Western Railroad Discussion > Another FRC Update...The Final Plan?

Yes - another FRC update, but I think this one will be closer to how the operating plan will actually work after the stack trains are routed to Donner in a few weeks. This was apparently sent out to Sparks/Portola crews in a letter recently...

The tentative plan now is for several wb manifest/unit trains to route ex-WP through Portola on a daily basis - this would include the MNPRV/MNPRVB trains that are already running that way, plus most grain/coal trains, so figure on 3-4 trains running west that way per day. There will apparently not be any UP trains running east via the FRC after the stacks go south to Donner - just the wbs, which will mean the pool turns out of Portola will be phased out and moved to Sparks.

The FRC line will of course be available for any rerouting as necessary should the Donner line encounter problems, which I'm sure will occur from time to time. The rerouting plan for the double stacks is apparently going to be phased in over several weeks instead of routing all of the trains to Donner at once, which is probably a good idea. I'm thinking there will probably be some congestion problems getting the trains through the Sparks Yard area for a while, but we'll see how it goes.

Now let's see if this latest Donner/FRC operating plan holds up...

I'm sure it's the final plan :-)

It will make Donner more fun to fan, but the canyon will be pretty boring.
As for Eastbounds, I guess all we'll see is BNSF trains? It should be an
interesting cutover.

Thanks for the info.

TopCat

TopCat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm sure it's the final plan :-)
>
> It will make Donner more fun to fan, but the
> canyon will be pretty boring.
> As for Eastbounds, I guess all we'll see is BNSF
> trains? It should be an
> interesting cutover.

I agree - can't wait to see how the plan unfolds and if UP can begin to pick up more intermodal traffic via Donner like they've been talking about. Have also been told that instead of looking at possibly putting the double track back in between Lovelock and Winnemucca, UP is now looking at putting in a couple more sidings between those points, as the sidings out there are too far apart. Definitely a step in the right direction.

Isn't there some kind of short pool based at Winnemucca? How will the new arrangements affect those folks, if at all?

What about the status of the Portola Yard and the Yard Office?

Riffian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Isn't there some kind of short pool based at
> Winnemucca? How will the new arrangements affect
> those folks, if at all?

No, both the Portola/Winnemucca and Winnemucca/Elko short pools were abolished last year when the MRVSC trains stopped running and the MRORVs were rerouted to the ex-SP west of Weso. An MRORVB still runs once a week (TH) through Portola so I would assume that train will still be running after the stack trains reroute to Donner.

As far as the question concerning Portola Yard/Office, I would assume everything will stay the same since you'll still have the wb manifest/unit trains running through daily. May also be a local out of there to work Herlong Army Depot from time to time. My question would be what will become of the Reno Branch, and will UP clear out the stored cars so that locals can access the line to get to Reno? May need to reopen that connection with basically little or no train traffic running east from Portola.

They can run all the westbounds they want. That will work just fine.
Boring ? . . Not if you like to . . explore . .



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/27/09 11:24 by Yarddogh.

UP Railroad is doing the same thing to FRC like Raton Pass on BNSF don't want the line any more is save alot of $$$?

If they are running only in one direction how do you economically get the crews back home? Will they take trains back on Donner Pass and then van them to Portola to get their cars?

Todd Clark
Canyon Country, CA
Trainorders.com

Exclusive use of the Donner would not be without its problems and disadvantages, including vulnerability to shut down by heavy snowfall (up to 25 feet), increasing air pollution in the Reno/Sparks area and along the I-80 corridor, clearance issues with double high cube stacks, steep grades (up to 2.4% vs. 1% on the FRC), the single track east of Reno would need to be doubled to increase capacity, and increased freight traffic would further interfere with present Amtrak and future proposed passenger traffic.

Fred Harrison
Central Point, OR
CORPpower/JSS/EORS

I seem to remember that when the Reno Trench was built, the UP agreed to limit the number of trains through Reno each day. Is this correct? If it is correct, how many trains are allowed?

Dick

and just when I thought I could retire my old "Clueless in Omaha" hat :)

Is BNSF not using the FRC to access their Hi-Line?

Bob

ATSF100WEST......Out

webmaster Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If they are running only in one direction how do
> you economically get the crews back home? Will
> they take trains back on Donner Pass and then van
> them to Portola to get their cars?

Todd, there won't be any crews based out of Portola east as the Sparks/Elko pool will bring the wbs back from Elko, then taxi back home to Sparks. As far as Roseville/Portola side goes, there will no longer be any trains running east, so no Portola-based crews handling trains west, either, so I would think the Roseville/Sparks pool would probably be handling the trains west from Portola, taking a taxi over to catch the trains west from there. I am also hearing that the Portola/Lathrop-Oakland long pool for the stacks will be abolished, and that a long pool for the intermodals via Donner will be established. And as mentioned, the Roseville/Sparks pool for the manifests/autos/unit empties will still be running as well.

