1 / 19

BNSF Railway Line Capacity Planning: San Joaquin Double Track projects

BNSF Railway Line Capacity Planning: San Joaquin Double Track projects. San Joaquin Valley Capacity Analysis October 8, 2010. Summary of RTC Simulations. Modeling completed by Willard Keeney Summary prepared by Gary Agnew. Line Capacity Planning: San Joaquin DT projects.

austine-janus
Télécharger la présentation

BNSF Railway Line Capacity Planning: San Joaquin Double Track projects

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. BNSF RailwayLine Capacity Planning: San Joaquin Double Track projects San Joaquin Valley Capacity Analysis October 8, 2010 Summary of RTC Simulations Modeling completed by Willard Keeney Summary prepared by Gary Agnew

  2. Line Capacity Planning: San Joaquin DT projects • The State of California approached BNSF in March 2010 about potential changes to the San Joaquin passenger train services. There is no funding available at this time to add more train services, but the State wanted to identify future capacity needs in order to prepare for required environmental, permitting, and engineering design work. • Current San Joaquin passenger train plan: • 6 trains per day each way on the Bakersfield – Stockton segment (total of 12 trains). • 4 trains per day each way on the Stockton – Port Chicago segment (total of 8 trains). • Four different schedule proposals were analyzed: • 8 trains per day each way on the full Bakersfield – Port Chicago segment (total of 16 trains) with the passenger trains operating at a maximum speed of 79 mph (the 5/10 year 79 mph plan). • 11 trains per day each way on the full Bakersfield – Port Chicago segment (total of 22 trains) with the passenger trains operating at a maximum speed of 79 mph (the 25 year 79 mph plan). • 8 trains per day each way on the full Bakersfield – Port Chicago segment (total of 16 trains) with the passenger trains operating at a maximum speed of 90 mph (the 5/10 year 90 mph plan). • 11 trains per day each way on the full Bakersfield – Port Chicago segment (total of 22 trains) with the passenger trains operating at a maximum speed of 90 mph (the 25 year 90 mph plan). • Each of the 5/10 cases reflects a scenario where 1 passenger train pair is an “express” schedule, with only a Fresno intermediate stop. The other 5/10 cases reflect all trains stopping at all stations. • In the 5/10 cases the freight counts were increased by 14 trains per week (2 intermodal Z1-7, 10 intermodal Q/S and 2 unit). The freight counts were then kept at those levels for the 25 year cases (in order to identify just the scope of projects needed for the changed passenger services beyond the 5/10 year plan).

  3. Line Capacity Planning: San Joaquin DT projects • The following 5 projects were assumed to be part of the “base case”: • Double track Guernsey - Hanford, with crossovers in between. Retains Shirley siding (6 miles). • Convert Gregg siding to double track segment milepost 1008.9 to 1013.9 (5 miles). • Double track LeGrand to Planada with crossovers in between (9 miles). • Double track milepost 1107.0 to Walnut with associated crossover and power turnout work (9 miles). • Convert Pittsburg siding to double track and extend east to milepost 1152.7 (5 miles). • With regard to the above listed projects: • Grading is complete for 4 miles of new double track in the Guernsey - Hanford segment. This 4 mile segment is expected to be completed by January 2011. • Funding is in place for the design work for the Gregg siding project. • Funding is in place for the design work for the LeGrand - Planada project.

  4. Line Capacity Planning: San Joaquin DT projects

  5. Line Capacity Planning: San Joaquin DT projects

  6. Line Capacity Planning: San Joaquin DT projects

  7. Line Capacity Planning: San Joaquin DT projects Note – the “% on time with failures” numbers reflect adjustment of RTC output to reflect impacts from: -- signal failures -- switch failures -- service disruptions

  8. Line Capacity Planning: San Joaquin DT projects “xxx” indicates those areas where freight performance metric degrades from base case

