Cascades May Move Off of UP Mainline in Oregon

[sechs]

Picked this up from the CSCN list. ODOT is looking into running the Cascades service on the former Oregon Electric line through the Willamette Valley:

http://www.democratherald.com/articles/200...rains071709.txt

Small segments of the line are already owned by ODOT and UP (which would benefit from getting the passenger service off of its mainline), with the rest owned by BNSF. The Portland and Western Railroad leases or has rights over the entire line.

Here is the draft study from ODOT:

http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/RAIL/docs/Passe..._Rail_Study.pdf

It looks to be very pricey, but it would allow more passenger trains with improved running times

 

[battalion51]

Stimulus anyone?

 

[anir dendroica]

Picked this up from the CSCN list. ODOT is looking into running the Cascades service on the former Oregon Electric line through the Willamette Valley:http://www.democratherald.com/articles/200...rains071709.txt

Small segments of the line are already owned by ODOT and UP (which would benefit from getting the passenger service off of its mainline), with the rest owned by BNSF. The Portland and Western Railroad leases or has rights over the entire line.

Here is the draft study from ODOT:

http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/RAIL/docs/Passe..._Rail_Study.pdf

It looks to be very pricey, but it would allow more passenger trains with improved running times

I just looked at that study. Somehow they are projecting it will cost $326 million to upgrade the UP track (currently rated for up to 79 mph) but only $218 million to upgrade the OE track (currently rated for 25 mph or less). I suppose the UP option is the cost of double-tracking the line, but still this seems a bit fishy to me. Total costs are listed as $1.27 billion for the UP alternative and $856 million for the OE option.

 

[George Harris]

A few points of note from the document:

What is:

The scheduled trip time between Eugene and Portland is two hours and 35 minutes. However, sometimes trains arrive at their final destination as much as 20 minutes ahead of schedule, indicating that the 2008-2009 line conditions are conducive to running times of 2 ¼ to 2 ½ hours. On average, passenger trains run on-time approximately 68 percent of the time, but on-time rates over the past ten years have been as low as 45 to 50 percent.
The UP north-south mainline carries as many as 20 to 25 freight trains per day along the Willamette Valley. Based on current UP system capacity and projected freight growth, this could increase to as many as 30 to 35 trains per day before 2030. The growth in freight traffic emphasizes the need for investment to support additional passenger train frequencies while, at the same time, achieving a standard of on-time performance that can be competitive with highway travel.

. . . the UP mainline existing track and bridges are in good condition, and the line’s centralized train control and communications systems will support passenger trains operating at the maximum speed of 79 miles per hour (mph) for many miles of the UP line. However, only six percent of the Portland-to-Eugene route is currently posted for 79 mph.

Current track condition on the OE line is suitable for short line operations and generally supports freight train speeds of up to 25 mph.. . . .

PNWR operates approximately two to six <freight> trains per day between Portland and Eugene. Freight service demand on PNWR is the product of traffic moving to and from local Oregon business clients for delivery to further locations by both UP and BNSF, along with some modest but growing short-haul local traffic.

Since February 2009, PNWR began sharing a portion of the OE line with Trimet’s commuter rail service (WES), from Tualatin to Wilsonville, overlapping where intercity passenger trains might run in the future.

Proposed Improvements:

The UP alternative, shown in Figure 2, is based on the same track alignment as the existing UP mainline. For this alternative, it is assumed that projects on the UP mainline already underway or programmed and funded for completion in the next two to three years will be in place. Additionally, it is assumed that a complete second mainline track between Eugene and Portland will be necessary to reach acceptable levels of on time performance under either a two or six train roundtrip-per-day scenario.

While the OE alternative will require a near complete replacement of their existing track, plus the addition of signals, this will be mostly on the existing subgrade, so there will be little in the way of grading and new bridges. The addition of a second main throughout on the UP would require quite a bit of grading and bridge construction. This is why the UP alternative costs more. There will be additional signal requirements for the UP line as well, due to the track changes. The changes required based on the post-Chatsworth collision rules should not be counted in the UP scenario, as they would occur regardless so long as any passenger trains remain on the UP alignment.

 

[anir dendroica]

The UP alternative, shown in Figure 2, is based on the same track alignment as the existing UP mainline. For this alternative, it is assumed that projects on the UP mainline already underway or programmed and funded for completion in the next two to three years will be in place. Additionally, it is assumed that a complete second mainline track between Eugene and Portland will be necessary to reach acceptable levels of on time performance under either a two or six train roundtrip-per-day scenario.
While the OE alternative will require a near complete replacement of their existing track, plus the addition of signals, this will be mostly on the existing subgrade, so there will be little in the way of grading and new bridges. The addition of a second main throughout on the UP would require quite a bit of grading and bridge construction. This is why the UP alternative costs more. There will be additional signal requirements for the UP line as well, due to the track changes. The changes required based on the post-Chatsworth collision rules should not be counted in the UP scenario, as they would occur regardless so long as any passenger trains remain on the UP alignment.

I guess I didn't read closely enough...

I cross the arrow-straight OE track every time I drive from Corvallis to I-5, and I've often wondered if it could be put to better use. Maybe if UP traffic volumes increase as projected, UP could add some funding to the OE upgrade in exchange for access to the track (directional running, freight and passenger)