Western Railroad Discussion > BNSF's Transcon Missouri River bridge at Sibley, MO; etc

There was a one page article about this on page 7 of the December issue of Trains Magazine. First, I did a search on TO about this subject and found no responses; but I'll admit my competency using search engines is rather low. But the Trains article says BNSF is facing many obstacles to completing its total double tracking of the ex-ATSF Transcon from LA to Chgo. due to facts in the article, the replacement bridge would be virtually a duplicate of the existing one due to various Federal regulations and no faster, just younger. That made me think about the time when, in 1993 I think, there were massive floods in NE MO and SE IA that affected both the then ATSF and BN Chicago to KC mainlines. I was in Conrail's Food and Agriculture Group and we had a lot of our customers affected by service disruptions due to these floods. We were able to get a fair amount of information about service disruptions from both BN and ATSF. I summarized this and let our Sales and Marketing Reps know for about a month.

One thing that came out was that ATSF and BN would detour trains over an existing connection in the NE  quadrant at Bucklin, MO where BN's ex-CBQ Chicago to KC route went underneath ATSF main now called the Transcon. I think a number of trains were exchanged here depending on which route was flooded. I sort of think this co-operation between the two railroads helped lead to the merger of BNSF. Anyway, the connection worked. It still exists today, per Google Earth.

Question, to those better informed, if BNSF instituted partial or total directional running between Bucklin, Mo and Kansas City could it alleviate the need to build a whole new Missouri Bridge at Sibley, MO?  I looked at Google Earth and there is a clear route from BN on the north side into KC and Argentine Yard. I know both the ex-BN and ex-ATSF routes have joint trackage and/or trackage rights on NS's ex-Wabash Decatur, IL to KC main. A long time friend familiar with train volumes says NS would have 16 trains per day on this line. If BNSF would upgrade the Bucklin, MO connection between their lines would it save the costs of the second MO River bridge at Sibley? Even if the Bucklin connection would be used for only lower priority trains (unfortunately carload traffic on all railroads) would it still have merit? Open for discussion please. JL in DE

There are several issues with rerouting trains on the Brookfield sub. The Brookfield sub currently has just a 40 mph speed limit on the Maxwell (where they join the NS) to Bucklin.  Main problem here is drainage and track stability issues.

Then there is running on the NS from Maxwell to North Kansas City, not all of which is 2 main tracks, they have their own trains to run. In addition there are troubles getting through NS terminal congestion from Voltz (NS inter modal\Ford mixing center)  and at Avondale yard then crossing the Missouri river on the Hannibal bridge then slow track over to Argentine.  So this is far from a great route for BNSF trains for other than slow trains like the Thomas Hill coal trains and a manifest or two.  In addition Brookfield is a crew change point now, so unless agreements are modified it will add higher crew costs.

The biggest advantage to the current route is that BNSF has control of the entire route and can run faster than then when running on NS 70 on BNSF vs. 55 or 60 on NS till Voltz then 35 to Avondale then 25 ish till the Hannibal bridge then 10 mph to cross the bridge. As I understand it the speed limit on the Sibley bridge was raised 5 mph to 35 mph, which is the highest speed on that bridge ever!

So to sum it all up, the route thru Sibley is just superior in many ways.

Sneebly

The one thing I find odd about the Sibley bridge talk is that BNSF is planning to build a new
bridge parallel to the old one.  Now, I understand there are issues with straightening this
route out, but the sharp curves on BOTH ends of this structure seem to me to be an
inhibiting factor for operations.  I had thought they could ease the curve on the west
end and take a more northeasterly route to eliminate these curves, but I'm apparently
mistaken on that.  Also, someone once said there was some sort of preserve north
of the Sibley power plant that precluded that route, but I can't find it on my DeLorme
Atlas.  

I would agree that the limitations on using the Brookfield Sub make the current route
via Sibley the best.  

