© AREMA 2016® 415 · Although the Midway project had some challenges involving track geometry,construction phasing, and inter-railroad relations,it benefited from its ... advantage

Relieving a Bottleneck in the Twin Cities

Authors

Dan PeltierBNSF80 44th Ave. NEMinneapolis, MN 55421(763) [email protected]

Andy InserraCanadian Pacific Railway120 South 6th StreetMinneapolis, MN 55402(612) [email protected]

Zach Hartjes, PEHDR701 Xenia Ave S, Ste 600Minneapolis, MN [email protected]

Nick Stadem, PEHDR701 Xenia Ave S, Ste 600Minneapolis, MN [email protected]

Number of Words5013

ABSTRACTRailroad network capacity is often limited by bottlenecks in terminal areas. BNSF’s primary route through the Twin Cities of Minneapolis and Saint Paul, which handles both BNSF’s and Canadian Pacific’s traffic from Chicago to the upper Midwest and Pacific Northwest, received a test of its capacity during times of high traffic. As a result, the two railroads looked for engineering solutions that could ensure greater capacity for future traffic.

Starting in 2013, the two railroads constructed several coordinated improvements along underutilized secondary routes in the Twin Cities area to handle some through traffic from the primary route. Unfortunately, these routes did not provide adequate relief at an existing bottleneck in northeast Minneapolis. In 2014, BNSF and CP began a collaborative project to address that remaining bottleneck by adding new connection tracks that minimized routing conflicts between trains.

This project had various confounding factors that occur on projects of this nature – multiple railroad stakeholders, politically sensitive urban areas with extensive non-railroad infrastructure, and constrained rights-of-way. It also had an aggressive schedule. The schedule became even more difficult to meet after the original concept met significant local and political opposition. A new concept was developed five miles away and proceeded on an accelerated timeline.

Critical factors that allowed project success include: a cooperative relationship between the two railroads at both the system and local levels; project parameters that avoided the need for permits; and careful up-front research on right-of-way and other legal issues.

© AREMA 2016® 415

INTRODUCTIONThe Twin Cities of Minneapolis and Saint Paul serve as an important rail terminal for both the Canadian Pacific Railway and the BNSF Railway. For both railroads, the Twin Cities are a gateway to the Upper Midwest and the Northern Rocky Mountains. While their lines extend out in every direction, primary traffic routes for both railroads are along a northwest-to-southeast axis.

Both railroads share significant amounts of track in the Twin Cities terminal through various trackage-rights agreements. BNSF dispatches all traffic on the shared track and owns the majority of it.

From the 1980’s through 2013, primary traffic routes were largely unchanged and provided enough capacity for both railroads’ needs. However, by 2013, as increasing traffic levels began to reveal the limitations of the existing infrastructure, both railroads began constructing improvements in the Twin Cities terminal area to deal with the added demand.

Severe cold weather in the winter of 2013 – 2014 limited capacity in the Twin Cities Terminal even as the two roads experienced a surge in volumes. By 2014, BNSF recognized that major infrastructure improvements would be needed to recover fluidity on the shared tracks and accommodate anticipated future growth. Two construction projects were planned that, together, would divert traffic onto an underutilized route and relieve pressure at the most critical bottleneck.

Unfortunately, while one of these projects proceeded smoothly, the other was blocked by the intervention of local governments. Thus, in spring of 2015, CP and BNSF were left searching for alternatives that would provide similar relief, would take advantage of the infrastructure improvements already underway, and could be implemented quickly.

The main focus of this paper is the alternative that was conceptualized, designed, and constructed in 2015 – namely, a new connection in Northeast Minneapolis between the CP and BNSF main lines and the improvement of some existing yard tracks to make this connection work smoothly. This project had several interesting challenges to overcome, most of them stemming from its location in the middle of both a dense urban neighborhood and a tangle of important railroad facilities.

416 © AREMA 2016®

OVERVIEW OF SHARED TRACKAGE OPERATIONS AND 2013 IMPROVEMENTSFigure 1 shows an overview of each company’s main routes as they existed in early 2013. Note that in general, the Canadian Pacific’s entry and exit to and from the shared track, as well as its main hump yard, are located to the south, while BNSF has most of its critical assets to the north.

