Western Railroad Discussion > BNSF Northwest Capacity Improvements

There's a couple of comments in another thread about BNSF losing--or possibly losing--contracts in Seattle/Tacoma. As a corollary, I suggested that perhaps capacity [enough track] to expeditiously move trains was becoming a problem, especially on the Scenic and Lakeside subs. So the question is: are there any plans afoot, in the face of rising traffic such as oil trains, to put down more mainline track to increase fluidity in the Sandpoint - Seattle corridor? It would seem that Sandpoint would be the easternmost point of the congestion problem since some trains can move over either the MRL or the Highline on their way to and and from Montana and North Dakota.

sums007 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There's a couple of comments in another thread
> about BNSF losing--or possibly losing--contracts
> in Seattle/Tacoma. As a corollary, I suggested
> that perhaps capacity to expeditiously move
> trains was becoming a problem, especially on the
> Scenic and Lakeside subs. So the question is: are
> there any plans afoot, in the face of rising
> traffic such as oil trains, to put down more
> mainline track to increase fluidity in the
> Sandpoint - Seattle corridor? It would seem that
> Sandpoint would be the easternmost point of the
> congestion problem since some trains can move over
> either the MRL or the Highline on their way to and
> and from Montana and North Dakota.

A couple of comments:

1) From my understanding, the limiting factor on the Scenic Subdivision (Stevens Pass) is the tunnel itself. The time to flush the tunnel after each train limits the number of movements per day. Additional track wouldn't really help the situation. The other route, Lakeside and Fallbrook Subs (Columbia River Gorge) has limited double tracking options due to terrain in the Gorge.

2) Your forgetting BNSF's ace-in-the-hole. The Stempede Subdivision over Stempede Pass. It isn't heavily used and additional capacity (more track, signalling, etc) could provide BNSF with extra capacity it needs in the future. For the longest time, Stempede was the "relief valve" for the BNSF, taking extra trains only when needed. Now, BNSF with the triangle crew agreement, seems to be routing more over the line these days.

Is the old MILW too far gone to re-activate ?

BNSF6400 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> sums007 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > There's a couple of comments in another thread
> > about BNSF losing--or possibly
> losing--contracts
> > in Seattle/Tacoma. As a corollary, I suggested
> > that perhaps capacity to expeditiously move
> > trains was becoming a problem, especially on
> the
> > Scenic and Lakeside subs. So the question is:
> are
> > there any plans afoot, in the face of rising
> > traffic such as oil trains, to put down more
> > mainline track to increase fluidity in the
> > Sandpoint - Seattle corridor? It would seem
> that
> > Sandpoint would be the easternmost point of the
> > congestion problem since some trains can move
> over
> > either the MRL or the Highline on their way to
> and
> > and from Montana and North Dakota.
>
> A couple of comments:
>
> 1) From my understanding, the limiting factor on
> the Scenic Subdivision (Stevens Pass) is the
> tunnel itself. The time to flush the tunnel after
> each train limits the number of movements per day.
> Additional track wouldn't really help the
> situation. The other route, Lakeside and
> Fallbrook Subs (Columbia River Gorge) has limited
> double tracking options due to terrain in the
> Gorge.
>
> 2) Your forgetting BNSF's ace-in-the-hole. The
> Stempede Subdivision over Stempede Pass. It isn't
> heavily used and additional capacity (more track,
> signalling, etc) could provide BNSF with extra
> capacity it needs in the future. For the longest
> time, Stempede was the "relief valve" for the
> BNSF, taking extra trains only when needed. Now,
> BNSF with the triangle crew agreement, seems to be
> routing more over the line these days.

I agree that the tunnel on the Scenic Sub won't allow for too much more traffic.
I did not forget Stampede Pass. Someone on here recently referred to Pasco as the "black hole", so I'm assuming things are already botched up there, but I don't know why. Yard capacity?? No available crews?
In any case, more trains on the Stampede and/or Fallbridge will mean more eastbounds on the Lakeside and Spokane Subs. That's why I'm asking about Pasco to Sandpoint.