  9. Line Capacity Planning: San Joaquin DT projects • Notes for those areas where freight performance metrics degrade: • Z1-Z7 train speeds degrade under all scenarios. The base case speed is 34.3 mph. The lowest the Z1-Z7 speed gets in any of the scenarios is 32.5 mph. • Z1-Z7 train delay per 100 train miles degrades under all but one of the scenarios. The base case delay per 100 train miles is 27.11 minutes. The highest the Z1-Z7 delay per 100 train mile gets is 34.55 minutes (in the 5/10 year 79 mph plan with the express schedule), for a variance of 7.44 minutes. On a 225 mile run between Mariposa and Bakersfield, that represents about 17 minutes of additional delay per train. The other scenarios with degraded metrics have variances ranging from 0.58 to 2.11 minutes per 100 train miles. On the 225 mile run, that equates to 1 to 5 minutes of additional delay per train. • Other intermodal train delay per 100 train miles degrades under all but two of the scenarios. The base case delay per 100 train miles is 41.18 minutes. The highest the other intermodal delay per 100 train mile gets is 45.07 minutes (in the 5/10 year 79 mph plan with no express schedules), for a variance of 3.89 minutes. On a 225 mile run, that represents about 9 minutes of additional delay per train. The other scenarios with degraded metrics have variances ranging from 2.29 to 3.65 minutes per 100 train miles. That equates to 5 to 8 minutes of additional delay per train. • Other freight train delay per 100 train miles degrades in only two of the scenarios. The base case delay per 100 train miles is 60.50 minutes. The highest the other intermodal delay per 100 train mile gets is 65.94 minutes (in the 5/10 year 79 mph plan with no express schedules), for a variance of 5.44 minutes. On a 235 mile run between Stockton and Bakersfield, that represents about 13 minutes of additional delay per train. The other scenario with degraded metrics has variance from base case very similar, at 5.01 minutes per 100 train miles. That equates to 12 minutes of additional delay per train.

  10. Line Capacity Planning: San Joaquin DT projects • The following projects were modeled for the 5/10 year 79 mph plans: • Double track Guernsey - Hanford, with crossovers in between. Retains Shirley siding (6 miles). • Convert Gregg siding to double track segment milepost 1008.9 to 1013.9 (5 miles). • Double track LeGrand to Planada with crossovers in between (9 miles). • Double track milepost 1107.0 to Walnut with associated crossover and power turnout work (9 miles). • Convert Pittsburg siding to double track and extend east to milepost 1152.7 (5 miles). • Conejo drill track.

  11. Line Capacity Planning: San Joaquin DT projects • The following projects were modeled for the 25 year 79 mph plan: • Double track Guernsey - Hanford, with crossovers in between. Retains Shirley siding (6 miles). • Convert Gregg siding to double track segment milepost 1008.9 to 1013.9 (5 miles). • Double track LeGrand to Planada with crossovers in between (9 miles). • Double track milepost 1107.0 to Walnut with associated crossover and power turnout work (9 miles). • Convert Pittsburg siding to double track and extend east to milepost 1152.7 (5 miles). • Conejo drill track. • Double track Jastro – Shafter. Retains Una siding (13 miles). • Double track Angiola – Corcoran. Retains Corcoran siding (12 miles). • Double track Figarden to milepost 1008.6 (5 miles). • Double track milepost 1013.9 – Madera. Retains Madera siding (6 miles). • Double track Planada to Merced (8 miles). • Double track Escalon – Duffy (9 miles). • Double track Pittsburg – Port Chicago (8 miles). • Although not initially modeled, BNSF recommends that the following be addressed from an environmental and permitting standpoint: • In addition to the Jastro – Shafter double track, extend double track out to Wasco (7 miles). • In addition to the Gregg and Figarden double track projects, extend double track Figarden to Fresno, and double track milepost 1008.6 to 1008.9, requiring new bridge across San Joaquin river (6 miles). • Extend double track west from milepost 1090.8 to Riverbank (5 miles).

  12. Line Capacity Planning: San Joaquin DT projects • The following projects were modeled for the 5/10 year 90 mph plan: • Double track Guernsey - Hanford, with crossovers in between. Retains Shirley siding (6 miles). • Convert Gregg siding to double track segment milepost 1008.9 to 1013.9 (5 miles). • Double track LeGrand to Planada with crossovers in between (9 miles). • Double track milepost 1107.0 to Walnut with associated crossover and power turnout work (9 miles). • Convert Pittsburg siding to double track and extend east to milepost 1152.7 (5 miles). • Conejo drill track. • Double track Jastro – Una. Retains Una siding (13 miles). • Double track Planada to Merced (8 miles). • Double track Escalon – Duffy (9 miles) .