ATSF100WEST Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Is BNSF not using the FRC to access their
> Hi-Line?
>
> Bob
>
> ATSF100WEST......Out

Yes they are Bob.

Hi Bob,

Yes they are but BNSF traffic is nothing like they hoped for when they bought the Hiline. I don't know if its the recession or what. All I know is that the Canyon of old is nothing like it was even ten yrs ago. All that great Autumn light gone to waste.

Adam

2ebright Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I seem to remember that when the Reno Trench was
> built, the UP agreed to limit the number of trains
> through Reno each day. Is this correct? If it is
> correct, how many trains are allowed?
>
> Dick

That was when they were figuring on 5-6 BNSF trackage rights trains through town per day, which obviously never happened, so I believe the total number of daily trains allowed is something like 34-36. Wth the stacks rerouted through Reno I still don't think you'll be seeing more than about 22-24 trains per day, discounting the 3-4 wbs rerouted to the FRC. I'm also wondering if that daily allotment was based on trains through town before the trench, and then a different number afterwards, or was that a permanent number to be allowed?

Silly question: What is the perceived advantage of running only the manifest/grain westbounds via FRC(besides not having to make any meets east of Keddie?) as opposed to running the eastbounds that way as well? From a traffic flow, taxi cost and grade standpoint, wouldn't shifting merchandise and grain/mineral trains in BOTH directions make more sense? If you are going to go this far, why not just establish directional running and run predominantly eastbounds over one route and predominantly westbounds over the other as they do on other parts of the system?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/27/09 12:46 by PittsburghMike.

PittsburghMike Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Silly question: What is the perceived advantage of
> running only the manifest/grain westbounds via
> FRC(besides not having to make any meets east of
> Keddie?) as opposed to running the eastbounds that
> way as well? From a traffic flow, taxi cost and
> grade standpoint, wouldn't shifting merchandise
> and grain/mineral trains in BOTH directions make
> more sense? If you are going to go this far, why
> not just establish directional running and run
> predominantly eastbounds over one route and
> predominantly westbounds over the other as they do
> on other parts of the system?

I too thought maybe UP was going to go to some type of directional running between Donner/FRC (sans the hotter Z trains) but that does not seem to be the case. Since the loaded grain/coal and manifest trains require more helper power to make it up Donner Summit, I would surmise (as many have on here) that UP is simply using the lesser-grade routing for the heavier stuff coming west, leaving Donner for the lighter, higher-priority trains, although the 2 daily Q trains out of Roseville will still be routing over Donner - figured for sure that those 2 would route FRC east, but I guess the information I recieved on that was erroneous. And the 2 Q trains are quite heavy as well, but nothing like the loaded unit trains that come west.

Only other reason I can think of is that some of the bigger manifests (like the aforementioned Q trains) are over 7,000' in length, so with the UP sidings in the canyon being around 6,000', that might complicate things a bit when trying to make meets with other large trains, hence the possible reasoning for keeping the eb manifests on Donner.

Boomer Wrote:
>
> I too thought maybe UP was going to go to some
> type of directional running between Donner/FRC
> (sans the hotter Z trains) but that does not seem
> to be the case. Since the loaded grain/coal and
> manifest trains require more helper power to make
> it up Donner Summit, I would surmise (as many have
> on here) that UP is simply using the lesser-grade
> routing for the heavier stuff coming west, leaving
> Donner for the lighter, higher-priority trains,
> although the 2 daily Q trains out of Roseville
> will still be routing over Donner - figured for
> sure that those 2 would route FRC east, but I
> guess the information I recieved on that was
> erroneous. And the 2 Q trains are quite heavy as
> well, but nothing like the loaded unit trains that
> come west.
>
> Only other reason I can think of is that some of
> the bigger manifests (like the aforementioned Q
> trains) are over 7,000' in length, so with the UP
> sidings in the canyon being around 6,000', that
> might complicate things a bit when trying to make
> meets with other large trains, hence the possible
> reasoning for keeping the eb manifests on Donner.

If siding length is an issue that sure would make the most sense, although between the siding issues in the canyon and the single track issues east of Sparks on the SP, that would seem to be an even stronger arguement for directional running. How much longer does it typically take for a train to run SLC-Roseville via FRC vs Donner? Wonder how much time could be shave off of either side if trains weren't waiting on meets?

In any case, I'm guessing the "plan" will likely evolve over time once they figure out the proper balance. Thanks for keeping us interested easterners informed.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/27/09 14:00 by PittsburghMike.