in the proverbial lurch. But if you are talking in terms of rebuilding the entire PCE sans MRL, then the idea has long term merit. Of course, I have always been an advocate of connecting the barge port at Lewiston Idaho directly to an eastbound railhead. Whether via Missoula to Lewiston, Idaho Falls-Salmon to Lewiston, or Boise to Lewiston, the idea would play into UP's plans for it's current routes. Heck, all I advocate is the concept of discharging grain and aggregates from rail to barge at Lewiston, thus keeping the rail lines west of Lewiston more fluid for all those intermodals and perishables, but most folks on this forum seem to have a problem with rail to barge multimodal operations. Oh well...... Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, April 15, 2006 3:26 PM The Reno Trench cost roughly $282 million for 2.2 miles of project, or $128 million per mile. I would venture that 1 mile of rebuilt track from Napa Junction to Hamilton Street, plus a 3 mile tunnel through basalt, plus a 4,000' viaduct over Latah Creek, plus the cost of re-aquiring the old UP/Milwaukee ROW from Fish Lake Junction to the west end of the new viaduct, plus relaying ballast and track, AND the cost of an underpass under the BNSF crossover near Scribner, would cost less per mile than the cost per mile of the Reno Trench AND cost less per mile than a southern bypass via the old PCE grade and the UP Plummer branch. Basalt is easier (read - less costly) to tunnel through than granite and more stable than sandstone or clay. I will have to check this, but one website I perused stated that the BN project west of Spokane over Latah Creek plus the reroute of the ex-GN main cost $16 million in the early 1970's, so that's what? Maybe $50 million today adjusted for inflation? The total mileage of that project was about 8 miles give or take. This prospective UP project would be about 12 miles total from Fish Lake to Napa Junction. Reply Edit nanaimo73 Member sinceApril 2005 From: Nanaimo BC Canada 4,117 posts Posted by nanaimo73 on Saturday, April 15, 2006 3:49 PM Dave, Perhaps you could look at the proposed Long Island Railroad tunnel to Grand Central Station as well. I believe that will be over $1 billion. Dale Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, April 15, 2006 4:13 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by nanaimo73 Dave, Perhaps you could look at the proposed Long Island Railroad tunnel to Grand Central Station as well. I believe that will be over $1 billion. But that's a whole different animal - underwater, commuter rail, and a host of *public* agencies (ir)responsible who seem to like nothing more than to somehow find a way to make even the most rudimentary projects subject to the highest possible costs. We'd all be better off if they spent the money to move businesses and people out of New York to roomier places in the Midwest and Rocky Mountain West. Heck, we'd take Wall Street in a pinch here in beautiful downtown Butte![:D] Reply Edit TomDiehl Member sinceFebruary 2001 From: Poconos, PA 3,948 posts Posted by TomDiehl on Saturday, April 15, 2006 6:29 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by nanaimo73 Dave, Perhaps you could look at the proposed Long Island Railroad tunnel to Grand Central Station as well. I believe that will be over $1 billion. But that's a whole different animal - underwater, commuter rail, and a host of *public* agencies (ir)responsible who seem to like nothing more than to somehow find a way to make even the most rudimentary projects subject to the highest possible costs. We'd all be better off if they spent the money to move businesses and people out of New York to roomier places in the Midwest and Rocky Mountain West. Heck, we'd take Wall Street in a pinch here in beautiful downtown Butte![:D] And New York is the only place in the country that this happens? The PNW is completely devoid of this type corruption? Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, April 15, 2006 7:44 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by nanaimo73 Dave, Perhaps you could look at the proposed Long Island Railroad tunnel to Grand Central Station as well. I believe that will be over $1 billion. But that's a whole different animal - underwater, commuter rail, and a host of *public* agencies (ir)responsible who seem to like nothing more than to somehow find a way to make even the most rudimentary projects subject to the highest possible costs. We'd all be better off if they spent the money to move businesses and people out of New York to roomier places in the Midwest and Rocky Mountain West. Heck, we'd take Wall Street in a pinch here in beautiful downtown Butte![:D] And New York is the only place in the country that this happens? The PNW is completely devoid of this type corruption? With the exception of Seattle, yes. Reply Edit TomDiehl Member sinceFebruary 2001 From: Poconos, PA 3,948 posts Posted by TomDiehl on Saturday, April 15, 2006 9:59 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by nanaimo73 Dave, Perhaps you could look at the proposed Long Island Railroad tunnel to Grand Central Station as