 |
Re: Rehash: Progress on Crowning Stampede Pass Tunnel
Author: Dave Smith
Date: 10-26-2007 - 21:29
George Andrews Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A few thoughts to digest... The old MILW line from
> Ellensburg, thru Cle Elum to Easton IS nearly
> level; I have pedaled my fat butt on it as
> recently as this past summer. It's the westbound
> grade from the Columbia River @ Beverly to
> Boylston that will kill you; 17 miles of 2.2%
> grade & the so-called " Heartbreak Curves " near
> Cohasset... Also consider the cost of renewing the
> bridge over the Columbia, as well as the missing
> bridge @ Lake Easton State Park. Then there's the
> wet side of the line; sure you can move pipelines
> & power lines, but what about the bridges?? The
> Milwaukee was not known for high maintenance
> budgets on their Lines West. The bridge @ Garcia
> is missing 2 original spans; these have been
> replaced with 1 loooong span for John Wayne trail
> use only.( The missing bridge @ Lake Easton has
> likewise been replaced with a "trail use" span;
> although it does meet the clearance profile of a
> 1980 Chevy pickup !! )
> Now we've made it West to Cedar Falls, oops, I
> mean Rattlesnake Lake State Park. Ya think the
> Greenies would mind sharing the trail with a train
> or two ??? And how about the underpass @
> Interstate 405 in Renton; its been replaced with a
> new LOWER highway span since the line was
> abandoned by BN in 1987. I think the reuse of the
> Milwaukee line will happen right after the
> re-opening of the NWP!!! ( Oops - now I've done it
> ... )
At this point, I don't think anyone is trying to revive the entire Milwaukee ROW across the Cascades, for the very reasons you've pointed out. Specific to the Stampede Pass issue, we're only talking about relaying rail on the Milwaukee grade from Easton due west for about 5 miles to a point where this new tunnel's east portal would be located. The west portal would be located on the current BNSF line a mile or so west of where the reverse curves begin. The reason to utilize the Milwaukee grade west of Easton is to keep the ruling westbound grade at 0.7% to facilitate grain trains et al. The Milwaukee did cross the Yakima River twice within about a mile just west of Easton, and those bridges are gone, so it might be that there would be continued use of the ex-NP line through Cabin Creek with a new shoo-fly back to the Milwaukee grade after it recrosses the river. This would result in a minor "hump" of about 1.5% westbound for about a mile, which should still be okay for heavy haul trains. But it might also save a lot of hassle with the State DNR if the State DOT tried to rebuild those bridges - easier just to stay on the south side of the river, I suppose.
The additional use of Milwaukee grade would be the oft talked about Lind to Ellensburg section, which again as you point out would need a few realignments, not to mention an engineering solution to the wind issue pertaining to the Columbia River bridge. Other than that, we're talking about maintaining most of the current BNSF line.
> Just so you NP guys don't feel left out,
> consider the current condition of Stampede Tunnel.
> The roof is still mostly 100 year old brick; and
> according to a BNSF track maintainer who hirails
> the line weekly, is crumbling just from the few
> trains currently using the line. So it will have
> to be renewed anyways. But what about that 2.2%
> grade; it tops out near the middle of the tunnel.
> We're talking lots of trapped smoke & hot gasses
> !!! ( Kind'o like me...).
That's what I had thought regarding the idea of crowning Stampede tunnel, it seems like throwing good money after bad because you still have the attendant problems of a humped tunnel trapping diesel exhaust with locomotives working hard up grade from either direction inside the tunnel. Rather than renewing a bad tunnel, it'd be better to let it crumble and instead build a new tunnel that's lower elevation, straight, flat, reducing overall line mileage and eliminating a lot of curvature at grade.
Then there is the
> Omnipotent Dictatorship of Tacoma Water. They own
> vast amounts of watershed ( i.e. - land ) on the
> west side of the pass; from Lester to almost
> Palmer Jct. And they are VERY ANAL about "their" (
> former NP - owned ) land. I've read where they
> nixed a proposed garbage train thru " their " land
> due to concerns of derailed cars polluting "
> their" watershed. Imagine how big their eyes will
> get from seeing Placarded ( i.e.- hazardous
> materials ) containers traveling thru " their"
> land. I guess they aren't looking when Placarded
> tank cars & "empty" Sulpher cars returning to B.C.
> go thru there currently.
> Oh well, I'll shut up now...
Perhaps those Tacoma water folks would favor this new tunnel since it would eliminate the reverse curves and about 3 additional miles of trackage on the west side. Doesn't less train/miles equal a reduced statistical likelyhood of derailment? And if they're worried about slightly dirty water draining out of the tunnel, I suppose we can tilt it slightly toward the east so that all tunnel water drains out the east side. The east siders need the water more anyway, right?!
