Western Railroad Discussion > Point Defiance tunnels

The recent Trains article on Point Defiance mentioned that the tunnels were originally built with 2 tracks. Checking it out on Bing Maps, it does indeed appear that they are wider than a standard single-track tunnel. Can anyone answer what it would take, if anything, to get 2 tracks in them again? Is it the height relative to the curve of the arched head (not sure of correct terminology)? If that is it, could notching work? Or lowering the floor? Or would the width simply not be enough for todays longer/wider cars? Thanks for any answers.

Bruce

Where is Point Defiance?

dick

2ebright Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Where is Point Defiance?

Tacoma, WA.

Bruce and list,

The Nelson Bennett and Ruston Tunnels accommodated two main tracks through the 70s, into the 80s, maybe the 90s too. But even for high-wide box cars and tri-level auto racks in the 1970s, only one track had clearance. So there was always a short stretch of interlocking/CTC to single-track the trains with high-wides.

I believe even the track with the best clearances did not have domestic stack clearances. By the 90s or surely by the new millenium, almost every manifest freight train needed to use the track with the best clearances. By taking out the second track, they were able to get domestic double stack clearances. But it became a capacity bottleneck. WSDOT plans to move the passenger trains to the Prairie Line (via a new connection to be constructed from the Tacoma Eastern track), which will mitigate the capacity problems through the single-track tunnels. But in the meantime, it's not so great.

Directly above the tunnels is the old lead smelter and other structures, so I suspect there are issues about trying to make the tunnels bigger. Probably TAW, MarkG and others know more.

Best regards,

Rob L.

BruceDGillings Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The recent Trains article on Point Defiance
> mentioned that the tunnels were originally built
> with 2 tracks. Checking it out on Bing Maps, it
> does indeed appear that they are wider than a
> standard single-track tunnel. Can anyone answer
> what it would take, if anything, to get 2 tracks
> in them again? Is it the height relative to the
> curve of the arched head (not sure of correct
> terminology)? If that is it, could notching work?
> Or lowering the floor? Or would the width simply
> not be enough for todays longer/wider cars?
> Thanks for any answers.
>
> Bruce



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/19/11 12:32 by rob_l.

2ebright Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Where is Point Defiance?

It is Tacoma, on the BNSF Seattle Sub. The location is called Point Defiance but the railroad refers to the big tunnel itself as the Nelson Bennett Tunnel and a much shorter tunnel as the Ruston Tunnel. Besides numerous freights, the route is home to the Coast Starlight and Cascades regional trains. There is currently money budgeted (from stimulus?) to build a passenger bypass. Bypassing this tunnel makes sense for two reasons:

1) The single track tunnels are an operational bottleneck, but more important...

2) When you leave Tacoma Station heading to Portland (almost due south of Tacoma), the tracks head northwest for a distance, turn west thru the tunnels (there are houses above them), then heads south along the Puget Sound shoreline with numerous curves and thus slower speeds to Steilacoom. The new passenger only bypass would head almost straight south from Tacoma to Steilacoom, cutting miles and allowing for higher speeds...the route will have heavier grades preventing freights using the bypass (otherwise, BNSF and UP would be partners on the bypass).



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/19/11 12:39 by BNSF6400.

Your next to the Narrows, so its soft soil, so digging may not be the best option. Trains only get a 5 minute hit if they are waiting at either end of the CTC.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/19/11 13:33 by WAF.

WAF Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Your next to the Narrows, so its soft soil, so
> digging may be be the best option. Trains only get
> a 5 minute hit if they are waiting at either end
> of the CTC.

And being right next to the Narrows, how high is the water table?
Digging may not be an option.

PHall Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WAF Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Your next to the Narrows, so its soft soil, so
> > digging may be be the best option. Trains only
> get
> > a 5 minute hit if they are waiting at either
> end
> > of the CTC.
>
> And being right next to the Narrows, how high is
> the water table?
> Digging may not be an option.