No the MLW main across Snoqualmie was BN's ace in the hole they gave up and ripped up. You have to wonder if the old dream of rebuilding Lind, Wa to around Easton on the Stampede Line is ever being considered still. Hauser has another through fuel track that isn't used as a fuel main yet, only engines spotted for fuel. If they tied that in it would add another fuel main. BNSF guys in Spokane are seriously hearing Ft Worth has a intent to possibly finish double tracking The Funnel (Spokane Sub) east of Spokane to Sandpoint, ID. Not sure what the plan is at East Algoma when they get to the long bridge. All that we know is the problem is getting worse and worse and something needs to be done if BNSF doesn't want a huge chunk of their business to go over the UP. UP is in a slightly better position right now but not that much better. UP hasn't spent any real money on capital projects in the PNW for years and its catching up to them also. I believe the UP is acting as a temporary relief valve to the BN's problems until serious plans are released to the public. One other thing to note, the MRL is handling a big chunk of BNSF's PNW international double stack traffic currently. The MRL is actually able to run the trains faster than having them up on the normal routing through the hi-line and that is the way the BNSF is keeping the transit times for the customers. This all changes next month when the Hi-Line see's huge work windows start for six months or longer we're hearing, and up to 15-20 additional trains are expected each day across the MRL.

That means the Empire Builder operation will become another joke like last summer.

The problem with the Pacific Northwest as to railroad service is there are currently three ways to enter and depart...South via Portland, East via the Scenic Subdivision over Stevens Pass, and East, over Stampede Pass. They all have limitations...south via the Point line is massively impacted by the single track Point Defiance tunnel just south of Tacoma, East, a tunnel at Stampede Pass, which is generally encumbered by the amount of traffic that can be carried by the line. Stampede Pass is heavily impacted by the Cascade Tunnel which does not have to be evacuated after every train, but about every two trains as long as they are not too close together. It is, nevertheless, is a significant delay point.

BNSF6400 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> A couple of comments:
>
> 1) From my understanding, the limiting factor on
> the Scenic Subdivision (Stevens Pass) is the
> tunnel itself. The time to flush the tunnel after
> each train limits the number of movements per day.
> Additional track wouldn't really help the
> situation.

Will this railfan "Urban Legend" never die! The tunnel and its ventilation system is not the limiting factor. As Tom White (TAW on this forum) has repeatedly pointed out the limiting factor is the running time between sidings on the 2.2% percent grade on the East side. That problem would be fixable if it wasn't in the Chumstick Canyon which would require either boring a tunnel for the siding extensions or massive removal of rock, neither of which is economically viable. Upgrading the ventilation system with something like what is used in the Mount Macdonald Tunnel could be done at an affordable cost if that was the problem, it isn't.

SOO6617 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> BNSF6400 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> >
> > A couple of comments:
> >
> > 1) From my understanding, the limiting factor
> on
> > the Scenic Subdivision (Stevens Pass) is the
> > tunnel itself. The time to flush the tunnel
> after
> > each train limits the number of movements per
> day.
> > Additional track wouldn't really help the
> > situation.
>
> Will this railfan "Urban Legend" never die! The
> tunnel and its ventilation system is not the
> limiting factor. As Tom White (TAW on this forum)
> has repeatedly pointed out the limiting factor is
> the running time between sidings on the 2.2%
> percent grade on the East side. That problem would
> be fixable if it wasn't in the Chumstick Canyon
> which would require either boring a tunnel for the
> siding extensions or massive removal of rock,
> neither of which is economically viable. Upgrading
> the ventilation system with something like what is
> used in the Mount Macdonald Tunnel could be done
> at an affordable cost if that was the problem, it
> isn't.


Actually, it is the tunnel being the limiting factor. Downhill trains do not require a long flush but uphill trains are required to wait for the tunnel to be flushed to prevent locomotives from overheating, shutting down and stalling in said tunnel. I've witnessed this at least 10 times up on the hill, including some of those that are on this forum.