Nick Tharalson,
Marion, IA

JLinDE Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Question, to those better informed, if BNSF
> instituted partial or total directional running
> between Bucklin, Mo and Kansas City could it
> alleviate the need to build a whole new Missouri
> Bridge at Sibley, MO?  I looked at Google Earth
> and there is a clear route from BN on the north
> side into KC and Argentine Yard. I know both the
> ex-BN and ex-ATSF routes have joint trackage
> and/or trackage rights on NS's ex-Wabash Decatur,
> IL to KC main. A long time friend familiar
> with train volumes says NS would have 16
> trains per day on this line. If BNSF would
> upgrade the Bucklin, MO connection between their
> lines would it save the costs of the second MO
> River bridge at Sibley? Even if the Bucklin
> connection would be used for only lower priority
> trains (unfortunately carload traffic on all
> railroads) would it still have merit? Open for
> discussion please. JL in DE

I've wondered about that myself.

I bet if NS and BNSF were to merge, they could figure out how not to build the bridge.

How much is the Truman Bridge being used. Could a deal be worked out to use it?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/09/16 09:20 by ts1457.

Thanks for those three thoughtful responses. I really appreciate it. To Sneebly, I sort of expected that would be the situation looking at the Voltz terminal on NS, and  the approach to the MO River Bridge in KC, and the trackage west to Argentine and re-connection to the BNSF Transcon. Do you think with a bit of investment $$$$ it could be a faster route than now? If Brookfield is a crew change point now ( for how many trains per day) is there any way to make that a better arrangement for the employees and the railroad? To 'ntharalson' ; the Trains Mag article said all studies and conclusions to date say that the new bridge almost has to duplicate the footprint of the old bridge. That is really unfortunate. It seems in the inland waterway vs. rail bridge crossings the Corps of Engineers always has the Right of Way priority. Why are a dozen,(if there can be that many) barges of grain or gravel expected a month later on this section of the Missouri River be more important than trains crossing the river carrying millions of $$$$ of consumer goods expected, in a few days by the recipients? To 'ts1457' which is the Truman bridge? The ex-CBQ bridge that my suggestion uses to cross the MO River in KC? What is the approximate current rail volume over that bridge? Is it constant traffic, or are their slow periods?

Thanks to all, JLinDE 

JLinDE Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> .... To 'ts1457' which is the Truman
> bridge? 

Sorry, I should have anticipated that question. I believe a connection is already in place for the NE quadrant between NS and the old Milwaukee Road (CP) and CRI&P (UP) at their crossing north of the bridge:

http://www.americanbridge.net/experience/experience_detail.php?prj_ab_id=MissKans10082004160608651

https://bridgehunter.com/mo/jackson/truman/

 

> JLinDE Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> How much is the Truman Bridge being used. Could a
> deal be worked out to use it?

I can't see the CP and UP going for this not sure of the train count for the CP and UP but I would guess somewhere between 15 and 25 trains a day on the
Kansas City Sub.
The KCS joins in for at least 10-20 movements a day at Air Line Jct and once you get to Air Line Jct to get on the KCT its slow speed single track and the speed
between Birmingham and Air Line Jct on the CP is only 25 mph. 
Plus the UP crossing at Southwest Jct is good for at least 10 to 15 movements a day.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/10/16 05:42 by dpc37.

The bridge I am talking about is not the one that leads to the ex-KCS/MILW joint facility yard at the eastern end of Kansas City. The one I have in mind it fruther west, crossing the MO Riv from north to south and is double track. It does look like a lot of slow speed trackage on either side. But is there a way to improve it? I do not know the name of that bridge, or it's owners. That is the bridge I was seeking train counts per day for.  Any good advice appreciated. Sometimes railroads have a solution to an operational problem they do not know. That it what I am trying to find out with my post.

JLinDE Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The bridge I am talking about is not the one that
> leads to the ex-KCS/MILW joint facility yard at
> the eastern end of Kansas City. The one I have in
> mind it fruther west, crossing the MO Riv from
> north to south and is double track. It does look
> like a lot of slow speed trackage on either side.
> But is there a way to improve it? I do not know
> the name of that bridge, or it's owners. That is
> the bridge I was seeking train counts per day
> for.  Any good advice appreciated. Sometimes
> railroads have a solution to an operational
> problem they do not know. That it what I am trying
> to find out with my post.

