Western Railroad Discussion > Opening Up the Funnel

The nearly mile long, single track BNSF bridge at Sandpoint, ID is the tight point in the Funnel carrying about 50 trains per day. BNSF has begun planning a second single track bridge. Here's an overview article.

http://www.boiseweekly.com/CityDesk/archives/2014/08/28/bnsf-plans-new-rail-bridge-over-lake-pend-oreille-in-north-idaho

The very first reference in the article is to Funnelfan's web page!

Marty Bernard



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 08/28/14 22:02 by MartyBernard.

I wonder what option would have cost less money and provided more capacity in the long run?

(1.) Retaining and using the ex-Great Northern route between Spokane and Sandpoint

(2.) Building an expensive new bridge next to the existing one on the ex-Northern Pacific route across the lake

Good pt

Building the bridge out in the water will be the easy part. The approaches on both ends are crowded by private lands and the corner on the west end is sharp and will be hard to double track on 50' centers.

There is also a short bridge over Sand Creek and a tight overpass over the street to the point, multimillion dollar trophy condos and the water treatment plant to negotiate easements for.

Bruce Kelley just did a Railway Age post on the bridge double track project. I suppose BNSF sent out a press release to interested parties to get the ball rolling.

We will have to see how Sandpoint politics and anti energy protestors play this one out. We are in for a bumpy ride.

Posted from Windows Phone OS 7

CA_Sou_MA_Agent Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I wonder what option would have cost less money
> and provided more capacity in the long run?
>
> (1.) Retaining and using the ex-Great Northern
> route between Spokane and Sandpoint
>
> (2.) Building an expensive new bridge next to the
> existing one on the ex-Northern Pacific route
> across the lake

Option (1) became moot after land on Havermale Island was ceded in 1972 to the city to make way for Expo 74 and for street improvements enabled by the elimination of grade crossings. Basically, the GN route was lost. The only connection from GN coming down from Hillyard to the NP at Parkwater was/is backwards, reversing a train consist.

Best regards,

Rob L.

Oooor, they could run straight off from Boyer siding otoo the ex-girlfriend to Dover use the UP from Dover to Athol and build a new connection back to the BNSF at Athol.. Cheaper, but the UP wants concessions..!

Posted from Android

fbe Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Building the bridge out in the water will be the
> easy part. The approaches on both ends are crowded
> by private lands and the corner on the west end is
> sharp and will be hard to double track on 50'
> centers.

I don't know the particulars of this specific location, but why are 50' centers needed? The BNSF (and other railroads) have two main tracks on centers from 20' to 25' (possibly as little as 15') and those are just fine. In fact, 25' is far enough apart to allow maintenance to continue on one track while trains pass on the other (opposed to having maintenance crews stop when each train passes).

The old GN line bypasses Hauser by miles. Since Hauser is the main fuel point a new fuel facility would need to be built on the GN line. So the former GN track is no longer an option.

Posted from Windows Phone OS 7

There are a couple houses along the shore on the west side that have a dynamite view of that bridge. Someday after I win lotto, I'm gonna buy one of them. Sit on the deck, sip a cabernet, do some photoshop on the laptop, and watch trains.

Off to the convenience store in a few minutes...

Washy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Oooor, they could run straight off from Boyer
> siding otoo the ex-girlfriend to Dover use the UP
> from Dover to Athol and build a new connection
> back to the BNSF at Athol.. Cheaper, but the UP
> wants concessions..!
>
> Posted from Android


That does seem like a good alternative to the massive costs of building another bridge, but you're right about the concessions.

zfan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Washy Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Oooor, they could run straight off from Boyer
> > siding otoo the ex-girlfriend to Dover use the
> UP
> > from Dover to Athol and build a new connection
> > back to the BNSF at Athol.. Cheaper, but the UP
> > wants concessions..!
> >
> > Posted from Android
>
>
> That does seem like a good alternative to the
> massive costs of building another bridge, but
> you're right about the concessions.

Of course, you'd have to build a bridge alongside the UP bridge. But I agree, it would be much cheaper and would be a good idea.

Another even better idea: How about paired track operation between Athol and Boyer?

Best regards,

Rob L.

<<Another even better idea: How about paired track operation between Athol and Boyer?>>

Concessions? Y'all should think about the other end. BNSF wants concessions from UP should they move to the Napa Street to Athol routing and get off UP's (former Spokane International) grade crossing infested Rathdrum Prairie. You'd think they would come to an agreement?

Mr. Kelly's Railway Age article was not from a BNSF news release. It was from him asking BNSF questions and getting answers and he was able to write the news piece.
Dave in Missoula

Washy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Oooor, they could run straight off from Boyer
> siding otoo the ex-girlfriend to Dover use the UP
> from Dover to Athol and build a new connection
> back to the BNSF at Athol.. Cheaper, but the UP
> wants concessions..!
>
> Posted from Android

Definitely not likely to happen. UP wants as little as possible to do with BNSF in the Spokane region. They backed out of the heavily promoted "Bridging the Valley" project with the area communities that would've put UP trains on the BNSF from Spokane (where they now diverge off of BNSF trackage rights into Spokane) to Athol. UP doesn't want anything to do with the cluster of a mess that the BNSF Spokane/Hauser terminal is usually in. Even though the plan calls for eliminating all grade crossings and adding a third main line, I'm sure UP knows that BNSF would just use the additional capacity to continue to park more trains waiting to get through the terminal, and they'd have a hard time getting their own trains crews changed and through the terminal. Recent local newspaper articles and commentary have been very critical of the railroads for pulling out of the project (like usual, blame the railroads and not the area growth!).