Figure 1: Primary BNSF and CP Rail Routes Through Twin Cities Terminal

Figure 1 also shows that there are two routes between Minneapolis and Saint Paul, both of which provide access to the major hump yards and entry points in the Twin Cities. The Midway Sub has a short, steep grade that makes it unsuitable for many westbound trains. By contrast, the Saint Paul Sub has a longer, gentler grade. In the 1980’s, the double-track Saint Paul Sub was designated as the main route for most through trains for this reason, while the Midway Sub was reduced to a single track in some places, and relegated to a secondary role in handling through traffic. As traffic increased, the Saint Paul Sub became congested, with negative impacts on train delay and maintenance window availability.

At “35th Avenue”, the CP’s tracks cross over the BNSF on a bridge and connect to the north side of (BNSF-owned) shared tracks at a location known as “University”. With this track configuration, eastbound CP trains will cross two mainline tracks on the St Paul Sub to connect to the Midway Sub, creating conflicts between eastbound and westbound trains.

© AREMA 2016® 417

Figure 2a shows the western part of the shared tracks in more detail and representing the predominant traffic patterns prior to 2013. Although both railroads have several other railroad lines that connect together different parts of the terminal, these were not utilized for the main east / west traffic flows.

Figure 2a: CP Traffic Routings Prior to 2013

Also note in Figure 2a that the connection between the CP and BNSF at University funnels all CP trains through a single-track connection that enters the BNSF near the end of BNSF’s Northtown Yard. This connection goes through CP’s Shoreham Intermodal Yard and is limited to 10 MPH. Furthermore, there are no staging or siding tracks close by, so any traffic waiting to move on or off the connection blockedother trains and / or switching moves at Shoreham, as well one or more at-grade road crossings.

CP SHOREHAM YARD

418 © AREMA 2016®

In fall of 2013, in order to reduce growing delays at this junction, CP upgraded their own route between Saint Paul and Minneapolis (Figure 2b). This route has steep grades that make it unsuitable for most eastbound trains, but CP immediately rerouted most of their westbound trains onto it. This reduced congestion on the BNSF Saint Paul sub and allowed westbound CP trains to wait for eastbound CP trains without blocking the BNSF main line. Unfortunately, during the unusually harsh winter of 2013 – 2014, train-length restrictions led to an increase in train starts that quickly consumed the added capacity both here and on other parts of the rail network.

Figure 2b: CP Traffic Routings Beginning Late 2013

REVITALIZING THE MIDWAY SUBIn 2014 BNSF looked towards its Midway Sub as a way to further relieve traffic congestion on the Saint Paul sub. The Midway sub, which once had four main lines, was downgraded in the 1980’s to two main lines and a two-mile stretch of single main track. BNSF also built its Saint Paul Intermodal Facility on various yard and shop properties along the Midway sub. Intermodal yard operations routinely used the main line (including the single-track portion of the main line) for various switching movements.

Starting in fall of 2014, BNSF began construction on a major set of improvements to restore a second main line to the single-track portion of the Midway sub (Figure 3) and track reconfigurations in the intermodal yards to minimize the need for mainline switching. Although the Midway project had some challenges involving track geometry, construction phasing, and inter-railroad relations, it benefited from itslocation on existing BNSF property and encountered no significant delays. The upgraded Midway sub went into service in August of 2015.

© AREMA 2016® 419

Figure 3: Midway Sub Improvements, In-Service Summer 2015

Opening the Midway sub to eastbound through trains would not solve the bottleneck at University. Eastbound trains at University (including CP trains) would still have to cross two mains on the heavily-used Saint Paul Sub to reach the Midway Sub. It was calculated that, given low train speeds and long train lengths, each eastbound CP train entering the shared tracks blocked BNSF trains in both directions for approximately 20 minutes. Therefore, developing a solution to relieve congestion at University quickly became a high priority for both BNSF and CP.

THE CRYSTAL CONNECTIONIn 2014, both railroads independently looked at the 35th Ave. and University area to see if a new, conflict-free connection could be built. In particular, the CP owns an industrial track (the “Grove Track”) that runsclose to BNSF’s Grove Yard and seems to offer a natural route for a connection. However, both railroadsconcluded that such a connection was not a feasible solution, due to interference with existing yard and industry tracks in the area. Furthermore, CP trains using such a connection would block both the CP mainline and a heavily-used at-grade road crossing while waiting to get onto the shared track.