well. I believe that will be over $1 billion. But that's a whole different animal - underwater, commuter rail, and a host of *public* agencies (ir)responsible who seem to like nothing more than to somehow find a way to make even the most rudimentary projects subject to the highest possible costs. We'd all be better off if they spent the money to move businesses and people out of New York to roomier places in the Midwest and Rocky Mountain West. Heck, we'd take Wall Street in a pinch here in beautiful downtown Butte![:D] And New York is the only place in the country that this happens? The PNW is completely devoid of this type corruption? With the exception of Seattle, yes. Now we KNOW Dave is living in a fantasy world. Maybe you should take these speculations over to the Model Railroader side of the forums. You can even build your own mountains and move buildings and tunnels wherever you want them. Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, April 15, 2006 10:39 PM While the BNSF trackage rights can be problematic from time to time, it's just one problem in a sea of problems. If a train coming from Hinkle has less than a hour to work on their 12 hour limit, then BNSF won't take them unless some arrangement was worked out ahead of time between the BNSF and UP dispatchers. In that case, the outbound crew has to be taken out to Fish Lake to get on the train. The situation actually was worse up until a few months ago. About 5-6 months ago, a link was setup between Omaha and Fort Worth that allows UP dispatchers to see the BNSF's dispatchers screen of the Spokane Area, and a new direct phone line was also establish between the dispatchers. No more lost UP trains on the BNSF. And it's not like UP has no part of the blame. The BNSF dispatchers put a stop to the 3 on 3 meets on the BNSF a while back. For a couple years there, UP was using the BNSF like one big long passing siding, and that strained the BNSF's ability to handle their own trains. Imagine being the BNSF dispatcher getting bombarded by 6 UP trains all at one, and they all need to be one your railroad at once before they start to clear back onto the UP. Even still, last Wednesday ther were 6 northbounds and 5 southbounds all within 60 miles of Spokane, that was quite a day. Gary was a bit flustered trying to read out track warrants with three "not in effect until after the arrival of" trains. Of course UP's dispatchers leaving something to be desired, from Gary in the morning, and mister Happy Gilmore in the afternoon. Today got a "sun uv au b-tch" out of Gill. Mike "Taz" who was the weekend relief dispatcher, but now the full time night dispatcher is probably the best one on the UP Ayer/Spokane subs. Anyways, the larger problems for UP's Spokane/Ayer sub are Hinkle, which has been a on again, off again meltdown ever since they closed Eugene. Part of the problem is the "12 unlocks" a interlocking at the west end of the yard that can only be used by one train at a time. So if a train is lined into the recieving yard, or down the main, then nothing can come off the Ayer Sub. Conversly if a train is parked in the interlocking changing crews, or a airhose, everything else is screwed. the interlockings on either end of Hinkle need to be replaced with CTC. The other problems is lack of siding capacity, but that is about to change. Two brand new switch machines are sitting behind the signal maintainers building in the east Spokane Yard, ready to be installed at Joso. UP's going to start pushing CTC limits north, and filling the gap between Page and Ayer. CTC will prevent crews from having to stop trains to line back switches on the Ayer Sub. You know, the "Ex box seventeen...other specific instructions....leave the north switch at Merango lined for siding....leave the south switch at Wells lined for siding". Then the southbound has to line those two swtiches back. Even though UP installed the new Trentwood siding a year ago, it's been used more as a stroage track for Hinkle than anything. They stuff a QEDHK in there because hinkle is too backed up to take it. I've seen three MSKHK's stuffed in the Spokane yard ready to go, but Hinkle won't take them (Wallula was in terrible shape because the MSKHK's weren't making their pickup their either). I could go on, but it's getting late. Reply Edit jeaton Member sinceSeptember 2002 From: Rockton, IL 4,821 posts Posted by jeaton on Saturday, April 15, 2006 11:26 PM Funnelfan- Do you mean to say that a direct phone line between dispatch centers, repeater for the dispatch screens, some extra yard track, reconfigured interlocking plants, and power switches at mainline sidings relieves the problem? You're going to ruin futuremodal's life. "We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics Reply edblysard Member sinceMarch 2002 9,265 posts Posted by edblysard on Sunday, April 16, 2006 4:54 AM Jay, Isnt having a life a requirement, before someone can ruin it? Ed[:D] 23 17 46 11 Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, April 16, 2006 12:10 PM Ted, Word of advice: Ignore everything posted by the "ilks". They have no knowledge of PNW operations nor