Should say.. "not" be the best option

I have often been on Cascades when they take a 20 minute hit, waiting for freight to clear tunnel.

WAF Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Your next to the Narrows, so its soft soil, so
> digging may not be the best option. Trains only
> get a 5 minute hit if they are waiting at either
> end of the CTC.

If digging the tunnels were an easy solution, BNSF would have already done it. They know something we don't about improving the tunnels.

Lairport Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have often been on Cascades when they take a 20
> minute hit, waiting for freight to clear tunnel.

I would think that with fleeting of trains, which seems common, the hits to freights could be quite a bit longer. With the Cascades on the bypass line, and just freight through the tunnels, what would be a reasonable capacity for this line, given how it is currently operated/dispatched?

Bruce

The tunnels were single-tracked in the early 1990s in order to get double-stack clearance (then 22 feet above top of rail). I remember seeing the bulletin orders for the work.

BN didn't think there would be a major problem in creating two short stretches of single track on the line. At that point, Washington wasn't really talking about higher speed rail and there was plenty of capacity for freight trains. Unfortunately the growth in Far East imports and the growth in passenger traffic now make the single-tracking look like a bad decision.

The Lakeview line has very heavy grades (on the order of 3%, I think) heading south from Tacoma. This will not, however, be a problem for passenger trains and it will cut considerable distance and curvature from the route. So it's the best solution to the capacity problems.

Railroads, being for-profit enterprises, make short-term decisions based on what they know and on available resources for investment. Governments can sometimes take a longer view, but risk "getting it wrong" if things change. Things have changed since BN made the decision on the Nelson Bennet and Ruston tunnels.

The point line bypass was purchased from BNSF by Sound Transit a number of years ago and one of the details is that no through freights will operate on the line...unless...and you can fill in the blanks here! There is and will be freight on the line that is currently being served by Tacoma Rail and BNSF which maintained ownership of the line south of Lakeview to Yelm where there are a few shippers and receivers.

Also, the line that is being extended across Pacific Avenue in Tacoma is the old Milwaukee Road line and the old Milwaukee Road Freight House, currently in use as a shopping bazaar will have both Amtrak and Sounder commuter rail facilities. The whole complex promises to be terrific with ample parking, good food service and excellent access to the city of Tacoma via the Link Light Rail line, which is a free service. The City of Tacoma will have to alter their "no overnight parking" ban in the very large parking garage adjacent to the Freight House, though, to accommodate Amtrak overnight passengers.

I don't think it would have been all that much trouble to add a second track to the Point Defiance Tunnels, but the bypass will make it a mute point. The bypass is about more than bypassing the tunnel. Sound Transit wants to serve the suburban sprawl along the I-5 corridor in addition to the Joint Fort Lewis McCord Military Base. Sound Transit also has eyes for Lacey and Olympia as well.

BTW Ostrander Tunnel has a clearance restriction on one of the mainlines (main 2 I believe) that doesn't allow for 20'3" autoracks. From time to time you hear the dispatcher checking with trains confirming that they have non-clearing cars.

Ted Curphey
Ontario, OR

funnelfan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
<snip>
> BTW Ostrander Tunnel has a clearance restriction
> on one of the mainlines (main 2 I believe) that
> doesn't allow for 20'3" autoracks. From time to
> time you hear the dispatcher checking with trains
> confirming that they have non-clearing cars.

Ostrander Tunnel........would this be Rocky Point Tunnel?

Larry Dodgion
Wilsonville, OR

There are alot of things that go into making this location a challenge to operations for BNSF. Its proximity to the grain terminal at TEMCO for arriving and southbound departing grain trains (UP) can cause an operational headache at the Ruston side of the tunnel. Also the current Amtrak Cascades schedule has the following trains essentially meeting at or near the tunnel if they are on time;

500 - 11
506 - 507
14 - 509

Also if the UP cant take a northbound train they tend to hold it in the Steilacoom area until they can take it.