In the summer of 2014, BNSF began developing a concept to build a new connection from the CP’s Paynesville sub to the BNSF’s Monticello Subdivision (a branch line with a more direct route to the Midway sub). This connection, located five miles west of 35th Ave. at an existing diamond crossing in the western suburb of Crystal, MN, would allow eastbound CP trains to avoid University and join the eastbound traffic flow on the upgraded Midway sub (Figure 4). The Monticello Sub also offered the advantage of having a significant stretch of track with no at-grade road or rail crossings, where long CP trains could stage if necessary while waiting to enter the flow of traffic.

420 © AREMA 2016®

Figure 4: Proposed Reroute Via New Connection At Crystal

BNSF began the process of acquiring the necessary property for the connection and retained HDR to proceed with engineering work; however, communities along the Monticello Sub opposed the plan (1).Hennepin County purchased the property on which the connection would have been built (2) and local legislators sponsored a state law specifically prohibiting any railroad from using eminent domain to acquire the property.

This pre-emptive property purchase occurred before the railroads had submitted the project to the Surface Transportation Board for environmental review. The railroads never got the chance to make the case that the Crystal connection was the best long-term solution for both the railroads and the metro area in general. Furthermore, no other alternatives were evaluated and no preferred solution was identified,leaving the railroads without an obvious path forward to relieve congestion at University.

NEW CONNECTION AT 35th AVENUELacking any other ideas, BNSF revisited the possibility of connecting the CP Grove Track to the BNSF Grove Yard at 35th Ave. BNSF directed HDR to draw up conceptual plans of how to make a new connection fit, understanding that routing trains through actively-used yard tracks would cause interference with certain yard operations. Because this would be considered a modification of the existing connection in that area, it would not require STB review. It would also be constructed on railroad-owned land in an active rail yard, making it less likely to require Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act, or other Federal permitting.

CP identified three main requirements for such a connection: minimum track speeds of 40 MPH for the route its trains would take, CTC operation, and the ability to clear a 10,000 foot train off the main line while waiting for BNSF dispatchers to grant permission to enter the shared tracks.

During conceptual engineering phase, BNSF noticed an opportunity to create a staging track. BNSF owned a little-used yard track that ran from 35th Ave. and ended just east of University. This track was too short to hold a CP train and would require a 4,000 foot extension parallel to the Midway Sub. The

© AREMA 2016® 421

Midway Sub tracks along the needed extension were elevated on an embankment and grade-separated from the Minneapolis street grid, with five roadway underpass bridges built in the 1920’s and 1930’s. The embankment width was enough for the existing tracks, but the bridges appeared to have been constructed with room for an additional, never-built track.

Both railroads agreed that building a new connection and extending this industrial track was the only approach capable of providing the needed mainline capacity increase in a timely manner. The improvements would be constructed on existing railroad property and, because it was a betterment of an existing connection rather than a new connection, would not trigger major permitting requirements.

A conceptual view of the improvements and the resulting CP traffic flows are shown in Figure 5.

Figure 5: New Connecting Route at 35th Ave.

This left two main engineering challenges to solve:

1.) How to reconfigure the existing yard and industry tracks that would serve as the new connection, maximizing connection speed while minimizing impact to switching operations and yard track capacities; and,

2.) How to widen the Midway Sub embankment between bridges, to accommodate an additional staging track.

CP retained HDR to design their portion of the improvements, leaving HDR in charge of all design tasks.HDR assigned separate project managers and maintained client confidentiality as needed. In practice, having the same company designing both ends of the project was very effective and, given the mutual benefits, no conflicts or disagreements arose in the engineering work.

MAXIMIZING SPEED & THE GROVE YARDGeometrically, the connection between CP’s Paynesville subdivision and BNSF’s Midway subdivision was not ideal for matching mainline speeds. CP’s Paynesville subdivision was at a 115 degree angle relative

422 © AREMA 2016®

to BNSF and elevated due to the grade separation of CP over BNSF, right-of-way was constrained to the southwest due to an industry, and approximately 650 feet to the south the western abutment for St Anthony Parkway overpass restricted any options for shifting track alignment. Because of these restraints, existing horizontal curvature of 10°45’ could not be significantly modified. In addition to the horizontal constraints, the existing vertical profile of the track had an approximate 1.4% grade up to the CP mainline. To improve the connection profile, portions of the existing track were raised up to 5 feet above the existing top of rail to provide a modified profile with a maximum grade of 1.00% and to accommodate longer vertical curves to allow track speeds of 25 MPH. While CP’s original goal of 40 MPH track speeds proved unachievable, the new track speed of 25 MPH was considered an acceptable increase over the previous 10 MPH limit.