Macster Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> SOO6617 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > BNSF6400 Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> >
> > >
> > > A couple of comments:
> > >
> > > 1) From my understanding, the limiting factor
> > on
> > > the Scenic Subdivision (Stevens Pass) is the
> > > tunnel itself. The time to flush the tunnel
> > after
> > > each train limits the number of movements per
> > day.
> > > Additional track wouldn't really help the
> > > situation.
> >
> > Will this railfan "Urban Legend" never die! The
> > tunnel and its ventilation system is not the
> > limiting factor. As Tom White (TAW on this
> forum)
> > has repeatedly pointed out the limiting factor
> is
> > the running time between sidings on the 2.2%
> > percent grade on the East side. That problem
> would
> > be fixable if it wasn't in the Chumstick Canyon
> > which would require either boring a tunnel for
> the
> > siding extensions or massive removal of rock,
> > neither of which is economically viable.
> Upgrading
> > the ventilation system with something like what
> is
> > used in the Mount Macdonald Tunnel could be
> done
> > at an affordable cost if that was the problem,
> it
> > isn't.
>
>
> Actually, it is the tunnel being the limiting
> factor. Downhill trains do not require a long
> flush but uphill trains are required to wait for
> the tunnel to be flushed to prevent locomotives
> from overheating, shutting down and stalling in
> said tunnel. I've witnessed this at least 10 times
> up on the hill, including some of those that are
> on this forum.

It is only a problem if an Eastbound train follows an Eastbound train through the tunnel. If that is happening regularly then capacity is being sacrificed on the Sub. irrespective of the delay caused by clearing the fumes in the tunnel. Maximum throughput on a single tracked line with balanced flows is always achieved with alternating direction operating of trains.

a737flyer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The problem with the Pacific Northwest as to
> railroad service is there are currently three ways
> to enter and depart...South via Portland, East via
> the Scenic Subdivision over Stevens Pass, and
> East, over Stampede Pass. They all have
> limitations...south via the Point line is
> massively impacted by the single track Point
> Defiance tunnel just south of Tacoma, East, a
> tunnel at Stampede Pass, which is generally
> encumbered by the amount of traffic that can be
> carried by the line. Stampede Pass is heavily
> impacted by the Cascade Tunnel which does not have
> to be evacuated after every train, but about every
> two trains as long as they are not too close
> together. It is, nevertheless, is a significant
> delay point.


Massively impacted by a mile of single track? How much is capacity sacrificed by this?

portlander Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Massively impacted by a mile of single track? How
> much is capacity sacrificed by this?

Add to the above a grain terminal 4 miles to the north that often blocks one of two main tracks while an inbound arrives. Numerous UP trains either arriving or departing their yard 7 miles to the north of the tunnel. Stack trains arriving and departing the Port of Tacoma 6 miles to the north of the tunnel. All while keeping the tracks clear for ten Amtrak trains per day. Many times during a week, trains expire on their HOS and tie up on either end of the tunnel. That takes out a main track, too.

BNSF6400 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> sums007 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > There's a couple of comments in another thread
> > about BNSF losing--or possibly
> losing--contracts
> > in Seattle/Tacoma. As a corollary, I suggested
> > that perhaps capacity to expeditiously move
> > trains was becoming a problem, especially on
> the
> > Scenic and Lakeside subs. So the question is:
> are
> > there any plans afoot, in the face of rising
> > traffic such as oil trains, to put down more
> > mainline track to increase fluidity in the
> > Sandpoint - Seattle corridor? It would seem
> that
> > Sandpoint would be the easternmost point of the
> > congestion problem since some trains can move
> over
> > either the MRL or the Highline on their way to
> and
> > and from Montana and North Dakota.
>
> A couple of comments:
>
> 1) From my understanding, the limiting factor on
> the Scenic Subdivision (Stevens Pass) is the
> tunnel itself. The time to flush the tunnel after
> each train limits the number of movements per day.
> Additional track wouldn't really help the
> situation. The other route, Lakeside and
> Fallbrook Subs (Columbia River Gorge) has limited
> double tracking options due to terrain in the
> Gorge.
>
> 2) Your forgetting BNSF's ace-in-the-hole. The
> Stempede Subdivision over Stempede Pass. It isn't
> heavily used and additional capacity (more track,
> signalling, etc) could provide BNSF with extra
> capacity it needs in the future. For the longest
> time, Stempede was the "relief valve" for the
> BNSF, taking extra trains only when needed. Now,
> BNSF with the triangle crew agreement, seems to be
> routing more over the line these days.


