UP thru Spokane

[kenneo]

I still think dedicated mains would be a better idea. But I am not footing the bill. Still leaves the existing mess through downtown on the Viaduct and on to Fish Lake.

Given what the SRTC is trying to do, it would seem that putting in at least one new main between Latah Creek and the NP yard would be a very big help now and also rather inexpensive compared to their current projects.

[Anonymous]

I wonder. Has CP weighed in on this project?

[Anonymous]

Having actually gone down and talked to the Spokane Regional Transportation Council located in the top floor of the old NP station downtown, I can answer a most of the questions about the project.

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Well, it looks as though most of this is still in the preliminary stages, but to take a few website statements at face value.....

Actually this project has been moving slowly forward for years. Funding has been slow in coming.

QUOTE: So is UP going to have any ownership rights of these new sets of tracks parallel to the current BNSF line? Or is this going to be all BNSF trackage with UP getting overhead rights like they currently do between Fish Lake and Napa? Hmmm, nothing says "out of touch" like making the same mistake twice!

No it will be BNSF ownership, and UP trackage rights. UP will only own their yard and auto facility between Barker and Flora roads.

QUOTE: "The UPRR mainline track needed to maintain service to existing customers will be reclassified to industry track from mainline track."

Still not sure if the current UP line will remain intact or have parts torn out. If the former, at least there will be an available rail bypass when the next big catastrophic derailment takes the BNSF main out of service for more than a few hours. If the latter, well, the website further states "Remove a majority of the UPRR mainline and the associated crossings."........

Parts of the current mainline will remain in place to serve customers at Millwood, Trentwood, Interstate, and Chilco, the rest will be removed.

QUOTE: "Construct a new UPRR Yard"

Why would UP need a new Spokane yard? Most of their carload traffic to and from Spokane originates or connects with the current yard site aka the Plummer branch, the East Sprague warehouse district, et al. Where is this new yard supposed to be located? Sounds as if developers are eyeing the Playfair/Avista Stadium area for some upscaling.

In case you missed it, part of the combined UP-MILW East Spokane yard has been redeveloped as a Home Depot and a Costco. The rest of the yard is on valuable land, and UP wants to sell, and have the new yard more centrally located to their Eastport-Hinkle corridor. The current yard is useless to through trains off the BNSF or coming from Eastport. So UP is forced to run the MSKHK/MHKSK for the small amount of traffic that passes through the East Spokane Yard, whereas traffic at Trentwood/Velox is picked up and dropped by through trains. The Plummer branch will be rerouted up the industrial spur to the Pea and Seed elevator, and a short new connection will be built to connect to the BNSF.

QUOTE: Like I said before, there is nothing germaine to the BNSF line regarding the need for grade separations and closed road crossings that couldn't also be done the UP's line. Build a few road underpasses and overpasses, close down a few of the lesser used road crossings, and there you go. An available high capacity second mainline that UP and BNSF could share for directional or segregated running of mainline freights.

And you don't even have to build a second track nor a new Spokane River bridge. Seems to me that would be a less costly solution.

But who really cares about costs when it is the taxpayers footing the bill?

That's because in addition to wanting to eliminate grade crossings, both Idaho and Washington are eyeing the right of way for new highways. Spokane wants to use the UP ROW from Pines Road to Trent Road (west of the SI Yard) as a new parkway that would connected the Valley Mall area to Downtown. Of course SRTC keeps that part of the project quiet to avoid Nimby resistance from the neighborhoods along the route ("If you thought trains were bad, just wait till they put a highway there!"). Idaho wants UP's ROW so that they can build a new highway from Hwy 95 at Garwood to Hwy 43 outside of Post Falls, as a bypass of Hayden Lake and Coeur d'Alene.

Something not shown in the drawings on the website (among many things), is the new connection at Millwood to serve the paper mill. A short connection would be built from the exsisting BNSF mainline at a point just east of where the BNSF goes over the UP at Millwood. The connection would drop down to the UP tracks on the south side of the BNSF mainline, and swing under the BNSF mainlines and Trent Road to connect to the UP tracks. A short section of the UP would then be kept to connect with the Paper Mill.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by kenneo

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

If indeed this Athol to Spokane consolidation takes place, are you saying for a fact that it will be triple track all the way from Athol to Sunset Junction? Is UP better off giving up their own tracks to use those of their prime competitor? Is UP planning on ripping out the valley tracks, or will they keep them as "insurance".