The BNSF track closest to the CP Grove Track was the west lead of BNSF’s similarly-named Grove Yard. The 10-track Grove Yard is used daily to switch cars for local customers, which are then brought across the main lines to Northtown Yard. The existing alignment of this west lead had three hand-throw switches that would have complicated efforts to signalize the CP’s route and would have limited CP trains to 10 MPH. Because of CP’s requirements for 25 MPH and CTC operation, the west end of the yard had to becompletely rebuilt.

The goal of the redesign was to straighten the CP’s route, separate the yard switches from the CP’s route (with a single power switch leading into the yard and all other switches located in the clear for unsignaled hand-throw operation), and minimize the loss of yard track capacity. After multiple iterations, a final design was selected that best accomplished the goal. One sacrifice of the design included the removal of a Grove Yard track (which served an active, if low-volume, customer) from the yard lead and connectiondirectly to the signaled track, resulting in two signalized turnouts into the yard.

The space available for these two turnouts plus the crossover to Northtown Yard and the new connection to the CP was quite limited. In the end, Progress Rail designed a combined #9 turnout (for the low-volume customer’s track) and #11 crossover turnout (to access Northtown Yard), facing away from each other, with the back ends of these turnouts overlapping by 41’. Their design used standard plate work and only required the addition of some longer-than-standard ties. Since such ties are widely used on the nearby hump switches, BNSF considered this to be an acceptable maintenance burden.

© AREMA 2016® 423

Figu

re 6

: Exi

stin

g C

ondi

tions

and

New

Tra

ck C

onfig

urat

ion

at G

rove

Yar

d

424 © AREMA 2016®

RIGHT-OF-WAY: ACTUAL VS. PERCEIVED One of the biggest challenges for any project located in an urban area is fitting within available or obtainable right-of-way. In this case, widening the embankment to hold the new staging track was only possible by the use of retaining walls. In one short stretch, this retaining was located only 5’ from the property line, creating challenges for the contractor, while providing minimal space at the top of the embankment.

Another section of the retaining walls was set back almost 18’ from the property line, but caused far more complications. The right-of-way extended well past the base of the embankment slope, but the owners of residential properties below had constructed improvements – parking lots, fences, patios, and in one case a garage – past the property line up to the embankment (Figure 7). Although all available records, including railroad maps and the county web site, agreed on the location of the property line, BNSF had Landform Professional Services conduct a full land survey of the relevant parcels. This survey was initiated during conceptual engineering, but was completed in parallel with the project design.

Figure 7: Residential Encroachments on BNSF Right-of-Way

© AREMA 2016® 425

Fortunately, the present property line was spelled out in deeds from the 1960’s, when the railroad sold the land to property developers. These modern deeds provided specific constructions of the property lines with reference to a City street intersection – much less ambiguous than language seen in many older railroad deeds.

Nonetheless, the adjacent landowners were not inclined to accept the railroad’s claims, nor were they in favor of constructing a retaining wall near their houses, or the removal of the brush and weeds along the slope, which they stated served as a visual and acoustic buffer from railroad operations (4). Their objections were heard by Minneapolis city officials, but with the legal ownership of the property clear under Minnesota law and the provisions of federal law allowing the railroad to construct the improvements without City permits, the City did not initially contest the project (5).

For the sake of maintaining good community relations, BNSF responded to the landowners’ complaints by planning a wooden sound barrier, to be installed on top of the retaining wall. While residents responded positively to this plan, they still opposed the construction of the wall.

During construction, the City discovered a situation that it believed gave it some leverage over the project.The plat map for that portion of the city – filed years after the railroad was built – shows a public street (7th

St. NE) extending across the railroad. This portion of 7th St. was never constructed, and in 1927, when the railroad (as required by a City ordinance) raised the track onto an embankment, a bridge over the perpendicular Lowry Ave. forever ruled out the possibility of extending 7th St. across the tracks. The City argued that it retained the public right-of-way as shown on the plat map and that constructing a retaining wall across this right-of-way required the City’s permission.

