 |
Re: Rehash: Progress on Crowning Stampede Pass Tunnel
Author: Dave Smith
Date: 10-26-2007 - 21:35
redlynx Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Good points. I have a suspicion that somewhere
> BNSF has engineering studies, etc. for a lower
> Stampede tunnel. I've heard NP did some of these
> a long time ago... In the long run, a new bore
> might make more sense. Of course, the Csacades
> can be problematic to tunnel -- old faults, water,
> etc., which is why they can't simply lower the
> floor of the exising tunnel.
>
Here's a link to a Minnesota library collection where I first heard of this lower longer tunnel idea....
[home.netcom.com]
You have to sroll down a ways, where you come across this interesting nugget:
"As early as the time of the double tracking a gigantic tunnel on the size of the Great Northern's 1929 Cascade Tunnel had been proposed. Maps showing a tunnel moving from a position between Borup and Kennedy to a point between Martin and Whittier on the Milwaukee Road were laid out. The new "long tunnel" would probably have tripled or quadrupled in length and reduced the grade to one percent.
A clipping from Colonel Hiram Chittiden in Pacific Northwest Commerce magazine of April, 1910, stresses the need for a low grade, long tunnel under the Cascades. A memo on New York, New Haven & Hartford R. R. (The New Haven) letterhead from Edwin H. McHenry (Now serving on the New Haven) to William L. Darling on December 16 regarding the re-alignment of the main from the Weston loop to the Viaduct states "In light of the results obtained it would seem that the original location was fairly open to criticism." Edwin H. McHenry had been one of the original engineers on the line locating at Stampede Pass in the 1880s."
-------------------------------------------------------
> Good points. I have a suspicion that somewhere
> BNSF has engineering studies, etc. for a lower
> Stampede tunnel. I've heard NP did some of these
> a long time ago... In the long run, a new bore
> might make more sense. Of course, the Csacades
> can be problematic to tunnel -- old faults, water,
> etc., which is why they can't simply lower the
> floor of the exising tunnel.
>
Here's a link to a Minnesota library collection where I first heard of this lower longer tunnel idea....
[home.netcom.com]
You have to sroll down a ways, where you come across this interesting nugget:
"As early as the time of the double tracking a gigantic tunnel on the size of the Great Northern's 1929 Cascade Tunnel had been proposed. Maps showing a tunnel moving from a position between Borup and Kennedy to a point between Martin and Whittier on the Milwaukee Road were laid out. The new "long tunnel" would probably have tripled or quadrupled in length and reduced the grade to one percent.
A clipping from Colonel Hiram Chittiden in Pacific Northwest Commerce magazine of April, 1910, stresses the need for a low grade, long tunnel under the Cascades. A memo on New York, New Haven & Hartford R. R. (The New Haven) letterhead from Edwin H. McHenry (Now serving on the New Haven) to William L. Darling on December 16 regarding the re-alignment of the main from the Weston loop to the Viaduct states "In light of the results obtained it would seem that the original location was fairly open to criticism." Edwin H. McHenry had been one of the original engineers on the line locating at Stampede Pass in the 1880s."
