 |
Rehash: Progress on Crowning Stampede Pass Tunnel
Author: Dave Smith
Date: 10-25-2007 - 23:00
Original subject discussion first started by Donovan Gray back on 01-19-2007
<[www.altamontpress.com];
Donovan Gray Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Our state's governor had a press conference
> yesterday about increasing capacity at the Seattle
> and Tacoma ports and mentioned she was asking the
> legislature for $25 mil to increase clearance at
> Stampede Pass Tunnel for doublestacks. BNSF would
> kick in $40 mil. Full story at
> [seattlepi.nwsource.com]
> greg19.html
I've stated before but it bears worth repeating - simply crowning Stampede Pass Tunnel is, in my humble opinion, akin to putting new patches on old wineskins, aka throwing good money after bad. You still have the problems of 10 mph curves and 2.2% grades on both sides of the tunnel, problems which prevent both the expedient flow of intermodal consists between Spokane and Puget Sound, and still discourages loaded westbound grain and coal trains from using the line between Pasco and Puget Sound.
Rather than trying to revive the ex-Milwaukee Snoqualmie Pass line for it's pre-crowned tunnels and 0.7% ruling westbound grade betweeen Ellensburg and Auburn (the logical choice that BN should have made while the tracks were still in place!), the best overall solution now may be to do something similar to what was first proposed by NP's Chief Engineer back in 1910, namely building a new 4 or 5 mile tunnel under the current line and shifting the eastside line to the Milwaukee grade west of Easton. This would allow a ruling westbound grade of 0.7% between Pasco and Auburn (although the eastbound ruling grade would still be 2.2%), a shortening of the route by 3 or 4 miles, and the elimination of several degrees of curvature leading up to the present tunnel (aren't these curves limited to 10 mph?)
This would allow Puget Sound bound grain trains to be shifted off the roundabout Columbia River Gorge and I-5 routing onto this new Stampede Pass route, which also aids in reducing congestion on those lines. In addition, this new tunnel would allow for faster running of intermodals between Pasco and Puget Sound. Then if the State ever rebuilds the ex-Milwaukee line from Ellensburg to Lind you'd have an intermodal line that could compete timewise with the Stevens Pass line between Spokane and Puget Sound!
MILW Snoqualmie Pass tunnel/Stampede Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I do recall the State of Washington
> working with a pipe line operator to locate a
> natural gas pipline though the tunnel and under
> most of the MILW R of W over the Cascades as wall
> as a fiber optic line under the R of W as well.
> If indeed a pipeline was located though the
> tunnel, then relaying track isn't an option.
If that's true, then it might be wise to also relocate those pipelines between Easton and the east portal of this new tunnel, a distance of about 5 miles. It's cheaper to move pipelines than it is to move raillines.
Dave Smith
<[www.altamontpress.com];
Donovan Gray Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Our state's governor had a press conference
> yesterday about increasing capacity at the Seattle
> and Tacoma ports and mentioned she was asking the
> legislature for $25 mil to increase clearance at
> Stampede Pass Tunnel for doublestacks. BNSF would
> kick in $40 mil. Full story at
> [seattlepi.nwsource.com]
> greg19.html
I've stated before but it bears worth repeating - simply crowning Stampede Pass Tunnel is, in my humble opinion, akin to putting new patches on old wineskins, aka throwing good money after bad. You still have the problems of 10 mph curves and 2.2% grades on both sides of the tunnel, problems which prevent both the expedient flow of intermodal consists between Spokane and Puget Sound, and still discourages loaded westbound grain and coal trains from using the line between Pasco and Puget Sound.
Rather than trying to revive the ex-Milwaukee Snoqualmie Pass line for it's pre-crowned tunnels and 0.7% ruling westbound grade betweeen Ellensburg and Auburn (the logical choice that BN should have made while the tracks were still in place!), the best overall solution now may be to do something similar to what was first proposed by NP's Chief Engineer back in 1910, namely building a new 4 or 5 mile tunnel under the current line and shifting the eastside line to the Milwaukee grade west of Easton. This would allow a ruling westbound grade of 0.7% between Pasco and Auburn (although the eastbound ruling grade would still be 2.2%), a shortening of the route by 3 or 4 miles, and the elimination of several degrees of curvature leading up to the present tunnel (aren't these curves limited to 10 mph?)
This would allow Puget Sound bound grain trains to be shifted off the roundabout Columbia River Gorge and I-5 routing onto this new Stampede Pass route, which also aids in reducing congestion on those lines. In addition, this new tunnel would allow for faster running of intermodals between Pasco and Puget Sound. Then if the State ever rebuilds the ex-Milwaukee line from Ellensburg to Lind you'd have an intermodal line that could compete timewise with the Stevens Pass line between Spokane and Puget Sound!
MILW Snoqualmie Pass tunnel/Stampede Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I do recall the State of Washington
> working with a pipe line operator to locate a
> natural gas pipline though the tunnel and under
> most of the MILW R of W over the Cascades as wall
> as a fiber optic line under the R of W as well.
> If indeed a pipeline was located though the
> tunnel, then relaying track isn't an option.
If that's true, then it might be wise to also relocate those pipelines between Easton and the east portal of this new tunnel, a distance of about 5 miles. It's cheaper to move pipelines than it is to move raillines.
Dave Smith
Rehash: Progress on Crowning Stampede Pass Tunnel