BNSF made several counter arguments, claiming that it had owned or had easement to the land before the plat map was ever drawn and had never given an easement to the City. Complicating matters somewhat was the fact that the railroad had been given land grants by the territorial legislature, but,decades after the original railroad construction was complete and the land subdivided, the railroad went back and purchased fee title to the land from people who claimed to own the City lots. Thus, an examination of the readily-available deeds suggested that the railroad had purchased the land after the subdivision occurred, while records regarding the older territorial land grants were much harder to obtain.

Believing they had the necessary rights and unable to afford delay given the accelerated schedule, BNSF chose to proceed with construction over the City’s objections. Eventually, after construction was complete, the parties reached an agreement that left the property rights unresolved, but allowed for BNSF to keep the wall as built. In exchange, BNSF agreed to construct the above-mentioned sound barrier (whose construction was also complete) and perform certain other mitigation (6).

RETAINING WALLSIn several places, the existing railroad embankment required widening to hold the extended staging track. As noted in the previous section, retaining walls were required to keep the widened embankment within the existing BNSF right-of-way. The first wall was 680 feet in length, approximately 10 feet high, andlocated between Lowry Avenue and Washington Avenue. The second wall was 354 feet in length, approximately 10 feet high, and located between Washington Avenue and 22nd Avenue. Both retaining walls were soldier pile construction using 18x157 H-piling with drilled shaft foundations. Because the longer wall was built on wider ROW and set further back from the tracks, shafts could be spaced every eight feet. For the shorter wall, located closer to the tracks, one shaft was required every six feet. In total, over 4200 feet of 36 inch diameter shafts were drilled, 143 piles and 672 precast reinforced

426 © AREMA 2016®

concrete panels installed. For aesthetic reasons, a random ashlar pattern was cast on the front face of all the precast panels and an anti-graffiti coating applied.

As noted above, to reduce the impact of existing train noise on the adjacent homes, BNSF instructed HDR to design a wooden sound barrier on top of the wall. This decision was made after the retaining walls were designed and the steel piles ordered from the mill. The achievable height of the wall was limited by the capacity of the already-designed drilled footings to withstand the additional lateral loads without exceeding deflection limits. Meyer Contracting, the contractor responsible for the wall construction as well as grading work on BNSF’s portion of the project, pointed out that for constructability reasons they were already planning to make the top part of the shafts larger than called for in the plans. HDR took advantage of that to design a wall that extended 8’ above the top of the wall, or about 5’ above top-of-rail. While this height is not great enough to block locomotive noise from reaching the upper stories of the nearby houses, it does reduce the noise experienced at ground level as a train passes by.The wood panels are held in place by relatively slender steel H-piles, each of which is welded onto to the top of a larger retaining-wall pile via a steel adapter plate (see Figure 8).

Figure 8: Concrete Panel Retaining Wall with Wooden Sound Barrier Under Construction

BRIDGES AND BRIDGE APPROACHESAs previously noted, the extended staging track crosses five bridges dating from a 1920’s and 1930’s grade separation project. BNSF structural specialists inspected the bridges in the field and reviewed the available records to determine that each of these was in fact designed for and capable of supporting an additional adjacent track.

© AREMA 2016® 427

As is commonly found on old bridges, the thickness of the ballast section on the bridge deck varies from the original design and, more importantly, from current track construction standards. The new track profile was designed to approximately match the existing tracks. In addition, while the majority of the track extension was to be constructed with concrete ties and 12” of ballast, the bridges were protected by using timber ties and a minimum of 8” of ballast. Given the tendencies for differential settlement to lead to track geometry problems in the bridge approaches, BNSF was concerned about the effects of sudden changes in ballast layer thickness at the bridge / approach interface in cases where the 12” of ballast required under concrete ties would place the top of the subballast substantially below the bridge deck. Itis also worth noting that, due to the fact that the bridges were highly skewed relative to the track, any such settlement could quickly lead to crosslevel deviations. To mitigate this concern, HDR designed 50’ transition zones, gradually raising the subballast on the approaches to the bridge to match the bridge deck elevation. Because this decreases the thickness of the ballast layer thickness and increases the loads on the subballast, the top 8” of subballast in the zone was replaced with hot mix asphalt.

