Home Open Account Help 368 users online

Western Railroad Discussion > Directional Running in the Gorge?


Date: 11/25/24 18:07
Directional Running in the Gorge?
Author: lew_an

Just wondering if UP and BNSF have ever considered implementing directional running in the Columbia River Gorge. I’d imagine this would benefit BNSF a fair bit while UP would have less to gain (maybe that’s why it hasn’t happened) but I’m curious if anyone knows anything surrounding this?



Date: 11/25/24 22:19
Re: Directional Running in the Gorge?
Author: RailDawg

Great question!

There are quite a few folks on here well-versed in those routes. 

Seems it would work well? 

Directional-running works great on The Overland and Feather River Route for the UP across N Nevada. 

BNSF uses it a little bit.  

Chuck 



Date: 11/25/24 23:40
Re: Directional Running in the Gorge?
Author: funnelfan

There are quite a few issues with that idea, but the biggest one is UP and BNSF hate the joint trackage they already have, and are not looking to add more. They could do it by running westbound on the BNSF and eastbound on the UP. But the line from Hinkle to Wallula and Pasco would need to be rebuilt to handle all the extra traffic. With some minor track rebuilding, UP westbounds can shortcut Pasco using the Kalan Bridge to get to the BNSF mainline at Finley.

Ted Curphey
Ontario, OR



Date: 11/25/24 23:40
Re: Directional Running in the Gorge?
Author: JDLX

I'm not sure I see how it could feasibly be implemented. 

Unless I'm missing something there are only four railroad bridges across the Columbia, one shared by BNSF and UP between Portland and Vancouver, the second the BNSF (Oregon Trunk) bridge east of The Dalles, and then both UP and BNSF have bridges up in the Pasco/Kennewick area.  At present the only stretch I see where you might consider bidirectional running is between the Portland/Vancouver and OT bridges, however effectively connecting the old Oregon Trunk to the UP main line on the Oregon side of the river would be a very expensive if not impossible engineering challenge.  Before someone challenges me, yes, I know there is a connection from the UP main to the OT, but it is really only set up to allow eastbound trains on the UP to go southbound on the OT, or northbounds on the OT to go westbound on the UP, all directions geographical, and the connecting track involves a really steep grade.  Say they did implement bidirectional running on the two lines, if hypothetically they use the UP for eastbound trains and BNSF for west then things get challenging.  Westbound UP trains would have to make a reverse shove up the connection to the OT main before they could cross the bridge to continue west, while eastbound BNSF trains would also have to pull onto the OT main, then make a reverse shove movement across the bridge before continuing east.  Theoretically you could maybe start a west leg of a wye off the south side of the OT bridge, but it would also have to cross the UP main on a bridge before curving to the west and descending to the level of the UP main.  Engineering an east leg of a wye would involve some sort of new connector track somewhere east of the bridge, where the two railroads are roughly parallel but on different levels, but you would realistically have to get somewhere east of the point where I-84 crosses over the UP main and goes on fill out into the river, and at that point you'd have the old state highway still sitting squarely between the tracks that you'd have to contend with in getting any sort of connection made.  Otherwise the issues east of there are that a lot of the UP traffic turns south at Hinkle, which sits a good 40ish miles downstream from the Pasco/Kennewick area and the bridge there, if you ran bidirectional running the entire length of the Gorge then a lot of the UP trains going one direction or the other would have around an 80-mile detour.  A quick look at the bridges at the east end seem to show that only the BNSF bridge is set up with wyes at both ends, but again that's a long detour for trains going one direction or the other on the UP main southeast from Hinkle.  

Jeff Moore
Elko, NV



Date: 11/26/24 00:02
Re: Directional Running in the Gorge?
Author: TCnR

The north side doesn't go where the UPrr needs to go, the south side doesn't go where the BNSF needs to go.

They would all end up on the double track between St Johns and Vancouver waiting for a ship to pass. Although it could give UPrr a better run from the east end to Seattle, if they could get a crew.



Date: 11/26/24 00:58
Re: Directional Running in the Gorge?
Author: lew_an

Lots of great info here. I think the main void in my knowledge was not understanding how far Hinkle was from Pasco. Those two were much closer in my head and sending UP trains back that far doesn’t make any sense.



Date: 11/26/24 08:27
Re: Directional Running in the Gorge?
Author: HomerBedloe

I was involved in a "study" (read that as an inquiry, and then talking to ops and marketing departments) back in mid-90s about this very thing.  The last thing BNSF wanted at that time was to have to go across the river at Vancouver and through N. Portland Jct. (fighting north and south traffic between Albina and Seattle, as well as Amtrak traffic to/from PUS), then along the industrial section of North Portland (Kenton Line) to go east.  Then, as Ted said, run from Hinkle to Wallula to Pasco, crossing the river again.   The gains MIGHT be on UP's side, since their westbounds to Seattle would avoid Penn Jct/NPJ, and BNSF was not all that keen on improving UP's service to Seattle.  I doubt UP was overly excited about the run from Hinkle to Pasco as well, although it might be compensated by the reduction in congestion in the North Portland area.  All in all,  the concept went nowhere, and it got there really quickly.
 