See web site http://www.bridgingthevalley.org

The various pages answer all of your questions. Wish I had known about it earlier.

Remember what I said earlier a couple of times about who pays for things such as this? This is a proposal made by the City of Spokane and Washington DOT. They are paying quite a big chunk of the costs and taking all of the political heat. FRA DOT is also paying a chunk through the grade-crossing elimination project. Look. Watch. See your taxes at work.

Also, I really don't think the BNSF and UP are being given much of a choice.

Well, it looks as though most of this is still in the preliminary stages, but to take a few website statements at face value.....

"...as well as relocating the existing Union Pacific (UPRR) mainline between Spokane and Athol to an alignment within BNSF’s mainline corridor..."

So is UP going to have any ownership rights of these new sets of tracks parallel to the current BNSF line? Or is this going to be all BNSF trackage with UP getting overhead rights like they currently do between Fish Lake and Napa? Hmmm, nothing says "out of touch" like making the same mistake twice!

"The UPRR mainline track needed to maintain service to existing customers will be reclassified to industry track from mainline track."

Still not sure if the current UP line will remain intact or have parts torn out. If the former, at least there will be an available rail bypass when the next big catastrophic derailment takes the BNSF main out of service for more than a few hours. If the latter, well, the website further states "Remove a majority of the UPRR mainline and the associated crossings."........

So, no alternative available?

"Construct a new UPRR Yard"

Why would UP need a new Spokane yard? Most of their carload traffic to and from Spokane originates or connects with the current yard site aka the Plummer branch, the East Sprague warehouse district, et al. Where is this new yard supposed to be located? Sounds as if developers are eyeing the Playfair/Avista Stadium area for some upscaling.

Like I said before, there is nothing germaine to the BNSF line regarding the need for grade separations and closed road crossings that couldn't also be done the UP's line. Build a few road underpasses and overpasses, close down a few of the lesser used road crossings, and there you go. An available high capacity second mainline that UP and BNSF could share for directional or segregated running of mainline freights.

And you don't even have to build a second track nor a new Spokane River bridge. Seems to me that would be a less costly solution.

But who really cares about costs when it is the taxpayers footing the bill?

[kenneo]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

If indeed this Athol to Spokane consolidation takes place, are you saying for a fact that it will be triple track all the way from Athol to Sunset Junction? Is UP better off giving up their own tracks to use those of their prime competitor? Is UP planning on ripping out the valley tracks, or will they keep them as "insurance".

See web site http://www.bridgingthevalley.org

The various pages answer all of your questions. Wish I had known about it earlier.

Remember what I said earlier a couple of times about who pays for things such as this? This is a proposal made by the City of Spokane and Washington DOT. They are paying quite a big chunk of the costs and taking all of the political heat. FRA DOT is also paying a chunk through the grade-crossing elimination project. Look. Watch. See your taxes at work.

Also, I really don't think the BNSF and UP are being given much of a choice.

[Anonymous]

FunnelFan,

There are two tracks on the viaduct from Sunset Juntion to just west of the Amtrak Station (Stevens St?) and from just east of the station (at Sprague/Division?) to the yard just east of the Hamilton Street Bridge. The third track is west and east alongside the Amtrak station (isn't there a fourth there?). A third track along the entire length would seem to present issues with adjacent commercial buildings. It is rather crowded through downtown Spokane, and those property values are not enhanced by any track expansion projects. You might be able to add a third or fourth track from the Amtrak station east (more of a low rent district), but west may be another matter.

If indeed this Athol to Spokane consolidation takes place, are you saying for a fact that it will be triple track all the way from Athol to Sunset Junction? Is UP better off giving up their own tracks to use those of their prime competitor? Is UP planning on ripping out the valley tracks, or will they keep them as "insurance".

If UP and BNSF are so prone to cooperation, why haven't they looked at joint usage from Fish Lake to a new West Cheney double crossover, and eliminate that last stretch of westbound 1% (using UP's line as the westbound and the ex-NP as the eastbound)? Can't be anymore expensive than two additional bridges across the Spokane River at Trentwood to accomodate the desire for triple track.

The same could be looked at between Sandpoint and Athol, or even Bonners Ferry to Athol. Heck, maybe even Fish Lake all the way to Pasco! Why spend money on new sidings and double track stretches when tracks are already available for directional running on distantly separated double track?