The new mainline turnout at the end of the extension was also located on a bridge approach, with the frog very close to the edge of the bridge deck. When this turnout was installed, a similar asphalt transition pad was installed underneath it next to the bridge deck, to provide extra subgrade support. A movable-point frog was also installed to protect the bridge and the approach from impact loads.

ACCELERATED SCHEDULEAs explained previously, this project was considered critical to smooth operations on both railroads, especially given other investments that could not be fully leveraged without it. HDR started its design of the BNSF portion of the project at the end of spring in 2015 and on the CP portion a few months later with a goal of completing construction by the end of 2015. In order to meet this goal, the BNSF portion of the project went out for bid with 30% plans by mid-July, while the land survey was still being completed. Of three hand-picked contractors invited to bid on the grading and structural work, only Meyer Contracting was able to commit to the required schedule. Work began on August 31 and was limited to normal working hours six days a week, due to neighborhood sensitivities. Despite several significant mid-construction design changes (such as the addition of the wood sound barrier and the redesign of a short stretch of wall to accommodate a previously unknown City utility), progress was rapid and 90% of the grade was substantially ready for track laying by early November. Unfortunately, a conflict with a nearby electric line caused substantial delays in completing a short section of the retaining walls, and BNSF track crews had to work around a short missing spot in the embankment when they laid the track extension in late November. Unusually mild fall weather allowed for BNSF track construction to be complete by mid-December.

Reconstruction of CP’s Grove Track was completed during October and November in parallel with construction on the BNSF. Track work for CP required taking two customers out of service for just over a month. This project also required close coordination with a scrap yard on site to maintain access to the project at all times while not interrupting their business functions in the cramped project site. Veit & Company completed the grading work. Like BNSF, CP forces constructed their new track with minimal support from contractors. Track removal was began 11/3/15 and the first train down the Grove Track was on 12/11/15 to return customers to service.

Cutting over the new signals at 35th Ave. required a lengthy outage on all BNSF tracks, including those used by the Northstar Commuter Rail service. In the end, with signal construction lagging slightly behind schedule and concerns about peak UPS traffic, the signal cutover was deferred into the new year, with the new connection placed in service on January 16, 2016 – less than ten months after the Crystal connection proved infeasible.

428 © AREMA 2016®

IMPACT AND OBSERVATIONSThe impact of the new connection on railroad operations is difficult to quantify empirically, as its completion coincided with a downturn in freight rail traffic. The best way to judge its success is by its utilization: dispatchers now route more than three out of four eastbound CP trains onto the new connection (despite the old route still being available). It has clearly reduced conflicts and delays, as well as blocked road crossings. Whether it eliminates the capacity bottleneck at University is a question that will have to wait until traffic returns to its former level.

The speed and smoothness with which this project went from conceptual engineering to completion is not due solely to the engineering and construction teams. It also demonstrates what is possible when competing railroads recognize a common need for privately-funded infrastructure improvements. BNSF and CP both came to the project believing in the need to solve the problem in order to satisfy their customers and regulators. Issues of control, cost-sharing, or other problems common on shared-infrastructure projects did not distract from the mutual benefits to be gained.

Unfortunately, it is often not possible to develop a project in such a location in a way that pleaseseveryone. While BNSF works hard to do right by its neighbors, the focus and urgency applied by the surveyors, community relations staff, and outside legal counsel were just as critical to keeping the project moving forward, while at the same time the engineering and construction teams – including the contractor – kept a great deal of focus on supporting the efforts of the community relations and legal teams.

In the end, it turned out that projects subject to all sorts of confounding factors can, sometimes, come together quickly, with enough motivation, effort, and luck.

REFERENCES(1) Adams. Jim; Harris, Shep; Hemken, Kathi; and Murphy, Regan. “Commentary: Danger ahead on the tracks.” Minneapolis Star Tribune, Feb 22, 2015, http://www.startribune.com/danger-ahead-on-the-tracks/293068081/.