Date: 11/26/24 16:57
Re: Directional Running in the Gorge?
Author: Yog-Sothoth

The main benefit of directional running is increasing capacity without too much investment. I don't know to much about the area but I assume both lines can more or less handle the current traffic. If you use the UP line between Pasco and Hinkle you would have a big bottleneck as a line with a capacity to support a few trains to spokane and Canada will have to handle those trains plus half of the UP traffic and half the BNSF traffic. At that point you're most likely slowing traffic, not speeding it up. You could upgrade it, the money spent to do that would be better spent upgrading their current lines and running them the same way.



Date: 11/27/24 05:56
Re: Directional Running in the Gorge?
Author: lwbaxter

If the paired track was extended to Spokane, Hinkle to Pasco would be mostly northbound. UP westbound trains, from the east, would get on the BNSF at Celilo (across from Wishram). Additional sidings can be added east of Celilo much more easily than west of there due to Wild and Scenic river restrictions. Both RRs would perceive the other as getting the better deal, particularity UP, so highly unlikely.

Posted from Android



Date: 11/27/24 12:44
Re: Directional Running in the Gorge?
Author: SD45X

UP likes to run train crews to death and then call one to rescue it after death. Creating a jam. Not a good idea.



Date: 11/27/24 12:53
Re: Directional Running in the Gorge?
Author: dan

usra  do anything like that up There



Date: 11/27/24 16:05
Re: Directional Running in the Gorge?
Author: funnelfan

As others have alluded to, using the Celio Bridge has limitations as it would be near impossible to connect eastbound on the UP to northbound across the bridge. It would be possible to build a connection coming off the bridge to go east on the UP by using the current route of old Hwy 30 east of the I-84 interchange down the hill to the UP mainlines. Not sure where you would put the road as the Oregon Trunk takes up the adjcent land. So while westbound UP trains can cross the Celio Bridge, eastbound BNSF trains will be stuck on the UP to Wallula. Add that BNSF runs 150% or more of the trains that UP runs, so this is really going against UP's favor now.With the 3 mile long trains both companies are trying to run these days, UP would need to double track it's line from Celio to Hinkle, and add long sidings on the Washy to Wallula.
Historically the only directional running that I can think of was the NP using the SP&S between Spokane and Pasco to run many of it's westbound trains. But the SP&S kept it's eastbounds on it's own line and didn't use the NP on a regular basis.

Ted Curphey
Ontario, OR



Date: 11/28/24 17:09
Re: Directional Running in the Gorge?
Author: HomerBedloe

lwbaxter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Both RRs would perceive the
> other as getting the better deal, particularity
> UP, so highly unlikely.
>
> Posted from Android

There is no scenario of paired track that benefits BNSF, which is why it was killed in the 90's.  Under any circumstance, BNSF would at one point have to go across the Columbia, through NPJ, through Penn Jct. and then east on the Kenton Line.  They would have to return to their own rails via Hinkle, Wallula and Pasco.  So they get to 1) add congestion in Portland (N - S UP freight, east to S UP freight, N - S Amtrak) and 2) add miles from Hinkle to Pasco.  At the same time, UP would eliminate at least one traffic flow (Hinkle - Seattle/Tacoma/Kalama/Longview) from having to run thru Penn Jct., NPJ, and the Columbia River Bridge, avoiding that same traffic.  Why would BNSF even consider any option that added that to their operations while benefitting UP?
 



Date: 11/28/24 17:53
Re: Directional Running in the Gorge?
Author: portlander

HomerBedloe Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> lwbaxter Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Both RRs would perceive the
> > other as getting the better deal, particularity
> > UP, so highly unlikely.
> >
> > Posted from Android
>
> There is no scenario of paired track that benefits
> BNSF, which is why it was killed in the 90's. 
> Under any circumstance, BNSF would at one point
> have to go across the Columbia, through NPJ,
> through Penn Jct. and then east on the Kenton
> Line.  They would have to return to their own
> rails via Hinkle, Wallula and Pasco.  So they get
> to 1) add congestion in Portland (N - S UP
> freight, east to S UP freight, N - S Amtrak) and
> 2) add miles from Hinkle to Pasco.  At the same
> time, UP would eliminate at least one traffic flow
> (Hinkle - Seattle/Tacoma/Kalama/Longview) from
> having to run thru Penn Jct., NPJ, and the
> Columbia River Bridge, avoiding that same
> traffic.  Why would BNSF even consider any option
> that added that to their operations while
> benefitting UP?
>  

Not to mention, that the UP would have to drive crews across the river on I-5 to make the change. That alone could lose a yard van for hours.



[ Share Thread on Facebook ] [ Search ] [ Start a New Thread ] [ Back to Thread List ] [ <Newer ] [ Older> ] 
Page created in 0.0855 seconds