-------------------------------------------------------
> A few thoughts to digest... The old MILW line from
> Ellensburg, thru Cle Elum to Easton IS nearly
> level; I have pedaled my fat butt on it as
> recently as this past summer. It's the westbound
> grade from the Columbia River @ Beverly to
> Boylston that will kill you; 17 miles of 2.2%
> grade & the so-called " Heartbreak Curves " near
> Cohasset... Also consider the cost of renewing the
> bridge over the Columbia, as well as the missing
> bridge @ Lake Easton State Park. Then there's the
> wet side of the line; sure you can move pipelines
> & power lines, but what about the bridges?? The
> Milwaukee was not known for high maintenance
> budgets on their Lines West. The bridge @ Garcia
> is missing 2 original spans; these have been
> replaced with 1 loooong span for John Wayne trail
> use only.( The missing bridge @ Lake Easton has
> likewise been replaced with a "trail use" span;
> although it does meet the clearance profile of a
> 1980 Chevy pickup !! )
> Now we've made it West to Cedar Falls, oops, I
> mean Rattlesnake Lake State Park. Ya think the
> Greenies would mind sharing the trail with a train
> or two ??? And how about the underpass @
> Interstate 405 in Renton; its been replaced with a
> new LOWER highway span since the line was
> abandoned by BN in 1987. I think the reuse of the
> Milwaukee line will happen right after the
> re-opening of the NWP!!! ( Oops - now I've done it
> ... )
At this point, I don't think anyone is trying to revive the entire Milwaukee ROW across the Cascades, for the very reasons you've pointed out. Specific to the Stampede Pass issue, we're only talking about relaying rail on the Milwaukee grade from Easton due west for about 5 miles to a point where this new tunnel's east portal would be located. The west portal would be located on the current BNSF line a mile or so west of where the reverse curves begin. The reason to utilize the Milwaukee grade west of Easton is to keep the ruling westbound grade at 0.7% to facilitate grain trains et al. The Milwaukee did cross the Yakima River twice within about a mile just west of Easton, and those bridges are gone, so it might be that there would be continued use of the ex-NP line through Cabin Creek with a new shoo-fly back to the Milwaukee grade after it recrosses the river. This would result in a minor "hump" of about 1.5% westbound for about a mile, which should still be okay for heavy haul trains. But it might also save a lot of hassle with the State DNR if the State DOT tried to rebuild those bridges - easier just to stay on the south side of the river, I suppose.
The additional use of Milwaukee grade would be the oft talked about Lind to Ellensburg section, which again as you point out would need a few realignments, not to mention an engineering solution to the wind issue pertaining to the Columbia River bridge. Other than that, we're talking about maintaining most of the current BNSF line.
> Just so you NP guys don't feel left out,
> consider the current condition of Stampede Tunnel.
> The roof is still mostly 100 year old brick; and
> according to a BNSF track maintainer who hirails
> the line weekly, is crumbling just from the few
> trains currently using the line. So it will have
> to be renewed anyways. But what about that 2.2%
> grade; it tops out near the middle of the tunnel.
> We're talking lots of trapped smoke & hot gasses
> !!! ( Kind'o like me...).
That's what I had thought regarding the idea of crowning Stampede tunnel, it seems like throwing good money after bad because you still have the attendant problems of a humped tunnel trapping diesel exhaust with locomotives working hard up grade from either direction inside the tunnel. Rather than renewing a bad tunnel, it'd be better to let it crumble and instead build a new tunnel that's lower elevation, straight, flat, reducing overall line mileage and eliminating a lot of curvature at grade.
Then there is the
> Omnipotent Dictatorship of Tacoma Water. They own
> vast amounts of watershed ( i.e. - land ) on the
> west side of the pass; from Lester to almost
> Palmer Jct. And they are VERY ANAL about "their" (
> former NP - owned ) land. I've read where they
> nixed a proposed garbage train thru " their " land
> due to concerns of derailed cars polluting "
> their" watershed. Imagine how big their eyes will
> get from seeing Placarded ( i.e.- hazardous
> materials ) containers traveling thru " their"
> land. I guess they aren't looking when Placarded
> tank cars & "empty" Sulpher cars returning to B.C.
> go thru there currently.
> Oh well, I'll shut up now...
Perhaps those Tacoma water folks would favor this new tunnel since it would eliminate the reverse curves and about 3 additional miles of trackage on the west side. Doesn't less train/miles equal a reduced statistical likelyhood of derailment? And if they're worried about slightly dirty water draining out of the tunnel, I suppose we can tilt it slightly toward the east so that all tunnel water drains out the east side. The east siders need the water more anyway, right?!