On your second point its worth while pointing out for those who don't know that yes while Stampede can be a relieve valve and is running a new crew pool utilizing this route more is that Stampede tunnel is only a plate C tunnel. No high cubes, racks, stacks etc anything over your standard hight cars. This creates problems when trying to run more than empty's over the hill via Stampede. Lately a EVEPAS and PASEVE have been running.

SOO6617 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Macster Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > SOO6617 Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > BNSF6400 Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > >
> > > >
> > > > A couple of comments:
> > > >
> > > > 1) From my understanding, the limiting
> factor
> > > on
> > > > the Scenic Subdivision (Stevens Pass) is
> the
> > > > tunnel itself. The time to flush the
> tunnel
> > > after
> > > > each train limits the number of movements
> per
> > > day.
> > > > Additional track wouldn't really help the
> > > > situation.
> > >
> > > Will this railfan "Urban Legend" never die!
> The
> > > tunnel and its ventilation system is not the
> > > limiting factor. As Tom White (TAW on this
> > forum)
> > > has repeatedly pointed out the limiting
> factor
> > is
> > > the running time between sidings on the 2.2%
> > > percent grade on the East side. That problem
> > would
> > > be fixable if it wasn't in the Chumstick
> Canyon
> > > which would require either boring a tunnel
> for
> > the
> > > siding extensions or massive removal of rock,
> > > neither of which is economically viable.
> > Upgrading
> > > the ventilation system with something like
> what
> > is
> > > used in the Mount Macdonald Tunnel could be
> > done
> > > at an affordable cost if that was the
> problem,
> > it
> > > isn't.
> >
> >
> > Actually, it is the tunnel being the limiting
> > factor. Downhill trains do not require a long
> > flush but uphill trains are required to wait
> for
> > the tunnel to be flushed to prevent locomotives
> > from overheating, shutting down and stalling in
> > said tunnel. I've witnessed this at least 10
> times
> > up on the hill, including some of those that
> are
> > on this forum.
>
> It is only a problem if an Eastbound train follows
> an Eastbound train through the tunnel. If that is
> happening regularly then capacity is being
> sacrificed on the Sub. irrespective of the delay
> caused by clearing the fumes in the tunnel.
> Maximum throughput on a single tracked line with
> balanced flows is always achieved with alternating
> direction operating of trains.




+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


About tunnel ventilation; The only way they could eliminate any issues with
exhaust gasses in the tunnel as it current operating would be to reopen
the original Mill Creek Shaft and properly line it with concrete and install
fans to creat a suction/induced draft ventilation path to eliminate issues with
tunnel gassing and overheating diesels. It would have to happen this way
because the tunnel bore is not large enough to install the proper ventilation
ducts/tubing to create a positive ventilation system with an exhaust pathway
using an overhead exhaust duct ceiling as is done with road tunnels.


The re-opening of the Mill Creek Shaft and using as a pressure gradient ventilation
method would solve all this but as railroads are loathe to spend any money
I do not see this happening unless there is massive tunnel failure catastrophe.

The railroad would be able to operate trains continuously in both directions
as there would be no need for flushing timeouts as fresh air would be entering
the tunnel bore from both ends at all times.