geography. Now, on to more topical things..... What is the status of the proposal to move UP's funnel trains onto the BNSF between Athol and Napa St.? If I remember correctly, that move was predicated on BNSF triple-tracking that section, and I have not even seen any survey markers out there that would suggest such a project is forthcoming. Nice to know Joso and friends are getting modernized. Are there any plans to lengthen any of those sidings? It has been my opinion that UP made a big mistake back in the 70's in allowing the Expo folks to bully them off their own line (and in my opinion the most superior line through Spokane) and forcing UP to keep access via BN. Even now, I feel it would be advantageous for UP (and for BNSF) if UP had their own line through Spokane, thus the start of this topic. That being said, all the improvements south of Spokane for UP is not going to take care of the Spokane congestion problem. BNSF cannot expand trackage over the viaduct through town (well, maybe they could go double decker!), and the city seems stuck forever with low street clearances and mid-street support struts. Just my two cents. Reply Edit 123 Join our Community! Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account. Login » Register » Search the Community Newsletter Sign-Up By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy More great sites from Kalmbach Media Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy | Copyright Policy
QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed If the BNSF is purposely holding up the UPRR then why does not the UPRR do the same to the BNSF at say Bakersfield or Mojave as a tit for tat situation? The UPRR could also do it on the old WPRR toute thru the FRC[:p] Originally posted by futuremodal What it boils down to is "This is my railroad, and I will run my trains first. Then yours". As I mentioned in my "note", the BN is not going to advance the UP's interest. The UP is not going to repay the BN for its alturism. The same attitude displays itself with the railroad running its through trains and holding its own locals because they make more money off the through trains. We see the same attitude with AMTK. The railroad makes more money off of freight than passenger. Whatever makes the bigest heap on the bottom line gets the priority. This is the real "trickle down theory" in action. Believe me, if Ed's switch job made the biggest contribution to the bottom line, his job would get nothing but high green -- and get them a LONG time before he needed them.
QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed Funny you mention what you posted cause at the site of the recent derailment I observed at Sullivans Curve I met a BNSF manager & asked him why would you not divert the trains to the UPRR track & he related the following story. According to him the BNSF & UPRR have dispatch offices in San Bernandino next to each other but according to him they NEVER speak to each other. He went on to say that is the reason the UPRR would not premit BNSF to use that track while the derailment was being cleaned up & in the same regard he stated that unless a UPRR train was in a position to move from the BNSF to the UPRR owned track they would just have to wait like the BNSF has to do for the track to reopen. I realize that the 2 RRs compete against each other but that managers comments seem to me to be ultra extreme[:)] QUOTE: Originally posted by kenneo QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed If the BNSF is purposely holding up the UPRR then why does not the UPRR do the same to the BNSF at say Bakersfield or Mojave as a tit for tat situation? The UPRR could also do it on the old WPRR toute thru the FRC[:p] Originally posted by futuremodal What it boils down to is "This is my railroad, and I will run my trains first. Then yours". As I mentioned in my "note", the BN is not going to advance the UP's interest. The UP is not going to repay the BN for its alturism. The same attitude displays itself with the railroad running its through trains and holding its own locals because they make more money off the through trains. We see the same attitude with AMTK. The railroad makes more money off of freight than passenger. Whatever makes the bigest heap on the bottom line gets the priority. This is the real "trickle down theory" in action. Believe me, if Ed's switch job made the biggest contribution to the bottom line, his job would get nothing but high green -- and get them a LONG time before he needed them. 23 17 46 11 Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, April 14, 2006 9:54 PM Eric and any legitimate interested parties: Remember, this is all speculative "what if" stuff, although there's probably enough of a congestion problem developing in Spokane and through the "Funnel" between Spokane and Sandpoint to look at possible solutions. And yes, the BNSF through downtown Spokane does represent a certain ambience of a nuisance. That being said, what I would like to do is compare the recent UP trench project through Reno Nevada with any prospective Spokane realignments. If I remember correctly, what UP did there