If UP is sold on this usage of more and more of BNSF's tracks, then that might be an indicator that the SI is more important to CP than to UP.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Clemente

UP grade up Mica Hill is 1.7% compensated, not 2-3%. But you're right about those curves, very nasty stuff for any main line train.

Thanks, I didn't know the grade off the top of my head, I just knew it was steep. As for the triple tracking, both UP and BNSF would share all three tracks.

[kenneo]

What I would like to know is --- "Where was all this good information a few dozen messages ago when we really needed it". That's the bad news. The good news is that now we have it.

[Anonymous]

UP grade up Mica Hill is 1.7% compensated, not 2-3%. But you're right about those curves, very nasty stuff for any main line train.

[kenneo]

Funnelfan ...

Thanks for the link. Interesting.

Do I understand from the little insets that there will be a 3 track main with on track assigned to the UP?

[Anonymous]

To clarifiy a couple things. The UP line from East Spokane/Dishman up to Mica/ Manito/Plummer is very steep, 2-3% grades and a couple horseshoes halfway up. Someone was looking at building a shuttle loader at Fairfield, but due to the nature of the line, the train would need to be brought into Spokane in cuts anyways. Even when the line was part of through routes for MILW and UP, the trains on that route were light in nature.

The elevated structure in downtown Spokane was once six tracks wide, today there are only three tracks (two mainlines and the Amtrak lead). A third and even a fourth mainline would be easy to add. Follow this link to the "Bridging the Valley" project website and click on the various circles and study how the third main will be added to the exsisting BNSF mainline. Also note by clicking on the Barker Road map, you can see the east end of the new UP yard, which UP has already acquired the property for.

http://www.bridgingthevalley.org/maps_2.htm

It would also be wise for BNSF to add the second track back between the Scribner connection (Marshall) and west Empire, and continue both tracks through Sunset Junction to the south two mainlines of the three through downtown Spokane.

[PNWRMNM]

FM

What law do you imagine BNSF would be violating by putting a third track on the existing elevated through Spokane? I never said BNSF was above the law, I do not believe there is, or should be, a law that restrains them from laying a third track.

Mac

[Anonymous]

The 1% grades of the NP near Spokane ARE an issue, and present a different challenge than the grades further south. BNSF runs some heavy stacks and manifests eastbound from Pasco, but for both BNSF and UP, the real tonnage in this area is westbound/southbound: grain, coal, potash. For these tonnage trains, it's almost all downhill or level across most of eastern Washington with two notable exceptions. BNSF westbounds climb something like 0.6% from Lind up to Providence, and UP southbounds climb about 0.7% from Juniper up to Cold Springs. Back near Spokane, the NP route heading west of the city would force tonnage trains to descend a couple miles on 1% to the Hangman Creek bridge then immediately dig their wheels into several miles of climbing that maxes out at 1.14% to Marshall. Not an impossible train handling task, but it requires more motive power than these trains are currently assigned. South of Marshall, these tonnage trains already deal with a short stretch of 1% between Lakeside Jct. and Cheney, but they get a pretty good run at it coming off the former SP&S.

[kenneo]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

No, I think Mac is right. BNSF could just bully their way to a third, fourth, or nth track through the viaduct, and force the taxpayers of the State of Washington to foot the bill. If the bad ol' FRA puts the clamps down on adding tracks to current trackage, BNSF will just build a new double decker viaduct on top of the current viaduct, or something to that effect.

Mac is correct in that the BNSF could simply go out and spike down track without interferance from the City, County or State, provided it is on railroad R-o-W that currently exists. That was not my point.

The FRA and STB have the authority to state whether or not BNSF could add tracks to the Viaduct, and those restrictions are in effect now in the form of clearance requirements. US DOT can then, also, require that the Viaduct be raised. Should the RR need to add to or repair byond "as is design", then the agency responsible for the permits involved will also be invloved.

Much of my comments in this thread have been aimed at avoidance of the political problems that doing work on current R-o-W's could either avoid or minimize.

As to who would pay for such activities------
If the BNSF asks permission or simply starts spiking down rail, it will get stuck with all of the costs that the politicos can lay on the project. Whether or not any of these extra costs are legitimate to the original project is, actually, a moot point.

