QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Ted, Word of advice: Ignore everything posted by the "ilks". They have no knowledge of PNW operations nor geography.
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Eric, Not sure if I'm following your logic here.
23 17 46 11
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 Dont be so ERROGANT MR! Reply kenneo Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Upper Left Coast 1,796 posts Posted by kenneo on Monday, April 17, 2006 8:18 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by nanaimo73 Googlemap- http://maps.google.com/?ll=47.655199,-117.433977&spn=0.001922,0.004742&t=h Interesting. Maybe yes, maybe no. Hmmmmm. Eric Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, April 17, 2006 10:16 PM The ex-NP main from Marshall to Sunset Junction was double track once, now single track with one long siding. Yes, technically speaking the viaduct (actually a series of bridges over the streets connected by solid fills through the city blocks {although urban legend has it that there are secret spaces under the fills where ilks and fairies live!}, with vertical concrete walls acting as the side buttress of the fill, and which abut right up to the adjacent buildings) through Spokane is probably 4 tracks wide, but I believe the close proximity to the adjacent buildings prevent any width expansion of a third or fourth track, e.g. probably something to do with city codes or safety logistics. If BNSF wanted to widen the viaduct to add an extra track or two they'd probably have to buy up the whole half block on one side or the other between each street. When you talk about buying up commercial property, not to mention the cost of tearing down all the buildings to make way for the railroad expansion, you can see where the cost of such may actually exceed the cost of drilling a tunnel through solid basalt. I should reiterate that UP's problems in having to utilize BNSF tracks through Spokane are mostly self inflicted. They had their own line at one time, probably the best western entrance into Spokane when compared to GN's and NP's western entrances, but gave it up due to projections of little growth in traffic. I guess they could not foresee the desire of CP to send megatons of grain and potash via the easier profile of the Crow's Nest/Spokane International gateway to Portland area ports compared to Kicking Horse and Roger's Pass to Vancouver BC. Indeed, it would seem the SI gateway has more importance for CP than it does for UP. Reply Edit kenneo Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Upper Left Coast 1,796 posts Posted by kenneo on Tuesday, April 18, 2006 2:45 AM Dave --- something I don't understand --- if the UP is having so much trouble getting through Spokane with a "short" joint track arrangement between East Spokane and Fish Lake, why would they desire to extend the traffic jam another 66 miles to Sandpoint? The added costs for train delays and loss of reputation (the percieved value of business gained or lost due soly to a reputation) will soon eat up any savings gained by closing down the SI between Spokane and Sandpoint. Also, if the UP is fleeting trains through Spokane as you suggest a few messages above, that says that their capacity to meet trains between Hinkle and Fish Lake does not match or exceed the train lengths they are operating. That also is a capacity issue and it may be a direct contributer to the Spokane problem. Eric Reply edblysard Member sinceMarch 2002 9,265 posts Posted by edblysard on Tuesday, April 18, 2006 4:57 AM Dave... I guess you are not as worldly as you pretend to be; everyone else knows ilk dont live under bridges! As for the other, well, fairies, and men in comfortable shoes, thats more your department, isnt it? 23 17 46 11 Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, April 18, 2006 10:00 AM 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. Reply Edit chad thomas Member sinceJanuary 2005 From: Ely, Nv. 6,312 posts Posted by chad thomas on Tuesday, April 18, 2006 10:14 AM 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? Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, April 18, 2006 12:09 PM 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. Reply Edit kenneo Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Upper Left Coast 1,796 posts Posted by kenneo on Tuesday, April 18, 2006 1:13 PM 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). Eric Reply nanaimo73 Member sinceApril 2005 From: Nanaimo BC Canada 4,117 posts Posted by nanaimo73 on Tuesday, April 18, 2006 1:18 PM The Latah Creek Bridge ? UP bridge 1930- http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=284516 Dale Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, April 18, 2006 1:25 PM Nanaimo got it. But why? Reply Edit nanaimo73 Member sinceApril 2005 From: Nanaimo BC Canada 4,117 posts Posted by nanaimo73 on Tuesday, April 18, 2006 1:32 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by Clemente Nanaimo got it. But why? Is the switch on the bridge (Latah Jct) manual or CTC ? Dale Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, April 18, 2006 3:03 PM 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. Reply Edit kenneo Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Upper Left Coast 1,796 posts Posted by kenneo on Tuesday, April 18, 2006 4:18 PM 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 $. Eric Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, April 18, 2006 4:49 PM 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. Reply Edit kenneo Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Upper Left Coast 1,796 posts Posted by kenneo on Tuesday, April 18, 2006 5:10 PM 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? Eric Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, April 18, 2006 6:03 PM 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. Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, April 18, 2006 9:42 PM 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. Reply Edit PNWRMNM Member sinceMay 2003 From: US 2,593 posts Posted by PNWRMNM on Wednesday, April 19, 2006 10:11 AM 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 Reply kenneo Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Upper Left Coast 1,796 posts Posted by kenneo on Wednesday, April 19, 2006 8:50 PM 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. Eric Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, April 19, 2006 9:34 PM 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. Reply Edit kenneo Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Upper Left Coast 1,796 posts Posted by kenneo on Thursday, April 20, 2006 2:09 AM 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. Eric Reply 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 nanaimo73 Googlemap- http://maps.google.com/?ll=47.655199,-117.433977&spn=0.001922,0.004742&t=h
QUOTE: Originally posted by Clemente Nanaimo got it. But why?
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.
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.
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.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.