was take grade level tracks and stuck them in a trench, so there was no need to purchase additional property for this project. UP simply built a few shoo flys around the project until it was finished. There was no need to buy new ROW through high priced commercial properties. With the Spokane situation, it's not as easy (if indeed the UP Reno trench can be called "easy"). The BNSF tracks run via a viaduct with commercial buildings on both sides, so there is no room for simply adding additional tracks on the right or left side of the ROW. Also, the bridges over the city streets are constricted for vehicle traffic, with some clearances as low as 12', and support struts right in the middle of streets. I'm sure the city engineers would prefer at least 15' clearances on all city streets not to mention unobstructed street widths. In other words, there would be no tears shed by city officials if the old NP viaduct was eliminated. Now, consider the costs of the Reno trench. Isn't it possible that compared to building a trench or raised viaduct through Spokane, the idea of a de facto tunnel under solid bedrock, out of sight and out of mind for most city residents, might actually be the prefered option, and may even be the less costly solution? The tunnel idea would not require any additional property purchases, since it can start right at railroad ROW near Hamilton Street and end at undeveloped city property on the west end. From there, a crossing of Latah Creek similar to BNSF's Latah Creek Bridge near the Interstate would connect the west portal to either the old UP/Milwaukee grade ( which is mostly preserved as a future rail trail), or to the old NP and current BNSF eastbound tracks. In addition, the tunnel would knock a few miles off the total track mileage for Pasco/Hinkle bound traffic. Now, would this be all UP, or UP and BNSF, and/or a railroad and city/state combined project? Remember, BNSF has all but convinced the State of Washington to aid in paying for a potential clearance project at Stampede Pass tunnel, so why not a Spokane rail project? If this was a joint BNSF/UP project, there would need to be additional study of connecting this new alignment with the ex-GN line near Indian Canyon bridge. Not too hard a problem since the ex-SP&S line can be converted to a new Seattle bound line. As for the "hitch" I described, it may not be as simple as it seems for UP to rebuild the old ROW into Spokane proper. BNSF now has a crossover between the ex-NP line and the ex-SP&S line that wiped out the old UP grade that ran between those lines. Thus, UP would need to either elevate their tracks over the BNSF crossover, which would require a massive amount of fill on the east side of the crossover for a few miles, or an underpass under the crossover, which might not be feasable as it may approach the flood level of the little lake east of the crossover and also increase the westbound ruling grade for a half mile or so by 1%. As for using the ex-Milwaukee PCE south of Spokane, that might work for BNSF out of Montana, but all UP's traffic through Spokane is coming off the CP at Eastport, well north of the PCE. How would the UP/CP traffic be routed onto the PCE? Reply Edit TomDiehl Member sinceFebruary 2001 From: Poconos, PA 3,948 posts Posted by TomDiehl on Friday, April 14, 2006 10:20 PM If you need a little historic background on tunneling through a populated area, pick up a copy of "The Late Great Pennsylvania Station" by Loraine Diehl (no relation) These show up on Ebay on a regular basis. Add to this the fact that this happened about a century ago and things have gotten worse in the lawsuit happy society these days. Just the potential liabilty issues would be staggering. Then there's the actual costs of tunneling, issues of ownership of the property to be tunneled through, just to mention a few. I'd hate to even think about the enviornmental impact study for something like this. Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply kenneo Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Upper Left Coast 1,796 posts Posted by kenneo on Saturday, April 15, 2006 4:06 AM Dave ----- Please refer to my comment about your idea a few posts up. I said it was an inovative idea for this problem. It is, for sure. It is also doable from an engineering standpoint. If the government (any or any combination of branches) foots the bill, there probably would be no resistance to only a little resistance on the part of the railroads. What I tried to do was to explain why your idea was "dead on conception" in terms of the political and economic realities that now exist. "Dead on conception" does not make the idea a bad one, but does mean that it will be one very hard sell. And then to offer a practical (or at least, more practical) solution. Yes, we are, to a large extent, engaging in a "what if" "fantisy railroad" excercise. But part of that excercise is practicality. Does that mean we do not talk about the non-practical ideas? No, it does not - we just have to recognize the difference. For instance, I can plot the approximate location of a potential 1% from Beverly Jct to Boyalston, but