 |
Re: Rehash: Progress on Crowning Stampede Pass Tunnel
Author: Dave Smith
Date: 10-26-2007 - 10:02
redlynx Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A couple of thoughts: How much more would a
> completely new bore cost? How much longer is the
> time frame?
That's something I'm trying to find out. I had heard somewhere that the tunnel drilling itself can cost anywhere from $15 million to $20 million per mile assuming no major geological problems were encountered, but that figure may be low given more stringent regs. One good thing about boring a new tunnel is that you're not delaying existing traffic (and vis versa), as would be the case with the Stampede Tunnel crowning project.
But for the sake of trying to compare the two projects' cost/benefit analysis, consider this: The Stampede Tunnel crowning project is projected to cost around $65 million, and would result in a handful of double stack trains being able to use the route. If we estimate the cost of a new tunnel (plus relaying 5 miles of approach track over the old Milwaukee grade between Easton and the east portal of the new tunnel) at $130 million (e.g. double the cost of simply crowing Stampede tunnel - again, probably a low figure), isn't it possible that the benefits might outweigh the added costs since you'd have both double stacks and westbound grain/coal trains now being able to use this new line in an efficatious manner? Remember also that siding expansions et al would need to be done regardless of which project was accomplished, and then the only additional cost of the new tunnel would be compensating for more potential traffic than what would be projected for the crowning project.
The other thing to consider is the possibility of UP wanting to use the Stampede Pass route to bypass the Columbia Gorge/I-5 corridor routing, as that is a major part of the discussion on the public financing side - if the State of Washington is going to poney up funds for freight rail improvements to benefit the Puget Sound ports, they're certainly going to want to maximize the benefit potential. I'm doubting UP would have much enthusiasm for paying into use of the line if the improvements were limited to the crowning project, as that would have minimum benefit for them - maybe one or two intermodals. But if the improvements included the new tunnel idea, then the ruling westbound grade from Hinkle to Auburn via Ellensburg becomes 0.7% - again, ideal for grain/coal/potash consists. Then UP might be willing to pay for half the private funding, if indeed BNSF was willing to allow UP access to the line.
Would that scenario be in BNSF's best interests? UP pays for half the private funding, and by moving some UP trains from the I-5 rail corridor to the Ellensburg line capacity is freed up for BNSF on the I-5 rail corridor. Also consider this: If BNSF was agreeable to allowing UP to use the Ellensburg line between Hinkle and Puget Sound, if might put them in better favor with the State when it came time to discuss rebuilding the Lind-Ellensburg cut-off, a line by the way that would strictly be in BNSF's interests.
As I recall, the "ruling grade" is
> actually east of Easton and both the MILW and NP
> had 2.2% between Cle Elum and Easton.
I checked, and both the NP and Milwaukee lines from Cle Elum to Easton are water level.
>
> Also, remember that there are some other factors,
> such as capacity on the Lakeside between Pasco and
> Spokane, and signaling. But, maybe, once everyone
> is done playing politics, they actually will do
> something.
If somehow UP and BNSF could be made to cooperate and institute directional running between Spokane and the Tri-Cities area, then any current capacity issues are rendered a moot point, since directional running allows comparatively unlimited capacity.
>
> If the old MILW east of E'burg is ever rebuilt,the
> segment between E'burg and Othello will be
> mountain rules and grades, albeit shorter with
> less total curvature than going to Pasco.
My guess is that if that ever comes about, it would be strictly for intermodals and empties. Heavy hauls would still run via Pasco.
-------------------------------------------------------
> A couple of thoughts: How much more would a
> completely new bore cost? How much longer is the
> time frame?
That's something I'm trying to find out. I had heard somewhere that the tunnel drilling itself can cost anywhere from $15 million to $20 million per mile assuming no major geological problems were encountered, but that figure may be low given more stringent regs. One good thing about boring a new tunnel is that you're not delaying existing traffic (and vis versa), as would be the case with the Stampede Tunnel crowning project.
But for the sake of trying to compare the two projects' cost/benefit analysis, consider this: The Stampede Tunnel crowning project is projected to cost around $65 million, and would result in a handful of double stack trains being able to use the route. If we estimate the cost of a new tunnel (plus relaying 5 miles of approach track over the old Milwaukee grade between Easton and the east portal of the new tunnel) at $130 million (e.g. double the cost of simply crowing Stampede tunnel - again, probably a low figure), isn't it possible that the benefits might outweigh the added costs since you'd have both double stacks and westbound grain/coal trains now being able to use this new line in an efficatious manner? Remember also that siding expansions et al would need to be done regardless of which project was accomplished, and then the only additional cost of the new tunnel would be compensating for more potential traffic than what would be projected for the crowning project.
The other thing to consider is the possibility of UP wanting to use the Stampede Pass route to bypass the Columbia Gorge/I-5 corridor routing, as that is a major part of the discussion on the public financing side - if the State of Washington is going to poney up funds for freight rail improvements to benefit the Puget Sound ports, they're certainly going to want to maximize the benefit potential. I'm doubting UP would have much enthusiasm for paying into use of the line if the improvements were limited to the crowning project, as that would have minimum benefit for them - maybe one or two intermodals. But if the improvements included the new tunnel idea, then the ruling westbound grade from Hinkle to Auburn via Ellensburg becomes 0.7% - again, ideal for grain/coal/potash consists. Then UP might be willing to pay for half the private funding, if indeed BNSF was willing to allow UP access to the line.
Would that scenario be in BNSF's best interests? UP pays for half the private funding, and by moving some UP trains from the I-5 rail corridor to the Ellensburg line capacity is freed up for BNSF on the I-5 rail corridor. Also consider this: If BNSF was agreeable to allowing UP to use the Ellensburg line between Hinkle and Puget Sound, if might put them in better favor with the State when it came time to discuss rebuilding the Lind-Ellensburg cut-off, a line by the way that would strictly be in BNSF's interests.
As I recall, the "ruling grade" is
> actually east of Easton and both the MILW and NP
> had 2.2% between Cle Elum and Easton.
I checked, and both the NP and Milwaukee lines from Cle Elum to Easton are water level.
>
> Also, remember that there are some other factors,
> such as capacity on the Lakeside between Pasco and
> Spokane, and signaling. But, maybe, once everyone
> is done playing politics, they actually will do
> something.
If somehow UP and BNSF could be made to cooperate and institute directional running between Spokane and the Tri-Cities area, then any current capacity issues are rendered a moot point, since directional running allows comparatively unlimited capacity.
>
> If the old MILW east of E'burg is ever rebuilt,the
> segment between E'burg and Othello will be
> mountain rules and grades, albeit shorter with
> less total curvature than going to Pasco.
My guess is that if that ever comes about, it would be strictly for intermodals and empties. Heavy hauls would still run via Pasco.