(2) Olson, Rochelle. “Hennepin County Board acts to block rail junction in Crystal.” Minneapolis Star Tribune, March 17, 2015, http://www.startribune.com/hennepin-county-board-acts-to-block-rail-junction-in-crystal/296638411/

(3) Prather, Shannon. “County land grab, new state law stand in path of Crystal rail connection.” Minneapolis Star Tribune, July 26, 2015, http://www.crystalmn.gov/proposed_cp-bnsf_freight_train_connection.php’

(4) Augustino, Joe. “BNSF track extension in NE Mpls. To ease congestion, irritate residents.” KSTP Television, August 31, 2015, http://kstp.com/article/stories/s3893763.shtml

(5) Roper, Eric. “Northeast Minneapolis neighbors surprised, angered by BNSF’s rail expansion.” Minneapolis Star Tribune, September 4, 2016, http://www.startribune.com/northeast-minneapolis-neighbors-surprised-angered-by-bnsf-s-rail-expansion/324279741/.

(6) Roper, Eric. “BNSF Railway builds sound barrier in compromise with Mpls neighbors.” Minneapolis Star Tribune, February 17, 2016, http://www.startribune.com/bnsf-railway-will-build-sound-barrier-in-compromise-with-mpls-neighbors/369057021/

© AREMA 2016® 429

LISTING OF FIGURESFigure 1 Primary BNSF and CP Rail Routes Through Twin Cities TerminalFigure 2a CP Traffic Routings Prior to 2013Figure 2b CP Traffic Routings Beginning Late 2013Figure 3 Midway Sub Improvements, In-Service Summer 2015Figure 4 Proposed Reroute Via New Connection At CrystalFigure 5 New Connecting Route at 35th Ave.Figure 6 Existing Conditions and New Track Configuration at Grove YardFigure 7 Residential Encroachments on BNSF Right-of-WayFigure 8 Concrete Panel Retaining Wall with Wooden Sound Barrier Under Construction

430 © AREMA 2016®

AR

EM

A 2

01

6 A

nn

ual

Con

fere

nce

& E

xp

osi

tion

Rel

iev

ing a

Bott

len

eck

in

th

e T

win

Cit

ies

Dan

Pel

tier

, BN

SF

Zac

h H

artj

es, PE

, HD

R

Nic

k S

tad

em, P

E, H

DR

© AREMA 2016® 431

AREMA 2016 Annual Conference & Exposition AREMA 2016 Annual Conference & Exposition

Source: http://www.dot.state.mn.us/ofrw/maps/MNRailMap.pdf


BNSF and CP Shared Track: Pre-2013


St Paul & Midway Routes


University Control Point: Pre-2013


CP Upgrades 2013


New Westbound CP Route

432 © AREMA 2016®


2013 - CP’s St Paul Sub

St Paul Sub Rail and Tie Replacement CTC and Speed Improvements

Soo Line Jct Remove existing turnouts Powered #15 turnout Speed increased from 10 MPH to 25 MPH

Mapping Source: Trains Magazine, Trackside Guide No. 5 – The Twin Cities, December 2003

Cardigan Jct Remove existing turnouts Powered #20 turnout Speed increased from 10 MPH to 25 MPH


Soo Line Junction


University Control Point: 2014


BNSF’s Midway Sub DT


Crystal Connection


Crystal Connection

© AREMA 2016® 433


Crystal Connection


Connection Meets Opposition


Older Idea For University

Connect these tracks

New LH XO





Issues:

Speed limited by curvature, turnout configuration, grades

Interference with BNSF yard ops

No staging space – CP train waiting to get onto BNSF

would block a heavily-used road crossing


Connection at the Grove Yard

BNSF

434 © AREMA 2016®


Curve and Grade Restrictions


How to Get Through Grove Yard Lead? BNSF


Pioneer 4 Extension

BNSF

NEED MINIMUM 10,000 FT


1920’s-1930’s Bridges


Embankment Not Wide Enough


Retaining Walls

© AREMA 2016® 435


Final Plan


Property – Perceived vs Actual






Sound Wall


Asphalt at Bridge Approaches

436 © AREMA 2016®


Asphalt at Bridge Approaches


Project Overview


Thank You!

© AREMA 2016® 437

Documents

© AREMA 2016® 415 · Although the Midway project had some challenges involving track geometry,construction phasing, and inter-railroad relations,it benefited from its ... advantage