And these costs would not necessarily be limited to the Viaduct. Double tracking from the East of the Spokane River bridge East of the City all the way to Fish Lake to include any/all new bridges. They could also require that the Viaduct be removed and a tunnel be drilled. They could also include the fueling station at Hauser. Review the problems that the DME had with several cities along that part of its line that was simply to be up-graded - Rochester, MN, is a prime example - because new construction was included in the project.

If, however, any one of the Government agencies suggest any rebuilding such as have been mentioned with the Viaduct, they will get to foot the bill.

[Anonymous]

No, I think Mac is right. BNSF could just bully their way to a third, fourth, or nth track through the viaduct, and force the taxpayers of the State of Washington to foot the bill. If the bad ol' FRA puts the clamps down on adding tracks to current trackage, BNSF will just build a new double decker viaduct on top of the current viaduct, or something to that effect.

BNSF is clearly above the law in Mac's imagination.

[kenneo]

I am not an expert on Spokane, but I do know that there are "capacity issues" through town, that the "NP Viaduct" is too low to permit the free flow of interstate trucking (a Federal Issue) and the US-DOT could require it to be raised to a clearance of at least 15 feet, with the new FRA track center spacings it may not be possible to add a third track to the viaduct (it would need to be at least 125 feet wide), and the issue of having all of the traffic going down one corridor - when something happens, the whole works is shut down - there are no detours available.

I would like to make it clear (if it is not so) that I think capacity could be added to the current Spokane routings to solve the problem(s). But I don't think that this is the best solution. I also am of the opinion that certain traffic routings are un-necessarly round-about. Could rebuilding certain R-o-W's be cost effective? I don't know, and I don't have the information anywhere near at hand to make any kind of a judgment other than a prime-facie case that economies could be made.

Many years ago, a study was made (I don't remember by whom) that if a train-order single track RR = 100, double track would = 200, single track CTC = 180, double track CTC between 230 and 250. So, in theory at least, two separate single track CTC lines could handle 360 trains during the same time span as a double track CTC line could handle 250 trains. Plus, you would have a detour possibility should that be needed.

A one per-cent grade as exists in Spokane on the NP alignment is not an issue since such grades also exist elsewhere on the UP and BNSF (ex NP) lines between Spokane and Pasco/Walula.

[PNWRMNM]

Kenno,

First if BNSF wants to put another track on the existing NP elevated through Spokane they will, FM's imangined illegality notwithstanding.

Second, if one restored NP double track between Sunset Jct and Fish Lake that route would be able to take all of the BNSF Pasco and UP traffic, some of which now uses the new Latah Creek bridge, which would take the pressure off there. The only disadvantage is that the NP is 1% both ways which makes it the ruling grade for both BNSF and UP routes. I doubt that this is really a problem for either, in fact.

Mac

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Clemente

A lot of interesting and entertaining ideas going on here. A lot of misunderstanding, too. The joint corridor east of Spokane will end at Athol, not Sandpoint, and will involve a new track laid down next to BNSF's current main line, so UP should be much better off in the end. Yes, there's space atop much of the elevated corridor through downtown Spokane to add a third and possibly fourth main track, but no matter how much capacity you add through the city, you still haven't addressed the single most difficult choke point for Spokane's rail traffic. In honor of Chad and his Western Where Is Its, I leave it to you gents to name this choke point, and why.

As I mentioned before, the elevated corridor has presumable space to add tracks, but the proximity of the adjacent buildings prevent any legal addition of tracks.

You are also forgetting the Spokane River bridge east of Spokane, which is also single track, with the single track stretching from Pines Road to Sullivan. In order to accomodate the addition of UP's traffic, another bridge will have to be built.

If you ask me, it's a waste of capitol. UP's Spokane Valley line is perfectly functional, so why give up on something that is already there to bundle every line together via superfluous new construction? There's nothing wrong with a little dispersed redundancy, and if you remember the MRL derailment near Hauser a few years back you can appreciate having an alternate line available for maintaining traffic fluidity. And so what if the SI line crosses a few streets and roads at grade? BNSF's line also crossed numerous roads, but of late some crossings have been separated while others have been closed. The same method of attrition could be done for the SI line.

[Anonymous]

Where the Connell Branch met up with the UP at Hooper, actually Hooper Junction, the UP main is on a long, high fill. The branch passed under the main line before entering the small yard where Watco now stages its interchange traffic with UP. The tail of a wye track still passes under the UP main. Watco connects with UP using a steep connector that's not configured for the kind of traffic pattern you're looking for. Check your DeLorme atlas or some other good map for a better idea of what the tracks used to do in that area.