it would need to be about 40 miles long to keep the grade to 1%. The topography would require additional miles to avoid the tallus slopes and avoid the rimrock that is exposed as a cliff about 600 feet high in places. Sometimes the more desireable grade simply is not practical and a helper grade is the only practical alternative solution. Those are big mountains and the rise from Beverly Jct is about 2,000 feet to Boyalston. I-90, which goes up Ryegrass from Vantage approaches 8% in several places and is only marginally shorter in miles than the PCE grade up Johnson Creek which is about a 2% grade to cross the ridge line within 5 miles of each other. Johnson Creek is the easiest grade and Ryegrass is the next easiest. The above two paragraphs are just to illustrate the points. Eric Reply kenneo Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Upper Left Coast 1,796 posts Posted by kenneo on Saturday, April 15, 2006 8:31 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal As for using the ex-Milwaukee PCE south of Spokane, that might work for BNSF out of Montana, but all UP's traffic through Spokane is coming off the CP at Eastport, well north of the PCE. How would the UP/CP traffic be routed onto the PCE? You are correct, mostly. The MRL would get a MAJOR short cut using St. Paul instead of going up to Sandpoint for Pasco trains. Almost an 80 mile saving. They would save about 20 using St. Paul and then up to Spokane from Plummer for traffic going via the (former) GN. Having the UP "detour" from Sandpoint to St. Maries, over St. Paul and back to Marengo would not save any mileage, would add a helper district, but avoid Spokane. It would be better for the SI traffic to continue to East Spokane and then down to the PCE at Plummer. That would leave only the "High Line" traffic between Sandpoint and Spokane and eliminate the former NP trackage out of Spokane down to Connell, at least. And that would put the Ritzville mega-loader shuttle elevator -- on the WATCO. The UP could use St. Paul as a detour around the Blue's if it wanted to, rejoining its own tracks at Silver Bow. The Blue's and Burnt River have capacity problems. It makes a good alternate for PNW-LA traffic, also, eliminating the congestion over Willamette Pass, Grass Lake, Sacramento and Tehatchepie(spelling) but adding to Cajon. Eric Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, April 15, 2006 12:07 PM Remember, part of the basis of this excercise (from my perspective) is to compare solutions in other cities across the country to rectify railroad passage through those cities and apply that "train of thought" to Spokane's situation. That's why I think the Reno trench porject is a good comparative model for Spokane. Eric, if I understand your perspective correctly, you are suggesting that a distant bypass to the south using part of the PCE and UP's Plummer branch is preferable to either trenching, tunneling, or raising the viaduct through Spokane. Is this correct? Regarding the Beverly to Boylston section of the PCE, there are other ways to reduce the ruling grade without increasing the mileage at all (or at least all that much). One ambitious solution would be to build a high bridge over the Columbia at Sentinal Gap. This would be a tricky project due to it's potential length (over a mile long), height above the river, and the winds that ru***hrough that gap, but if these can be overcome safely you'd reduce the ruling grade to about 65 feet to the mile, and that's just about the max grade you'd want for grain trains and the like. The next possible solution would be to shift the ROW alignment to the south side of the Saddle Mountains on the east side of the river from Othello to Mattawa, then cross the river there about 10 miles south of Beverly and begin the grade up to Boylston. You add about 10 miles total to the length of the PCE, but keep the ruling westbound grade in the 65 - 70 feet per mile range. Of course, I expect Michael would argue for simply re-erecting the catenary, which by itself mitigates grades to a near non-factor. This being the case, it raises the possibility of constructing a 3% or so fly-by track to eliminate most of the curvature between Beverly and Boylston, and which as a second track could be used by TOFC's, eastbound empties, etc. Perhaps you could then keep a helper district strictly between Beverly and Boylston. Regarding UP using MRL as an alternative to the Blue Mountains is something I brought up before. Assuming UP can make the connection between Silver Bow and Garrison, and then be willing to construct a more modern connection from MRL to UP at Sandpoint, it is conceivable. But all that is contingent on what happens to the MRL lease in 2050 (or whenever the current lease is up). If BNSF decides to take back the property, that would leave UP in the proverbial lurch. But if you are talking in terms of rebuilding the entire PCE sans MRL, then the idea has long term merit. Of course, I have always been an advocate of connecting the barge port at Lewiston Idaho directly to an eastbound railhead. Whether via Missoula to Lewiston, Idaho Falls-Salmon to Lewiston, or Boise to Lewiston, the idea would play into UP's plans for it's current routes. Heck, all I advocate is the concept of discharging grain and aggregates from rail to barge at Lewiston, thus keeping the rail lines west of Lewiston more fluid for all those intermodals and perishables, but most folks on this forum seem to have a problem with rail to barge multimodal operations. Oh well...... Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, April 15, 2006 3:26 PM The Reno Trench cost roughly $282 million for 2.2 miles of project, or $128 million per mile. I would venture that 1 mile of rebuilt track from Napa Junction to Hamilton Street, plus a 3 mile tunnel through basalt, plus a 4,000' viaduct over Latah Creek, plus the cost of re-aquiring the old UP/Milwaukee ROW from Fish Lake Junction to the west end of the new viaduct, plus relaying ballast and track, AND the cost of an underpass under the BNSF crossover near Scribner, would cost less per mile than the cost per mile of the Reno Trench AND cost less per mile than a southern bypass via the old PCE grade and the UP Plummer branch. Basalt is easier (read - less costly) to tunnel through than granite and more stable than sandstone or clay. I will have to check this, but one website I perused stated that the BN project west of Spokane over Latah Creek plus the reroute of the ex-GN main cost $16 million in the early 1970's, so that's what? Maybe $50 million today adjusted for inflation? The total mileage of that project was about 8 miles give or take. This prospective UP project would be about 12 miles total from Fish Lake to Napa Junction. Reply Edit nanaimo73 Member sinceApril 2005 From: Nanaimo BC Canada 4,117 posts Posted by nanaimo73 on Saturday, April 15, 2006 3:49 PM Dave, Perhaps you could look at the proposed Long Island Railroad tunnel to Grand Central Station as well. I believe that will be over $1 billion. Dale Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, April 15, 2006 4:13 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by nanaimo73 Dave, Perhaps you could look at the proposed Long Island Railroad tunnel to Grand Central Station as well. I believe that will be over $1 billion. But that's a whole different animal - underwater, commuter rail, and a host of *public* agencies (ir)responsible who seem to like nothing more than to somehow find a way to make even the most rudimentary projects subject to the highest possible costs. We'd all be better off if they spent the money to move businesses and people out of New York to roomier places in the Midwest and Rocky Mountain West. Heck, we'd take Wall Street in a pinch here in beautiful downtown Butte![:D] Reply Edit TomDiehl Member sinceFebruary 2001 From: Poconos, PA 3,948 posts Posted by TomDiehl on Saturday, April 15, 2006 6:29 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by nanaimo73 Dave, Perhaps you could look at the proposed Long Island Railroad tunnel to Grand Central Station as well. I believe that will be over $1 billion. But that's a whole different animal - underwater, commuter rail, and a host of *public* agencies (ir)responsible who seem to like nothing more than to somehow find a way to make even the most rudimentary projects subject to the highest possible costs. We'd all be better off if they spent the money to move businesses and people out of New York to roomier places in the Midwest and Rocky Mountain West. Heck, we'd take Wall Street in a pinch here in beautiful downtown Butte![:D] And New York is the only place in the country that this happens? The PNW is completely devoid of this type corruption? Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, April 15, 2006 7:44 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by nanaimo73 Dave, Perhaps you could look at the proposed Long Island Railroad tunnel to Grand Central Station as well. I believe that will be over $1 billion. But that's a whole different animal - underwater, commuter rail, and a host of *public* agencies (ir)responsible who seem to like nothing more than to somehow find a way to make even the most rudimentary projects subject to the highest possible costs. We'd all be better off if they spent the money to move businesses and people out of New York to roomier places in the Midwest and Rocky Mountain West. Heck, we'd take Wall Street in a pinch here in beautiful downtown Butte![:D] And New York is the only place in the country that this happens? The PNW is completely devoid of this type corruption? With the exception of Seattle, yes. Reply Edit TomDiehl Member sinceFebruary 2001 From: Poconos, PA 3,948 posts Posted by TomDiehl on Saturday, April 15, 2006 9:59 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by nanaimo73 Dave, Perhaps you could look at the proposed Long Island Railroad tunnel to Grand Central Station as well. I believe that will be over $1 billion. But that's a whole different animal - underwater, commuter rail, and a host of *public* agencies (ir)responsible who seem to like nothing more than to somehow find a way to make even the most rudimentary projects subject to the highest possible costs. We'd all be better off if they spent the money to move businesses and people out of New York to roomier places in the Midwest and Rocky Mountain West. Heck, we'd take Wall Street in a pinch here in beautiful downtown Butte![:D] And New York is the only place in the country that this happens? The PNW is completely devoid of this type corruption? With the exception of Seattle, yes. Now we KNOW Dave is living in a fantasy world. Maybe you should take these speculations over to the Model Railroader side of the forums. You can even build your own mountains and move buildings and tunnels wherever you want them. Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, April 15, 2006 10:39 PM While the BNSF trackage rights can be problematic from time to time, it's just one problem in a sea of problems. If a train coming from Hinkle has less than a hour to work on their 12 hour limit, then BNSF won't take them unless some arrangement was worked out ahead of time between the BNSF and UP dispatchers. In that case, the outbound crew has to be taken out to Fish Lake to get on the train. The situation actually was worse up until a few months ago. About 5-6 months ago, a link was setup between Omaha and Fort Worth that allows UP dispatchers to see the BNSF's dispatchers screen of the Spokane Area, and a new direct phone line was also establish between the dispatchers. No more lost UP trains on the BNSF. And it's not like UP has no part of the blame. The BNSF dispatchers put a stop to the 3 on 3 meets on the BNSF a while back. For a couple years there, UP was using the BNSF like one big long passing siding, and that strained the BNSF's ability to handle their own trains. Imagine being the BNSF dispatcher getting bombarded by 6 UP trains all at one, and they all need to be one your railroad at once before they start to clear back onto the UP. Even still, last Wednesday ther were 6 northbounds and 5 southbounds all within 60 miles of Spokane, that was quite a day. Gary was a bit flustered trying to read out track warrants with three "not in effect until after the arrival of" trains. Of course UP's dispatchers leaving something to be desired, from Gary in the morning, and mister Happy Gilmore in the afternoon. Today got a "sun uv au b-tch" out of Gill. Mike "Taz" who was the weekend relief dispatcher, but now the full time night dispatcher is probably the best one on the UP Ayer/Spokane subs. Anyways, the larger problems for UP's Spokane/Ayer sub are Hinkle, which has been a on again, off again meltdown ever since they closed Eugene. Part of the problem is the "12 unlocks" a interlocking at the west end of the yard that can only be used by one train at a time. So if a train is lined into the recieving yard, or down the main, then nothing can come off the Ayer Sub. Conversly if a train is parked in the interlocking changing crews, or a airhose, everything else is screwed. the interlockings on either end of Hinkle need to be replaced with CTC. The other problems is lack of siding capacity, but that is about to change. Two brand new switch machines are sitting behind the signal maintainers building in the east Spokane Yard, ready to be installed at Joso. UP's going to start pushing CTC limits north, and filling the gap between Page and Ayer. CTC will prevent crews from having to stop trains to line back switches on the Ayer Sub. You know, the "Ex box seventeen...other specific instructions....leave the north switch at Merango lined for siding....leave the south switch at Wells lined for siding". Then the southbound has to line those two swtiches back. Even though UP installed the new Trentwood siding a year ago, it's been used more as a stroage track for Hinkle than anything. They stuff a QEDHK in there because hinkle is too backed up to take it. I've seen three MSKHK's stuffed in the Spokane yard ready to go, but Hinkle won't take them (Wallula was in terrible shape because the MSKHK's weren't making their pickup their either). I could go on, but it's getting late. Reply Edit jeaton Member sinceSeptember 2002 From: Rockton, IL 4,821 posts Posted by jeaton on Saturday, April 15, 2006 11:26 PM Funnelfan- Do you mean to say that a direct phone line between dispatch centers, repeater for the dispatch screens, some extra yard track, reconfigured interlocking plants, and power switches at mainline sidings relieves the problem? You're going to ruin futuremodal's life. "We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics Reply edblysard Member sinceMarch 2002 9,265 posts Posted by edblysard on Sunday, April 16, 2006 4:54 AM Jay, Isnt having a life a requirement, before someone can ruin it? Ed[:D] 23 17 46 11 Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, April 16, 2006 12:10 PM Ted, Word of advice: Ignore everything posted by the "ilks". They have no knowledge of PNW operations nor geography. Now, on to more topical things..... What is the status of the proposal to move UP's funnel trains onto the BNSF between Athol and Napa St.? If I remember correctly, that move was predicated on BNSF triple-tracking that section, and I have not even seen any survey markers out there that would suggest such