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 Murphy Siding Member sinceMay 2005 From: S.E. South Dakota 13,569 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 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 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 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 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 spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Friday, April 14, 2006 6:30 AM 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 Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply kenneo Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Upper Left Coast 1,796 posts Posted by kenneo on Friday, April 14, 2006 2:24 AM Well, Ed, it was a sunny day. What else can I say. That goes a long way here. Dave, to see my "handle" used in a Thread Title, well ... ... ... Well, down to business. Full throtle. All that. Right. First, lets look at the tunnel approach. As Tom says, do you see a "hitch" here? I see two of them and the solution is almost as bad as the problems - both the "hitch" and the capacity situation. The problems - first - are money (the UP is not going to finance this project simply due to traffic volumes and the BNSF won't help to provide its competition with a superior route) since the cost is going to be way above any economical benefit - second - you have the NIMBY politics from those that live in the area above the proposed tunnel, those that will oppose it for valid reasons, and those (usually the loudest) who oppose simply to be opposing. This idea is dead prior to conception. Sorry, because it is an innovative idea. UNLESS The City of Spokane, the Feds, WA-DOT, UP and BNSF get together to build this hole and probably only if the taxpayers pay for it. You then have the political problems attendant to that (in addition to NIMBY) and because holes (horizontal ones used for transportation purposess) are very difficult to enlarge after they are completed, you will have instant capacity problems from square one. It is true that Spokane would like to get the BNSF and UP out of down town, and the railroads may well wi***o be gone also, I don't know, but government is going to have to fund this and also create the enabling political climate. Not real likely. For the very same reasons that you saw concerning your original route, your tunnel is in trouble. The cheapest, most easily done physically, and most doable politically, is to construct the "third leg" of a Y at Spokane between the MILW branch and the SI main where they come together in East Spokane, operate south over the existing trackage to Plummer, and then re-lay the PCE west to the O-dub (UP) at Marengo. Track milage will be about equal and the problems of "Spike the UP" and simple capacity between Fish Lake and East Spokane will be gone. I realize that this route is a bit circuitous, but it completely does away with the NIMBY demon (the tracks are already there) and does increase capacity by a potential 180% of what it is now. The BNSF is rid of a thorn in its side. It costs MUCH LESS that any tunnel. And, if you ask just right, the City of Spokane may put a little cash into the pot to get the UP out of the way. A bird in the cooking pot is worth far more than all of the rest that are flying by out of range. Eric Reply nanaimo73 Member sinceApril 2005 From: Nanaimo BC Canada 4,117 posts Posted by nanaimo73 on Friday, April 14, 2006 1:55 AM Judging by CP's Rogers Pass line 20 years ago, this project would be about $300 million. That amount of capital would be far better spent double tracking the Sunset route. Dale Reply greyhounds Member sinceAugust 2003 From: Antioch, IL 4,371 posts Posted by greyhounds on Friday, April 14, 2006 12:34 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. No, it's not about grades! A railroad company can handle a grade! What they can not handle is a past due note on the money they borrowed to build something that isn't needed and won't pay for itself. The railroads hire MBA's. From the best business schools. That's six year's of college and these people were "making the cut" every time. They got into, oh say, Northwestern from high school, then they graduated from Northwestern, and then they got into the Northwestern Graduate School of Management. (two more years) Then they got hired by a Fortune top rated corporation. They anilyze this stuff. They know what they're doing, but they're not infalible. And they will continue to "make the cut" every time, or else they'll be gone. And you think you can drive around Spokane for a day and determine that they are wrong? "By many measures, the U.S. freight rail system is the safest, most efficient and cost effective in the world." - Federal Railroad Administration, October, 2009. I'm just your average, everyday, uncivilized howling "anti-government" critic of mass government expenditures for "High Speed Rail" in the US. And I'm gosh darn proud of that. Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, April 13, 2006 11:30 PM 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. Reply Edit edblysard Member sinceMarch 2002 9,265 posts Posted by edblysard on Thursday, April 13, 2006 10:18 PM Pssst, Hey Tom... They let him out "on his own" yesterday...[:0] QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl You don't see a "hitch" with a 3 mile tunnel? 23 17 46 11 Reply TomDiehl Member sinceFebruary 2001 From: Poconos, PA 3,948 posts Posted by TomDiehl on Thursday, April 13, 2006 8:56 PM You don't see a "hitch" with a 3 mile tunnel? Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts UP thru Spokane Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, April 13, 2006 8:02 PM Eric and all interested: Regarding the discussion of the UP overhead rights over BNSF thru Spokane WA and the long waits UP crews endure at Fish Lake and East Spokane to get permission to the BNSF line, one option mentioned was UP rebuilding it's own line through Spokane to stop dependancy on BNSF dispatchers. Of course, the old UP line through Spokane (probably the best rail line through Spokane at the time) was torn out for the 1974 Expo, and UP negotiated rights over BN from Fish Lake to East Spokane. Back then, UP traffic over the "Washy" line was light anyway, so it was no big deal. But now, with CP sending more and more traffic over UP via Eastport ID, traffic on the Washy is increasing. Although not anywhere near capacity yet, it is conceivable that traffic could increase to the point where the BNSF bottleneck can become a hotbed of costly delays. Well, I had a chance yesterday to drive around the Spokane area on my own and eyeball potential UP reroutes. The option I had previously mentioned of UP constructing a southern bypass may be more difficult than first thought, since housing growth in the Spokane Valley and LIberty Lake has taken out a possible southern bypass along the hillsides south of the valley. But what did occur to me in studying the Spokane area geography is this: A new line running northeast to southwest via a 3 mile tunnel under the South Hill from near the Hamilton Street bridge to Latah Creek near the old NP bridge over the creek. The rest of the line is simply a matter of rebuilding over the old UP/Milwaukee ROW from Latah Creek to Fish Lake. The only hitch I could see with this idea is how to connect the UP line at Fish Lake with the old UP ROW from Scribner east, since BNSF now has a crossover from the old NP main to the old SP&S main, meaning a rebuilt UP would have to go over, under, or a diamond crossing at grade at that BNSF crossover. Going over or under means deviating from the steady grade out of the Latah creek valley to the Cheney plains, while a new diamond presents some other obvious problems........ 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.
Originally posted by futuremodal
Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
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?
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 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 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 spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Friday, April 14, 2006 6:30 AM 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 Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply kenneo Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Upper Left Coast 1,796 posts Posted by kenneo on Friday, April 14, 2006 2:24 AM Well, Ed, it was a sunny day. What else can I say. That goes a long way here. Dave, to see my "handle" used in a Thread Title, well ... ... ... Well, down to business. Full throtle. All that. Right. First, lets look at the tunnel approach. As Tom says, do you see a "hitch" here? I see two of them and the solution is almost as bad as the problems - both the "hitch" and the capacity situation. The problems - first - are money (the UP is not going to finance this project simply due to traffic volumes and the BNSF won't help to provide its competition with a superior route) since the cost is going to be way above any economical benefit - second - you have the NIMBY politics from those that live in the area above the proposed tunnel, those that will oppose it for valid reasons, and those (usually the loudest) who oppose simply to be opposing. This idea is dead prior to conception. Sorry, because it is an innovative idea. UNLESS The City of Spokane, the Feds, WA-DOT, UP and BNSF get together to build this hole and probably only if the taxpayers pay for it. You then have the political problems attendant to that (in addition to NIMBY) and because holes (horizontal ones used for transportation purposess) are very difficult to enlarge after they are completed, you will have instant capacity problems from square one. It is true that Spokane would like to get the BNSF and UP out of down town, and the railroads may well wi***o be gone also, I don't know, but government is going to have to fund this and also create the enabling political climate. Not real likely. For the very same reasons that you saw concerning your original route, your tunnel is in trouble. The cheapest, most easily done physically, and most doable politically, is to construct the "third leg" of a Y at Spokane between the MILW branch and the SI main where they come together in East Spokane, operate south over the existing trackage to Plummer, and then re-lay the PCE west to the O-dub (UP) at Marengo. Track milage will be about equal and the problems of "Spike the UP" and simple capacity between Fish Lake and East Spokane will be gone. I realize that this route is a bit circuitous, but it completely does away with the NIMBY demon (the tracks are already there) and does increase capacity by a potential 180% of what it is now. The BNSF is rid of a thorn in its side. It costs MUCH LESS that any tunnel. And, if you ask just right, the City of Spokane may put a little cash into the pot to get the UP out of the way. A bird in the cooking pot is worth far more than all of the rest that are flying by out of range. Eric Reply nanaimo73 Member sinceApril 2005 From: Nanaimo BC Canada 4,117 posts Posted by nanaimo73 on Friday, April 14, 2006 1:55 AM Judging by CP's Rogers Pass line 20 years ago, this project would be about $300 million. That amount of capital would be far better spent double tracking the Sunset route. Dale Reply greyhounds Member sinceAugust 2003 From: Antioch, IL 4,371 posts Posted by greyhounds on Friday, April 14, 2006 