The fans in use now could be moved to the shaft collar and used as draft inducing
ventilation systems to create the pressure gradients needed but much work would
have to be done prior to moving the existing fan system.

I wonder if the thought of reinstalling an electrified pantograph line from
Scenic to Berne has been examined again? It would eliminate the tunnel flush
waiting times.

I believe the train movements per day now 33 consists on average?

The 16 axle electrics had transit time of 25 miles per hour and they went
through the tunnel in 20 minutes give or take from what I have read.

The Bombardier TRAXX/IORE labeled electrics(6000 volts AC three phase)
used in pairs have been used for many years for the trip from the
Kiruna iron mines in Sweden carrying loads both ways with iron ore pellets
for export and clay inbound for the smelter to make pellets of iron ore for export.


So if a thirty minute figure per transit is taken into account with using
modern elelctric locomotives; 48 transits could be made per day to the sidings-
mind you if everything worked right and murphys law does not come to visit
from Puget Sound................ would the 15 extra consists per day pay for itself?



Not wanting to start an argument:

Speculating and saying that;

A small generating station using Burnham boilers and a pair of turbines
and burning coal from the Powder River Basin using it only for a dedicated
pantograph for the new Cascade Tunnel and (Possibly) electrifing the
Snowqualmie and Stampede Pass tunnels after the floor was lowered using a road miner could
be an advantage for the road as they are hauling coal out of the basin
anyway as the system would burn more coal closer to where it is needed.
(Any excess power could be sold too!!)


Using the old Cascade tunnel to create one way traffic in each tunnel
could still be done but I will not even speculate if the old Cascade Tunnel
can be used simply due to the gravel pit on the east side having removed so much
material where Cascade Tunnel Station was until 1929. I doubt the state
would commit to a mountain top removal project for Windy Mmountain on the
west side and Captain Point to fill the exisiting gravel pit and build
better switch backs from Berne to Scenic with all that good fill.
They could sell the mineral rights for the basalt rock on both Windy Mountain
and Captain Point to BNSF and have a steady income from the crushed rock.


AND as a very wise TO member member stated in a past post so well
"railroads are loathe to spend money"



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 02/16/13 21:29 by leonz.

MP555 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> portlander Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Massively impacted by a mile of single track?
> How
> > much is capacity sacrificed by this?
>
> Add to the above a grain terminal 4 miles to the
> north that often blocks one of two main tracks
> while an inbound arrives. Numerous UP trains
> either arriving or departing their yard 7 miles to
> the north of the tunnel. Stack trains arriving
> and departing the Port of Tacoma 6 miles to the
> north of the tunnel. All while keeping the tracks
> clear for ten Amtrak trains per day. Many times
> during a week, trains expire on their HOS and tie
> up on either end of the tunnel. That takes out a
> main track, too.

This doesn't answer the question. In fact, you point out that the problem is not the tunnel, but the amount of traffic in Tacoma.

I'm sure I'm going to catch hell for my opinion here but, here goes... BNSF's traffic has changed considerably the last 5 years. With the amount of coal going though Westshore and the addition of oil trains this would be the time to do something with Stampede.. Also as Brett pointed out the UP isn't in a much better position but they're fluid. I think Stampede needs to be cut, (tunnel) additional double tracking out of Auburn east. Increase siding lengths and put back ALL the double track that was on the pass and increase the length of the double track were possible. Double track as far west out of Ellensburg as possible, also figure out how to get on the ex-Milwaukee from Ellensburg to Lind double tracking as much as possible and double tracking the Lakeside from Lind to UP Jct in Spokane.. I know that there is a 2% grade over the Saddle Mnts. but I'm looking for the fast way across the state and with DPU's that isn't as big a issue as it used to be.. Put a crew change in at Othello or about cause I still don't think you'll make it across the state with one crew. Put all the S, Z, A, and none humping trains on this route both ways, move the coal and oil trains for Westshore and Cherry point over to Steven's along with any manifest for Everett. Also run grain trains for Seattle over Steven's and Tacoma trains over Stampede. This would free up enough capacity on the Fallbridge and the southern half of the Seattle Sub for growth between Vancouver Wa. and Longview Wa... As long as the BNSF keeps trying to run the way they are it is possible there could be a serious traffic loss. With the slides between Seattle and Everett and the issues on the Hi-Line it maybe to late anyway... Like I said these are just opinions so, flame away!!!!