a project is forthcoming. Nice to know Joso and friends are getting modernized. Are there any plans to lengthen any of those sidings? It has been my opinion that UP made a big mistake back in the 70's in allowing the Expo folks to bully them off their own line (and in my opinion the most superior line through Spokane) and forcing UP to keep access via BN. Even now, I feel it would be advantageous for UP (and for BNSF) if UP had their own line through Spokane, thus the start of this topic. That being said, all the improvements south of Spokane for UP is not going to take care of the Spokane congestion problem. BNSF cannot expand trackage over the viaduct through town (well, maybe they could go double decker!), and the city seems stuck forever with low street clearances and mid-street support struts. Just my two cents. Reply Edit 123 Join our Community! Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account. Login » Register » Search the Community Newsletter Sign-Up By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy More great sites from Kalmbach Media Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy | Copyright Policy
QUOTE: Originally posted by kenneo QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed If the BNSF is purposely holding up the UPRR then why does not the UPRR do the same to the BNSF at say Bakersfield or Mojave as a tit for tat situation? The UPRR could also do it on the old WPRR toute thru the FRC[:p] Originally posted by futuremodal What it boils down to is "This is my railroad, and I will run my trains first. Then yours". As I mentioned in my "note", the BN is not going to advance the UP's interest. The UP is not going to repay the BN for its alturism. The same attitude displays itself with the railroad running its through trains and holding its own locals because they make more money off the through trains. We see the same attitude with AMTK. The railroad makes more money off of freight than passenger. Whatever makes the bigest heap on the bottom line gets the priority. This is the real "trickle down theory" in action. Believe me, if Ed's switch job made the biggest contribution to the bottom line, his job would get nothing but high green -- and get them a LONG time before he needed them.
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal As for using the ex-Milwaukee PCE south of Spokane, that might work for BNSF out of Montana, but all UP's traffic through Spokane is coming off the CP at Eastport, well north of the PCE. How would the UP/CP traffic be routed onto the PCE?
QUOTE: Originally posted by nanaimo73 Dave, Perhaps you could look at the proposed Long Island Railroad tunnel to Grand Central Station as well. I believe that will be over $1 billion.
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by nanaimo73 Dave, Perhaps you could look at the proposed Long Island Railroad tunnel to Grand Central Station as well. I believe that will be over $1 billion. But that's a whole different animal - underwater, commuter rail, and a host of *public* agencies (ir)responsible who seem to like nothing more than to somehow find a way to make even the most rudimentary projects subject to the highest possible costs. We'd all be better off if they spent the money to move businesses and people out of New York to roomier places in the Midwest and Rocky Mountain West. Heck, we'd take Wall Street in a pinch here in beautiful downtown Butte![:D]
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by nanaimo73 Dave, Perhaps you could look at the proposed Long Island Railroad tunnel to Grand Central Station as well. I believe that will be over $1 billion. But that's a whole different animal - underwater, commuter rail, and a host of *public* agencies (ir)responsible who seem to like nothing more than to somehow find a way to make even the most rudimentary projects subject to the highest possible costs. We'd all be better off if they spent the money to move businesses and people out of New York to roomier places in the Midwest and Rocky Mountain West. Heck, we'd take Wall Street in a pinch here in beautiful downtown Butte![:D] And New York is the only place in the country that this happens? The PNW is completely devoid of this type corruption?
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by nanaimo73 Dave, Perhaps you could look at the proposed Long Island Railroad tunnel to Grand Central Station as well. I believe that will be over $1 billion. But that's a whole different animal - underwater, commuter rail, and a host of *public* agencies (ir)responsible who seem to like nothing more than to somehow find a way to make even the most rudimentary projects subject to the highest possible costs. We'd all be better off if they spent the money to move businesses and people out of New York to roomier places in the Midwest and Rocky Mountain West. Heck, we'd take Wall Street in a pinch here in beautiful downtown Butte![:D] And New York is the only place in the country that this happens? The PNW is completely devoid of this type corruption? With the exception of Seattle, yes.
"We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.