12:34 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. No, it's not about grades! A railroad company can handle a grade! What they can not handle is a past due note on the money they borrowed to build something that isn't needed and won't pay for itself. The railroads hire MBA's. From the best business schools. That's six year's of college and these people were "making the cut" every time. They got into, oh say, Northwestern from high school, then they graduated from Northwestern, and then they got into the Northwestern Graduate School of Management. (two more years) Then they got hired by a Fortune top rated corporation. They anilyze this stuff. They know what they're doing, but they're not infalible. And they will continue to "make the cut" every time, or else they'll be gone. And you think you can drive around Spokane for a day and determine that they are wrong? "By many measures, the U.S. freight rail system is the safest, most efficient and cost effective in the world." - Federal Railroad Administration, October, 2009. I'm just your average, everyday, uncivilized howling "anti-government" critic of mass government expenditures for "High Speed Rail" in the US. And I'm gosh darn proud of that. Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, April 13, 2006 11:30 PM 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. Reply Edit edblysard Member sinceMarch 2002 9,265 posts Posted by edblysard on Thursday, April 13, 2006 10:18 PM Pssst, Hey Tom... They let him out "on his own" yesterday...[:0] QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl You don't see a "hitch" with a 3 mile tunnel? 23 17 46 11 Reply TomDiehl Member sinceFebruary 2001 From: Poconos, PA 3,948 posts Posted by TomDiehl on Thursday, April 13, 2006 8:56 PM You don't see a "hitch" with a 3 mile tunnel? Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts UP thru Spokane Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, April 13, 2006 8:02 PM Eric and all interested: Regarding the discussion of the UP overhead rights over BNSF thru Spokane WA and the long waits UP crews endure at Fish Lake and East Spokane to get permission to the BNSF line, one option mentioned was UP rebuilding it's own line through Spokane to stop dependancy on BNSF dispatchers. Of course, the old UP line through Spokane (probably the best rail line through Spokane at the time) was torn out for the 1974 Expo, and UP negotiated rights over BN from Fish Lake to East Spokane. Back then, UP traffic over the "Washy" line was light anyway, so it was no big deal. But now, with CP sending more and more traffic over UP via Eastport ID, traffic on the Washy is increasing. Although not anywhere near capacity yet, it is conceivable that traffic could increase to the point where the BNSF bottleneck can become a hotbed of costly delays. Well, I had a chance yesterday to drive around the Spokane area on my own and eyeball potential UP reroutes. The option I had previously mentioned of UP constructing a southern bypass may be more difficult than first thought, since housing growth in the Spokane Valley and LIberty Lake has taken out a possible southern bypass along the hillsides south of the valley. But what did occur to me in studying the Spokane area geography is this: A new line running northeast to southwest via a 3 mile tunnel under the South Hill from near the Hamilton Street bridge to Latah Creek near the old NP bridge over the creek. The rest of the line is simply a matter of rebuilding over the old UP/Milwaukee ROW from Latah Creek to Fish Lake. The only hitch I could see with this idea is how to connect the UP line at Fish Lake with the old UP ROW from Scribner east, since BNSF now has a crossover from the old NP main to the old SP&S main, meaning a rebuilt UP would have to go over, under, or a diamond crossing at grade at that BNSF crossover. Going over or under means deviating from the steady grade out of the Latah creek valley to the Cheney plains, while a new diamond presents some other obvious problems........ 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
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 kenneo Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Upper Left Coast 1,796 posts Posted by kenneo on Friday, April 14, 2006 2:24 AM Well, Ed, it was a sunny day. What else can I say. That goes a long way here. Dave, to see my "handle" used in a Thread Title, well ... ... ... Well, down to business. Full throtle. All that. Right. First, lets look at the tunnel approach. As Tom says, do you see a "hitch" here? I see two of them and the solution is almost as bad as the problems - both the "hitch" and the capacity situation. The problems - first - are money (the UP is not going to finance this project simply due to traffic volumes and the BNSF won't help to provide its competition with a superior route) since the cost is going to be way above any economical benefit - second - you have the NIMBY politics from those that live in the area above the proposed tunnel, those that will oppose it for valid reasons, and those (usually the loudest) who oppose simply to be opposing. This idea is dead prior to conception. Sorry, because it is an innovative idea. UNLESS The City of Spokane, the Feds, WA-DOT, UP and BNSF get together to build this hole and probably only if the taxpayers pay for it. You then have the political problems attendant to that (in addition to NIMBY) and because holes (horizontal ones used for transportation purposess) are very difficult to enlarge after they are completed, you will have instant capacity problems from square one. It is true that Spokane would like to get the BNSF and UP out of down town, and the railroads may well wi***o be gone also, I don't know, but