As previously stated there was a concern about the sidings on the eastside of the mountains on the Stevens Pass line - Dispatchers routinely arent using Berne for meets mostly due to the fact that the tunnel requires a 30-40 minute flush after an eastbound goes through so and eastbound meeting a westbound at Berne siding would require the westbound to wait for that time in the siding for the air to clear. Berne is just a couple of miles east of the east portal. Plus the Berne siding is on the 2.2% grade which for some reason scares the railroad about having a train required to stop or start on the grade. Not sure why they feel this way since its done everyday not only on the UP (Blues) but on routes that the BN runs on.

They usually set the meets at Merritt or at Winton so by the time the eastbound makes the meet and the westbound gets underway, when they reach the east portal they are ready to go through.

As for traffic levels I think they are now down to more like 15-18 trains on a good day.

I dont think the sidings on the eastside are the problem. The true problem lies in the tunnel and its transit limitations. There may be new technology or methods they could look at for the ventilation systems (postive pressure, negative pressure, etc) but that sounds like a study and a study costs $$$. I hate to say it but I beleive this would be the preferred route for westbound bulk traffic for Canada (coal, oil, coke) due to the fact that it would take one less crew than the alternate going through Vancouver, WA and they take advantage of the downhill route through the tunnel instead of the threat of stalling inside with an uphill heavy train.

Just my thoughts.

Robert Scott
Rochester, WA

---

The BNSF likes to bypass the Scenic sub and it's grades as much as possible so they don't have to power up the trains as much. In the BN days, all the lighter intermodal trains to and from the Puget Sound area ran over Stevens Pass while all the heavier merchandise and almost all unit trains ran via the Gorge with it's low grades. Now, BNSF seems to like running the stack trains in and out of Tacoma via the Gorge resulting in more traffic this way.

Another major point: It doesn't really matter how much more utilization the Stampede Pass line gets because all the trains via that route and the Gorge still have to get through the Pasco Terminal mess and fight the congestion on the Lakeside sub between Pasco and Spokane which pretty much melts down when the slightest thing goes wrong (mechanical issues, track, etc).

Add to this, even if trains make good time on the Lakeside sub, they usually get all backed up in the Spokane/Hauser "Consolidated" terminal. Consolidated is a good term for this as all the mainlines becomes a parking lot of trains waiting their turn to get fueled at Hauser (don't think that is what the railroad meant when they called this a "consolidated" terminal, eh?). That's probably why it sounded like UP pulled out of the "Bridging the Valley" project in Spokane as they saw that their train would be even further at the mercy of the BNSF, by running on their rails east of Spokane and dealing with the Hauser mess, even with the additional main tracks that are supposed to be installed. Even capacity improvements on Stevens Pass would still just put these trains in this same melting pot in Spokane and it's associated delays.

Another point not discussed is that the "Hiline" between Spokane and Whitefish MT is anything but fluid most of the time. This line often becomes very congested as well with the slow running in the Kootenai River canyon single track and yet another long tunnel that requires flushing, though this one is not nearly as restricted in the amount of time it takes to run trains through this area as the one on Stevens Pass. In addition, the entire Hiline to the Midwest is mostly single track and operating at maximum capacity.

A thought on the comments about the railroad spending money on capital improvement projects; yes, the railroads do spend lots of money, but it's a tough decision on where to spend precious few capital dollars when there's such a vast system that requires improvements. I'm sure the BNSF has had its hands full trying to expand capacity right now out of North Dakota with the extremely fast pace that traffic (ie oil/gas and it's related products) have dramatically increased traffic levels there.