Also mentioned earlier was the wide track centers for the new double track. BNSF hasn't been putting in the ultra wide centers on their new construction on the Lakeside sub this year either. My bets is the railroad's right of way is plenty wide for the double track on both sides of the bridge, but I'm sure the Sandpoint depot's time of existence is about over as that will likely have to be removed for the additional track (heard it's going to be torn down any ways).

cpn456 Wrote:
Sandpoint depot's time of existence is about over as that will likely have to be removed for the additional track (heard it's
> going to be torn down any ways).>>

I hear there is now a chain link fence around the building.
Dave in Msla

fbe Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The old GN line bypasses Hauser by miles. Since
> Hauser is the main fuel point a new fuel facility
> would need to be built on the GN line. So the
> former GN track is no longer an option.

My proposal (retaining and using the GN route) would have required altered thinking and planning years before the Hauser fueling facility was completed. If the Hauser facility was built somewhere north (railroad east) of Boyer / Sandpoint, it could have served trains routed down both the GN and NP routes into Spokane.

rob_l Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The only connection from GN coming down from Hillyard
> to the NP at Parkwater was/is backwards, reversing a
> train consist.

Agreed. But, had the route been retained as a through mainline instead of a branch / industrial lead, the problem you describe could have been easily corrected with some small land purchases to build a new leg of a wye. It's certainly not an insurmountable problem. It's similar to what UP is going through in linking the ex-SP Brooklyn Sub to the Portland Sub (Graham Line) in Portland.

The fueling facility to serve both NP and the new GN connection needs to be west of Sandpoint Jct. Boyer is east of that junction so no NP trains could be served. Boyer is north of Sand Creek while the NP/MRL tracks remain south of that water.

The paired track arrangement between Algoma and Boyer would seem to work and there would be no need to build a second UP or BNSF bridge. Getting a connection or two in at Boyer would also prove problematic as satellite images would show.

Posted from Windows Phone OS 7

BNSF6400 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> fbe Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Building the bridge out in the water will be
> the
> > easy part. The approaches on both ends are
> crowded
> > by private lands and the corner on the west end
> is
> > sharp and will be hard to double track on 50'
> > centers.
>
> I don't know the particulars of this specific
> location, but why are 50' centers needed? The
> BNSF (and other railroads) have two main tracks on
> centers from 20' to 25' (possibly as little as
> 15') and those are just fine. In fact, 25' is far
> enough apart to allow maintenance to continue on
> one track while trains pass on the other (opposed
> to having maintenance crews stop when each train
> passes).


The article only says that the bridges would be on 50' centers. I assume that is for ease of construction and perhaps reduce risk of impacting the existing piers/fill/etc.

fbe Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The fueling facility to serve both NP and the new
> GN connection needs to be west of Sandpoint Jct.
> Boyer is east of that junction so no NP trains
> could be served. Boyer is north of Sand Creek
> while the NP/MRL tracks remain south of that
> water.

To serve trains on the NP route, you'd pretty much have to build a separate fueling facility preferably somewhere near Sandpoint, or, amazingly enough, at Hauser. The GN ran on the west side of Sandpoint and the NP ran on the east side. Their two mainlines never really came all that close to each other and that's why the Boyer Connection was built. Remember, as part of the "BN Strategy", routing trains on the NP route east of Sandpoint was being heavily de-emphasized. Indeed, BN was even kicking around the idea of abandoning the NP between Sandpoint and Thompson Falls when the plan was to spruce up the line between Mossmain and Shelby and channel everything over Marias Pass. Spinning off the NP line to MRL changed all of that.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/29/14 13:13 by CA_Sou_MA_Agent.

fbe Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The fueling facility to serve both NP and the new
> GN connection needs to be west of Sandpoint Jct.
> Boyer is east of that junction so no NP trains
> could be served. Boyer is north of Sand Creek
> while the NP/MRL tracks remain south of that
> water.
>
> The paired track arrangement between Algoma and
> Boyer would seem to work and there would be no
> need to build a second UP or BNSF bridge. Getting
> a connection or two in at Boyer would also prove
> problematic as satellite images would show.
>
> Posted from Windows Phone OS 7


That's exactly my point.. I didn't say anything about getting the UP off their own track through the valley there are many reasons the UP backed out of the Bridge through the Valley proposal.. You could still use Hauser to fuel change crews Ect., but, the UP is going to want something in return, I could list off about four things off the top of my head! This would be rather easily done and quick also. But getting these two railroads at least up here to agree to anything is like pulling teeth... The one thing is the UP is in a little better position to negotiate than the BNSF especially if if the UP uses their own track to Spokane. . I truly believe this would be done before a second bridge across the lake!

Posted from Android

I can kinda see why UP isn't in a mood to talk about more shared track arrangements with BNSF, at least in this particular area. Once upon a time, UP had their own separate line all the way through Spokane and environs. All of that changed with Expo 74, BN merger physical plant rationalizations and the Latah Creek bridge. Now, UP is at the mercy of BNSF dispatching for 15.3 miles between Fish Lake and BN Connection in east Spokane. It could probably be described as "strange bedfellows" and its only gotten worse as traffic levels for both roads has skyrocketed.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.