Yes, I am aware that we are talking about two different routes, It seems like to me that BNSF should work with the other railroads to develop these alternatives and take their time in getting the right alignment for a brand new double track bridge. But I doubt that anyone from BNSF will be asking me for my opinion.

ts1457 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> JLinDE Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The bridge I am talking about is not the one
> that
> > leads to the ex-KCS/MILW joint facility yard at
> > the eastern end of Kansas City. The one I have
> in
> > mind it fruther west, crossing the MO Riv from
> > north to south and is double track. It does
> look
> > like a lot of slow speed trackage on either
> side.
> > But is there a way to improve it? I do not know
> > the name of that bridge, or it's owners. That
> is
> > the bridge I was seeking train counts per day
> > for.  Any good advice appreciated. Sometimes
> > railroads have a solution to an operational
> > problem they do not know. That it what I am
> trying
> > to find out with my post.
>
> Yes, I am aware that we are talking about two
> different routes, It seems like to me that BNSF
> should work with the other railroads to develop
> these alternatives and take their time in getting
> the right alignment for a brand new double track
> bridge. But I doubt that anyone from BNSF will be
> asking me for my opinion.

The 2 main track bridge you refer to is the same Hannibal bridge I mentioned in my original responce.  It is the only bridge crossing the Missouri river in the KC area which is not single track.  As to train volume on this bridge I really do not know what that would be, but it handles all manifest traffic coming and going from Lincoln and Omaha NE to the KC area.  In addition most coal trains use this route but a few coal trains bound for the KCS use the ASB bridge, but those can also use the Hannibal bridge.  The only exception is the Thomas Hill coal trains which come down from Lincoln and turn left to head for the Brookfield sub.  The Hannibal bridge marks the North end of what is known as the gooseneck, some fairly sharp curves limit speeds to 10 mph. Needless to say the hannibal bridge is a swing span and river traffic gets priority, which seems to be very rare nowadays.

There has been a rumor about possibly building a dual use bridge over the Missouri River somewhere in the vicinity of Sibley.  This would be a probably double decked highway/railroad bridge with enough clearance to avoid barge traffic (which seems to be very minimal) around KC.  

The bigger problem in my opinion is not the Sibley bridge but Argentine yard congestion!  I know that it is not uncommon for there are 2 trains sitting at Sugar Creek each on seperate mains waiting to get into Argentine.  This leaves one track open main to get out of town. If Argentine were fixed everything might be more fluid.   

In conclusion  I think that even if a train has to wait awhile at Sibley that it is a faster route than going on the Brookfield sub with diamonds at Birmingham and Santa Fe jct. along with NS yard congestion coupled with slow Hannibal bridge and nearby curve restricted 10 mph trackage means this as it currently stands is not a viable route for large amounts of traffic.  I failed to also mention the fairly new Sheffield and Argentine connection flyovers which speed up traffic over the Kansas City Terminal which virtually eliminates diamonds on the Sibley route.  It is still possible but only when MOW or emergencies occur. I should also mention that I am not a railroader but a rail fan of the KC area. 

Sneebly
 

Thank you Sneebly. Your input suggests my thought of directional running between Bucklin, MO and KC on parallel BNSF route may not have much merit. Some of my thinking about using the ex-CBQ/BN route was that it might not be that useful as a 'total directional running scheme' for all trains but maybe just lower priority trains, like carload and unit trains, in both directions. My understanding is that the Transcon East of KC only sees 5-6  carload trains in each direction and two of them may be UP trackage right trains. I think all of the BNSF trains work at Argentime. That would leave the Sibley bridge for mostly imtermodal trains. If so, that leaves BNSF management with the difficult future forecast of what happens if the new Republican Administration allows larger truck trailers and combinations and reduced rest time for drivers. This was an article in my local newspaper today. If both happen, that could have a serious negative impact of BNSF's Transon volume, really it's bread and butter. and the reason for the double tracking completion from LA to Chicago. If that happens; the second Sibley bridge, essentially on no better of an alignment as stated in the Trains's mag article originally referenced, may not be necessary.