government is going to have to fund this and also create the enabling political climate. Not real likely. For the very same reasons that you saw concerning your original route, your tunnel is in trouble. The cheapest, most easily done physically, and most doable politically, is to construct the "third leg" of a Y at Spokane between the MILW branch and the SI main where they come together in East Spokane, operate south over the existing trackage to Plummer, and then re-lay the PCE west to the O-dub (UP) at Marengo. Track milage will be about equal and the problems of "Spike the UP" and simple capacity between Fish Lake and East Spokane will be gone. I realize that this route is a bit circuitous, but it completely does away with the NIMBY demon (the tracks are already there) and does increase capacity by a potential 180% of what it is now. The BNSF is rid of a thorn in its side. It costs MUCH LESS that any tunnel. And, if you ask just right, the City of Spokane may put a little cash into the pot to get the UP out of the way. A bird in the cooking pot is worth far more than all of the rest that are flying by out of range. Eric Reply nanaimo73 Member sinceApril 2005 From: Nanaimo BC Canada 4,117 posts Posted by nanaimo73 on Friday, April 14, 2006 1:55 AM Judging by CP's Rogers Pass line 20 years ago, this project would be about $300 million. That amount of capital would be far better spent double tracking the Sunset route. Dale Reply greyhounds Member sinceAugust 2003 From: Antioch, IL 4,371 posts Posted by greyhounds on Friday, April 14, 2006 12:34 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. No, it's not about grades! A railroad company can handle a grade! What they can not handle is a past due note on the money they borrowed to build something that isn't needed and won't pay for itself. The railroads hire MBA's. From the best business schools. That's six year's of college and these people were "making the cut" every time. They got into, oh say, Northwestern from high school, then they graduated from Northwestern, and then they got into the Northwestern Graduate School of Management. (two more years) Then they got hired by a Fortune top rated corporation. They anilyze this stuff. They know what they're doing, but they're not infalible. And they will continue to "make the cut" every time, or else they'll be gone. And you think you can drive around Spokane for a day and determine that they are wrong? "By many measures, the U.S. freight rail system is the safest, most efficient and cost effective in the world." - Federal Railroad Administration, October, 2009. I'm just your average, everyday, uncivilized howling "anti-government" critic of mass government expenditures for "High Speed Rail" in the US. And I'm gosh darn proud of that. Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, April 13, 2006 11:30 PM 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. Reply Edit edblysard Member sinceMarch 2002 9,265 posts Posted by edblysard on Thursday, April 13, 2006 10:18 PM Pssst, Hey Tom... They let him out "on his own" yesterday...[:0] QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl You don't see a "hitch" with a 3 mile tunnel? 23 17 46 11 Reply TomDiehl Member sinceFebruary 2001 From: Poconos, PA 3,948 posts Posted by TomDiehl on Thursday, April 13, 2006 8:56 PM You don't see a "hitch" with a 3 mile tunnel? Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts UP thru Spokane Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, April 13, 2006 8:02 PM Eric and all interested: Regarding the discussion of the UP overhead rights over BNSF thru Spokane WA and the long waits UP crews endure at Fish Lake and East Spokane to get permission to the BNSF line, one option mentioned was UP rebuilding it's own line through Spokane to stop dependancy on BNSF dispatchers. Of course, the old UP line through Spokane (probably the best rail line through Spokane at the time) was torn out for the 1974 Expo, and UP negotiated rights over BN from Fish Lake to East Spokane. Back then, UP traffic over the "Washy" line was light anyway, so it was no big deal. But now, with CP sending more and more traffic over UP via Eastport ID, traffic on the Washy is increasing. Although not anywhere near capacity yet, it is conceivable that traffic could increase to the point where the BNSF bottleneck can become a hotbed of costly delays. Well, I had a chance yesterday to drive around the Spokane area on my own and eyeball potential UP reroutes. The option I had previously mentioned of UP constructing a southern bypass may be more difficult than first thought, since housing growth in the Spokane Valley and LIberty Lake has taken out a possible southern bypass along the hillsides south of the valley. But what did occur to me in studying the Spokane area geography is this: A new line running northeast to southwest via a 3 mile tunnel under the South Hill from near the Hamilton Street bridge to Latah Creek near the old NP bridge over the creek. The rest of the line is simply a matter of rebuilding over the old UP/Milwaukee ROW from Latah Creek to Fish Lake. The only hitch I could see with this idea is how to connect the UP line at Fish Lake with the old UP ROW from Scribner east, since BNSF now has a crossover from the old NP main to the old SP&S main, meaning a rebuilt UP would have to go over, under, or a diamond crossing at grade at that BNSF crossover. Going over or under means deviating from the steady grade out of the Latah creek valley to the Cheney plains, while a new diamond presents some other obvious problems........ 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 TomDiehl You don't see a "hitch" with a 3 mile tunnel?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.