Would I be correct to assume that the ex-Milwaukee Road from Lind, WA to St. Regis, MT is not even a long term option?

leonz Wrote:

> About tunnel ventilation; The only way they could
> eliminate any issues with
> exhaust gasses in the tunnel as it current
> operating would be to reopen
> the original Mill Creek and properly line it with
> concrete and install
> fans to creat a suction draft ventillation path to
> eliminate issues with
> tunnel gassing and overheating diesels. It would
> have to happen this way
> because the tunnel bore is not large enough to
> install the proper ventillation
> ducts/tubing to create a positive ventilation
> system with an exhaust pathway.
>
> The reopening of the Mill Creek Shaft and using as
> a negative ventilation
> method would solve all this but as railroads are
> loathe to spend any money
> I do not see this happening unless there is
> massive tunnel failure catastrophe.
>
> The railroad would be able to operate trains
> continuously in both directions
> as there would be no need for flushing timeouts as
> frsh air would be entering
> the tunnel bore from both ends at all times.
>
>
>
>
> I wonder if the thought of reinstalling an
> electrified pantograph line from
> Scenic to Berne has been examined again? It would
> eliminate the tunnel flush
> waiting times.
>
> I believe the train movements are per day now 33
> consists on average?
>
> The 16 axle electrics had transit time of 25 miles
> per hour and they went
> through the tunnel in 20 minutes give or take from
> what I have read.
>
> The Bombardier TRAXX/IORE labeled electrics(6000
> volts AC three phase)
> used in pairs have been used for many years for
> the trip from the
> Kiruna iron mines in Sweden carrying loads both
> ways with iron ore pellets
> for export and clay inbound for the smelter to
> make pellets of iron ore for export.
>
>
> So if a thirty minute figure per transit is taken
> into account with using
> modern elelctric locomotives; 48 transits could be
> made per day to the sidings-
> mind you if everything worked right and murphys
> law does not come to visit
> from Puget Sound................ would the 15
> extra consists per day pay for itself?
>
>
>
> Not wanting to start an argument:
>
> Speculating and saying that;
>
> A small generating station using Burnham boilers
> and a pair of turbines
> and burning coal from the Powder River Basin using
> it only for a dedicated
> pantograph for the new Cascade Tunnel and
> (Possibly) electrifing the
> Snowqualmie and Stampede Pass tunnels after the
> floor was lowered using a road miner could
> be an advantage for the road as they are hauling
> coal out of the basin
> anyway as the system would burn more coal closer
> to where it is needed.
> (Any excess power could be sold too!!)
>
>
> Using the old Cascade tunnel to create one way
> traffic in each tunnel
> could still be done but I will not even speculate
> if the old Cascade Tunnel
> can be used simply due to the gravel pit on the
> east side having removed so much
> material where Cascade Tunnel Station was until
> 1929. I doubt the state
> would commit to a mountain top removal project for
> Windy Mmountain on the
> west side and Captain Point to fill the exisiting
> gravel pit and build
> better switch backs from Berne to Scenic with all
> that good fill.
>
> AND as a very wise TO member member stated in a
> past post so well "railroads are loathe to spend
> money"

I was asked about such a scheme (once upon a time in a land that time forgot, I used to advise on such things during my employ with BN) as well as others such as fans at both ends, interior curtains, sophisticated control systems, and other ways to spend lots of money. My advice for each was don't bother.

It's still (round numbers for discussion) 30 minutes between Scenic and Sky and 40 minutes up/30 minutes down between Scenic and Berne. You could install a ventilating plant that would evacuate the tunnel in one second and it would not change the capacity. Between Scenic and Sky, there are numerous 10 degree curves. You could electrify 50KV and use the most powerful locomotives ever made, and it wouldn't change the running time significantly. Thus, it wouldn't affect capacity significantly.

I concur with SOO6617's observations about capacity, as do many capacity experts. (and thanks for the citation)

TAW