  13. Line Capacity Planning: San Joaquin DT projects • The following projects were modeled for the 25 year 90 mph plan: • Double track Guernsey - Hanford, with crossovers in between. Retains Shirley siding (6 miles). • Convert Gregg siding to double track segment milepost 1008.9 to 1013.9 (5 miles). • Double track LeGrand to Planada with crossovers in between (9 miles). • Double track milepost 1107.0 to Walnut with associated crossover and power turnout work (9 miles). • Convert Pittsburg siding to double track and extend east to milepost 1152.7 (5 miles). • Conejo drill track. • Double track Jastro – Una. Retains Una siding (13 miles). • Double track Planada to Merced (8 miles). • Double track Escalon – Duffy (9 miles). • Double track Una – Shafter (8 miles). • Wasco siding extended. • Double track Elmo – Sandrini (8 miles). • Double track Allensworth - Angiola – Corcoran. Retains Corcoran siding (22 miles). • Double track Figarden to milepost 1008.6 (5 miles). • Double track milepost 1013.9 – Madera. Retains Madera siding (6 miles). • Double track Fluhr – Ballico (11 miles). • Double track Pittsburg – Port Chicago (8 miles). • Although not initially modeled, BNSF recommends that the following be addressed from an environmental and permitting standpoint: • In addition to the Jastro – Shafter double track, extend double track out to Wasco instead of the Wasco siding (7 miles). • In addition to the Gregg and Figarden double track projects, extend double track Figarden to Fresno, and double track milepost 1008.6 to 1008.9, requiring new bridge across San Joaquin river (6 miles). • Extend double track west from milepost 1090.8 to Riverbank (5 miles).

  14. Line Capacity Planning: San Joaquin DT projects Bixler Orwood Pt. Chicago Pittsburg Sando Oakley Trull Holt Stockton Walnut Mariposa Duffy Le Grand Planada Merced Fluhr Ballico Denair MP 1087.2 MP 1090.8 Riverbank MP 1098.5 Escalon Sharon Kismet Madera Gregg Figarden Fresno Calwa Bowles Conejo Shirley Hanford Jastro Una Bakersfield Shafter Wasco Elmo Sandrini Allensworth Angiola Corcoran Guernsey Current Track structure = sidings = double track = single track

  15. Line Capacity Planning: San Joaquin DT projects Bixler Orwood Pt. Chicago Pittsburg Sando Oakley Trull Holt Stockton Walnut Mariposa Duffy Le Grand Planada Merced Fluhr Ballico Denair MP 1087.2 MP 1090.8 Riverbank MP 1098.5 Escalon Sharon Kismet Madera Gregg Figarden Fresno Calwa Bowles Conejo Shirley Hanford Jastro Una Bakersfield Shafter Wasco Elmo Sandrini Allensworth Angiola Corcoran Guernsey Potential track additions to support 5 / 10 year passenger case (79 mph trains) = sidings = double track = single track = put in to base case = added double track (5/10 year @ 79 mph)

  16. Line Capacity Planning: San Joaquin DT projects Bixler Orwood Pt. Chicago Pittsburg Sando Oakley Trull Holt Stockton Walnut Mariposa Duffy Le Grand Planada Merced Fluhr Ballico Denair MP 1087.2 MP 1090.8 Riverbank MP 1098.5 Escalon Sharon Kismet Madera Gregg Figarden Fresno Calwa Bowles Conejo Shirley Hanford Jastro Una Bakersfield Shafter Wasco Elmo Sandrini Allensworth Angiola Corcoran Guernsey = sidings = double track = single track = put in to base case = added double track (5/10 year @ 79 mph) = added double track (25 year @ 79 mph) Potential track additions to support 25 year passenger case (79 mph trains)

  17. Line Capacity Planning: San Joaquin DT projects Bixler Orwood Pt. Chicago Pittsburg Sando Oakley Trull Holt Stockton Walnut Mariposa Duffy Le Grand Planada Merced Fluhr Ballico Denair MP 1087.2 MP 1090.8 Riverbank MP 1098.5 Escalon Sharon Kismet Madera Gregg Figarden Fresno Calwa Bowles Conejo Shirley Hanford Jastro Una Bakersfield Shafter Wasco Elmo Sandrini Allensworth Angiola Corcoran Guernsey Potential track additions to support 5 / 10 year passenger case (90 mph trains) = sidings = double track = single track = put in to base case = added double track (5/10 year @ 90 mph)

  18. Line Capacity Planning: San Joaquin DT projects Bixler Orwood Pt. Chicago Pittsburg Sando Oakley Trull Holt Stockton Walnut Mariposa Duffy Le Grand Planada Merced Fluhr Ballico Denair MP 1087.2 MP 1090.8 Riverbank MP 1098.5 Escalon Sharon Kismet Madera Gregg Figarden Fresno Calwa Bowles Conejo Shirley Hanford Jastro Una Bakersfield Shafter Wasco Elmo Sandrini Allensworth Angiola Corcoran Guernsey Potential track additions to support 25 year passenger case (90 mph trains) = sidings = double track = single track = put in to base case = added double track (5/10 year @ 90 mph) = added double track (25 year @ 90 mph)

  19. Line Capacity Planning: San Joaquin DT projects

More Related