Robert Scott
Rochester, WA

funnelfan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't think it would have been all that much
> trouble to add a second track to the Point
> Defiance Tunnels,


It would be a Very Big Deal. Between the curve of the tunnel liner and the relatively thin cross section of the liner, it would be necessary to cut through the tunnel liner to gain enough clearance, leaving the rest unsupported in a really undesirable manner, especially given the relatively unstable material above the tunnel in places (dirt vs rock). That would mean taking the line completely out of service for a long time to enlarge the tunnel. The alternative would be a separate tunnel some distance [railroad] east of the current tunnel in order to prevent any adverse effect on it. That would also be a big deal.


> but the bypass will make it a
> mute point. The bypass is about more than
> bypassing the tunnel. Sound Transit wants to serve
> the suburban sprawl along the I-5 corridor in
> addition to the Joint Fort Lewis McCord Military
> Base.

The WSDOT Point Defiance Bypass concept predates ST going to Lakewood.



> Sound Transit also has eyes for Lacey and
> Olympia as well.


That's news. I worked on a Lacy/Olympia commuter service feasibility study almost a decade ago. It had nothing to do with ST.

>
> BTW Ostrander Tunnel has a clearance restriction
> on one of the mainlines (main 2 I believe) that
> doesn't allow for 20'3" autoracks. From time to
> time you hear the dispatcher checking with trains
> confirming that they have non-clearing cars.

I wonder if they raised the track to fix the drainage problem at the south end. This is the first I've heard of a clearance problem there.

TAW

truxtrax Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> funnelfan Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > BTW Ostrander Tunnel has a clearance
> restriction
> > on one of the mainlines (main 2 I believe) that
> > doesn't allow for 20'3" autoracks. From time to
> > time you hear the dispatcher checking with
> trains
> > confirming that they have non-clearing cars.
>
> Ostrander Tunnel........would this be Rocky Point
> Tunnel?

The south end is at Rocky Point. The tunnel is known as Ostrander tunnel.

TAW

rob_l Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bruce and list,
>
> The Nelson Bennett and Ruston Tunnels accommodated
> two main tracks through the 70s, into the 80s,
> maybe the 90s too. But even for high-wide box cars
> and tri-level auto racks in the 1970s, only one
> track had clearance. So there was always a short
> stretch of interlocking/CTC to single-track the
> trains with high-wides.

The clearance problem even predates CTC. Titlow and UP Jct. were the pre-CTC Ruston-Nelson Bennett crossover locations. The office (telegraph) call at Titlow was SX and UP Jct was NX, for south crossover and north crossover.


>
> I believe even the track with the best clearances
> did not have domestic stack clearances. By the 90s
> or surely by the new millenium, almost every
> manifest freight train needed to use the track
> with the best clearances. By taking out the second
> track, they were able to get domestic double stack
> clearances. But it became a capacity bottleneck.


It didn't turn out to be as bad as it started. The Nelson Bennett Tunnel was only the first project. The second was to be the King Street Tunnel, followed by a single tracking program Centralia to Seattle. I think I may still have the proposed track configuration drawings somewhere. It was seriously ugly. It was a case of believing the 50s CTC sales pitch of tear out one track and run more trains. Fortunately, the program stopped with the first project.

TAW

FoamersNW Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There are alot of things that go into making this
> location a challenge to operations for BNSF. Its
> proximity to the grain terminal at TEMCO for
> arriving and southbound departing grain trains
> (UP) can cause an operational headache at the
> Ruston side of the tunnel. Also the current Amtrak
> Cascades schedule has the following trains
> essentially meeting at or near the tunnel if they
> are on time;
>
> 500 - 11
> 506 - 507
> 14 - 509
>
> Also if the UP cant take a northbound train they
> tend to hold it in the Steilacoom area until they
> can take it.

Sound Transit paid BNSF a lot of money to build a lot of track in Tacoma that was supposed to make that problem go away.

TAW