[kenneo]

OK. Not Kahlotus. How about Washtukna Coolie. And why would you need to add a new connection to whereever the "Connell Branch" connected to the O-Dub main since that was where it connected to begin with? If my memory serves me correctly, didn't the SPS and UP both come down to the Coolie floor and along the river befor turning north for Fish Lake?

[Anonymous]

Problems: The hard left turn at East Spokane for UP trains leads them up a hill with 1.7% grade and reverse curves that would be of no use for those long, heavy trains coming down from Canada, unless you start adding swing helpers and all manner of other tricks. UP does not go through Kahlotus; you'd need to relay that Connell branch clear east to Hooper and add a new connection there due to elevation differences. What you refer to as the "NP viaduct" through downtown already has two main tracks, and most of that viaduct is a massive earthen fill contained by walls. No need to raise or widen it.

[kenneo]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Clemente

It's CTC. Okay, here's the deal. Before the Expo '74/ post-BN merger consolidations had their way, there were three main routes west out of downtown Spokane: the GN/SP&S bridge, which had the GN and SP&S going their separate ways at the west end of the bridge; the UP/MILW bridge; and the NP doubletrack leading down through Hangman Creek valley. ... ... ...

... ... ... You can widen the corridor all you want through downtown Spokane and on east to the Idaho border and beyond, but it'll just make for a bigger parking lot until the single-track choke-point of Latah Creek Bridge is somehow widened or augmented.

AHhhhhh -- another reason to relay the Merango-Plummer section of the PCE. A hard left turn at East Spokane for all UP and BNSF Pasco traffic, down the UP/MILW branch to Plummer, PCE to Marengo, UP continues on its own rails to Hinkle, BNSF continues on UP to Kelotus, thence via relaid UP Connell Branch to Connell and then to Pasco on its own rails.

I would imagine that the City of Spokane would want the NP viaduct to be raised about 4 or 5 feet if it were double tracked. If so, the net result would be similar to building a new viaduct through Spokane and a new bridge at Latah Creek. Lotsa $.

[Anonymous]

It's CTC. Okay, here's the deal. Before the Expo '74/ post-BN merger consolidations had their way, there were three main routes west out of downtown Spokane: the GN/SP&S bridge, which had the GN and SP&S going their separate ways at the west end of the bridge; the UP/MILW bridge; and the NP doubletrack leading down through Hangman Creek valley. Today, the two older bridges are gone, replaced by a single one, Latah Creek Bridge. And the NP doubletrack, as mentioned by someone earlier, is now single track with a siding just a couple miles in length. Due to its steeper grades, the ex-NP between Spokane and Marshall, which is near Fish Lake, is normally used for eastbound BNSF traffic from Portland and Pasco, as well as UP trains coming up from Hinkle. Westbound BNSFs to Pasco/Portland, and UPs to Hinkle, normally use Latah Creek Bridge and part of the ex-SP&S to leave Spokane. When westbound traffic is light, the BNSF dispatcher has the option of running northbound/eastbound UP trains into Spokane via Latah Creek Bridge. Next, consider that all BNSF trains to/from Wenatchee or Seattle and quite a bit to/from Tacoma also use Latah Creek Bridge in both directions, and you see where having one bridge instead of two comes into play. You can widen the corridor all you want through downtown Spokane and on east to the Idaho border and beyond, but it'll just make for a bigger parking lot until the single-track choke-point of Latah Creek Bridge is somehow widened or augmented.

[nanaimo73]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Clemente

Nanaimo got it. But why?

Is the switch on the bridge (Latah Jct) manual or CTC ?

[Anonymous]

Nanaimo got it. But why?

[nanaimo73]

The Latah Creek Bridge ?


UP bridge 1930-
http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=284516

[kenneo]

OK. I'll bite. Sand Point has the former GN, NP and the SI connecting and crossing. And so does Fish Lake (SI becomes O-WRN Co).

[Anonymous]

Good guess. Sandpoint does have a long, single-track bridge that does present a choke point. But I'm thinking of another choke point that sees even more traffic. Hint: remember, we're including UP.

[chad thomas]

I can't call it myself. I've been there a few times but I'm no expert on ops in that part of the country. I'll take a wild guess and say it's the bridge below Sandpoint?