UP thru Spokane

[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.

[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]

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.

[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]

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]

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]

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.

[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.

[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]

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?

[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]

I wonder. Has CP weighed in on this project?

[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.