De Yong tells the Tribune he made the request to state BNSF officials a few times during meetings and conference phone calls because he thinks increased oil, coal, and intermodal shipments have decreased the railroad’s ability to ship corn, soybeans, and wheat west efficiently on the line. There has even been increased production of alternate crops in Montana, which many farmers grow in years they let their wheat fields lie fallow, thereby increasing shipment needs, he says.
“In my mind, we’ve had a major shift in the last year in BNSF’s ability to meet the needs of Montana shippers,” de Yong says.
BNSF has tried to increase its shipping capacity by adding more rail cars and double tracking 60 miles between Minot, N.D., and Glasgow, which has helped some, he says, but oil production and shipments are still increasing.
De Young says he has asked BNSF officials to consider reopening the Great Falls to Helena line to help reduce the bottleneck on the northern route. De Yong says reopening the route also would help for other reasons:
• BNSF will never be able to double track along the scenic southern border of Glacier National Park for either “physical or political reasons,” he says, since it might take blasting away part of a mountainside.
• If a major snow slide knocked oil cars from a BNSF train into the Middle Fork of the Flathead, it would take considerable time to reopen the key route, de Yong says. If that happened, those shipments could be rerouted from Shelby to the reopened Great Falls to Helena route, and then sent to Spokane and west via Montana Rail Link.
• As the Golden Triangle area north of Great Falls continues to diversify, the Great Falls to Helena route could help in shipping its products to the south. For instance, he said, Colorado brewers would be interested in Montana’s prime malting barley and there likely would be markets for the pulse crops such as peas and lentils.
The railroad’s regional public affairs director, Matt Jones, says the change is not in the works at this point.
“BNSF has no plans to reestablish service between Helena and Great Falls,” Jones says. “However, as we consider additional capacity needs, we will evaluate all of our options to determine the best economical and operational alternatives to expand capacity to accommodate increased train traffic.”
Jones says the Great Falls to Helena line has been out of service since 2000, and would require “a substantial amount of investment” to reopen, including upgrading or installing new track, sidings, bridges, signals, and telecommunications systems. BNSF has occasionally stored surplus cars along part of the route.
Jones says BNSF already connects with Montana Rail Link through its Great Falls to Laurel line, and at Sandpoint, Idaho.
“At this point the potential revenue we’d gain from reopening the Great Falls to Helena line does not justify the cost, when compared with other investments to add capacity to the northern corridor,” he says.
Havre-Great Falls-Helena makes sense to me, as a BH shareholder. Running EB grain MTs via MRL (Spokane-Helena, and on to Havre) would help. Also, completion of 2MT from Shelby, MT east to Minot, ND would help. 2MTing the KO sub would benefit all. BTW, Amtrak #7 was almost OT tonight at 'Shelberia'! The KXL pipeline won't handle the load, if it ever gets built, just a portion of it. Now, if Amtrak would bring back "The Nightcrawler" (Denver, CO – Calgary, AB)….
Rebuilding the gap in the Havre-Great Falls, MT line would be nice, too.
The Great Falls-Helena line is important to leave in place. Even if it is not restored to operation in the near future, it should be kept in place to maintain the right of way. Too often lines are torn out only to be realized later that the need is still there for future traffic. The best would be to open the line now as my pasture fence is beside the tracks and I would love to see trains running again.
BNSF won't re-open the line after they are paid by the taxpayers to do it. Remember, they didn't need the Devil's Lake line until the taxpayers footed the bill for repairs to improve Amtrak service there, only to have BNSF flood the line with their trains (on a line they "didn't need").
And Cold Train had to call it quits recently, because BNSF increased transit time from Washigton state to Chicago from 3 to 6 days.
I used to chase the Helena to Great Falls freight that ran 3,times a week some times.
Great scenery along the Missouri and during the Summer there were lots of scenic shots,
but the train averaged 10 or 12 cars on a good day. The route is right next to I-15, and trucks were hauling everything. The freight could barely cover the cost of fuel and employee salaries. Speeds rarely exceeded
20 mph and the track wasn't in great shape.
When they stopped using the route they parked empty double stack well cars. The line has been abandoned with track in place.
It would cost a fortune to replace rail, ties, ballast and repair roadbed. The idea of new uses for different loads is valid, but not cost effective. I-15 took all the loads a long time ago. It would make a great tourist RR route
but not likely to ever happen.
If BNSF isn't interested in operating it, maybe the state should buy it and find an interested operator.
Its hard to justify idle segments of trackage with active ones at capacity.
Setting aside economic reasons for opening or not opening the Great Falls to Helena route, this is one of the great scenic lines in the West, especially if you like spectacular canyons. Even without trains, it is worth a visit by photographers.
If BNSF won't open it back up, then why doesn't Montana Rail Link take control of it and expand there business south.
Since rail transportation is so crucial to Montana Ag producers, it’s really scary to know that “Montana’s top state agriculture official” (Ron de Yong) is so ignorant of Montana railroad operations.
He states in the article, “BNSF will never be able to double track along the scenic southern border of Glacier National Park for either physical or political reasons.” This is interesting, considering about half the route between Glacier Park and Belton is already two main track CTC, including the only section (Java to Summit eastbound) with a significant grade. Glacier Park Station to Summit would be relatively easy to double track, even if it was necessary to put the second main on the old right-of-way in the vicinity of Bison (site of a line relocation in the late 1960s).
Clearly, there will be portions of the Hi-Line that will be difficult to add a second main track, but such is the case on most routes, including Montana Rail Link west of Helena, which is close to being at capacity as it is, and would be even more difficult to add a second main track, considering the steep grade and curvature of the line, not to mention needing another tunnel. I find it interesting that so many assume that just because one route is having capacity issues that the alternative is not experiencing an increase in traffic and (evidently) needs no similar upgrades to handle more traffic.
Probably even more laughable is Mr. de Yong’s assertion that reopening the Great Falls-to-Helena line could be used for shipping agricultural products from Montana’s Golden Triangle, such as malting barley to Colorado. There is no more direct route than is currently available from Great Falls to Denver via BNSF. As for anything else that might route between Great Falls and Helena going “south”, such shipments would certainly be limited in that they would interchange to UP at Silver Bow.
Mr. de Yong is barking up the wrong tree anyway. BNSF has more than enough routes (even in Montana) which need infrastructure enhancement more so than Great Falls to Helena. Perhaps he would do better soliciting the help of the governor, who helped land a $4 million grant to repair a bridge on the Central Montana Railroad so the “Charlie Russell Chew-Choo” excursion train could load its passengers closer to Lewistown. If the state were to offer similar assistance to the Great Falls-to-Helena route, and Mr. de Yong was able to identify shipments that could actually use it, perhaps reopening the route could have merit.
You're right Ben. It would make the ultimate tourist train route (if someone had a couple hundred million to set it up!). Fantastically scenic, except for the proximity to I-15!
Perhaps Montana should purchase the line from BNSF then hire a designated operator to provide service.
Jim Norton stated, "Its hard to justify idle segments of trackage with active ones at capacity."
Not if the idle segments would only access other routes at capacity, as is the case with Montana Rail Link west of Helena over Mullan Pass. In addition, routing grain trains this way would take nearly twice the power needed on BNSF on Marias Pass. I wonder if Mr. de Yong would be willing to pay a supplement to ship the product via the more expensive, longer route?
Well, the state may have a valid point….however, it is still BNSF's track…so, I say, if the state of Montana wants the track re-opened, they need to show BNSF some money….you know, everything can be bought, for a price!