DRGW San Juan Extension

[Sawtooth500]

Curious - When the San Juan Extension was abandoned in 1970, the states of CO and NM bought the segment from Chama to Antonito. Why didn't they just get the entire thing to Durango? Such a shame...

[daveklepper]

Because of limited funding and the wish to preserve the most scenic part of the route.  The scenery between Chama and Durango was beautiful and well worth seeing, but not as consistantly spectacular as Chama - Antonito.  (Rode three round-trips 1960, 61, and 62.)

This is really unspoiled unbuilt countryside, and with enough money, the line could be restored some day.   Part of the line was relatively new, built in 1961 as part of flood control dam consstruction.

[Sawtooth500]

Nice thought seeing the rails rebuilt one day...

[daveklepper]

I wonder if there is any economic reason to revive the"Chili Line" as a standard gauge connection between Antonito and Sante Fe?

[Sawtooth500]

daveklepper

I wonder if there is any economic reason to revive the"Chili Line" as a standard gauge connection between Antonito and Sante Fe?

Highly doubtful... 1. The ROW between Santa Fe and Espanola is heavily built over and 2. There is little economic activity in the Santa Fe area that warrants train access - just check out the latest issue of Trains magazine and read about the woes that Santa Fe Southern is having... Santa Fe definitely does not need another freight operator. But again, nice thought. :)

[daveklepper]

If there were economic activity, the existing short line could become a bridge carrier as well.

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

daveklepper

If there were economic activity, the existing short line could become a bridge carrier as well.

Thereby giving BNSF an unprecedented opportunity to short-haul itself.

[daveklepper]

For some movements, in periods of heavy traffic, they would be glad to do it to reduce congestion, which is not now, but has been a problem on the "joint line."

[Sawtooth500]

daveklepper

For some movements, in periods of heavy traffic, they would be glad to do it to reduce congestion, which is not now, but has been a problem on the "joint line."

Except, even assuming if they rebuilt the Chili Line, traffic would still have to come down the joint line to Walsenburg, CO to go over La Veta Pass to Alamosa, CO. By the time it gets to Walsenburg, if traffic was headed in that direction it might as well keep going till Trinidad and go over Raton pass, which at this moment has ZERO freight traffic (and I just took the Southwest Chief over the route yesterday, the freight yard at Raton was 100% empty - no sighting of a single freight car until La Junta CO).

[daveklepper]

Unless the traffic grew to the point that Tennesse Pass had to be reopened, and the route would be from Grand Junction and west to La Junta and east and south.

[Sawtooth500]

daveklepper

Unless the traffic grew to the point that Tennesse Pass had to be reopened, and the route would be from Grand Junction and west to La Junta and east and south.

And I have a feeling that the reason UP never abandoned TN pass is because of just that - UP no longer has a line going east of Pueblo. When DRGW operated UP pass they sent their trains east of Pueblo on the Mopac mainline - which UP abandoned after mergers. The line from Pueblo to La Junta is BNSF, and BNSF also has trackage rights on the Moffat Road. Now, using TN Pass would be a shortcut for BNSF - and if UP were to abandon TN pass, BNSF would have an opportunity to purchase it before the tracks were scrapped, but UP doesn't want this to happen, so they just keep TN pass in it's current state. For UP to ever use TN pass makes absolutely no sense, because once a UP train reaches Pueblo with the Mopac main gone there is no place for it to go but back up the joint line to Denver - in which case the Moffat Road makes more sense.

[daveklepper]

 Thanks for the analysis, makes sense!

[Bob-Fryml]

Union Pacific has trackage rights east and south of Pueblo on the BNSF.  The two routes cross the KCMO-El Paso "Cotton Rock" at Stratford and Dalhart, two stations located in the Texas Panhandle.  Beyond those two points I think U.P. has just haulage rights into Lubbock and Fort Worth.  Now whether those trackage and/or haulage rights are commodity restricted, I don't know.

Some U.P. unit coal trains operate through Pueblo and into Texas.  Some of that coal originates both on the Somerset Branch (near Grand Jct.) and the Moffat west of Phippsburg, Colo., and I suppose it could move via the Tennessee Pass Subdivision.  But as has been discussed elsewhere, the "Royal Gorge Route" has stiff grades requiring lots of horsepower to move trains and the track structure requires big maintenance - two economic factors that make the route undesirable.

In the last year or two I remember reading that the State of Colorado has an interest in preserving the Tennessee Pass Subdivision, but towards what purpose I don't know.    

[daveklepper]

Despite the operating expenses of Tennessee Pass, it would be restored to service if there something like a 70% or 80% increase in traffic on the Moffat and Joint LInes, simply because of the tremendous expense of increasing capacity on those lines.   I would not hold my breath for such an increase, but it may happen some day.

[diningcar]

daveklepper

Despite the operating expenses of Tennessee Pass, it would be restored to service if there something like a 70% or 80% increase in traffic on the Moffat and Joint LInes, simply because of the tremendous expense of increasing capacity on those lines.   I would not hold my breath for such an increase, but it may happen some day.

The expense to rehab the Tennessee Pass line to a condition supporting detoured traffic, like coal trains, would be huge. Perhaps like building new, W/O ROW acquisition of course. A similar plan is to rehab the former SP line west from Phoenix and the numbers are very big. Tennessee Pass would be more per mile because of the terrain.

 

[Bob-Fryml]

daveklepper

Despite the operating expenses of Tennessee Pass, it would be restored to service if there something like a 70% or 80% increase in traffic on the Moffat and Joint LInes, simply because of the tremendous expense of increasing capacity on those lines.   I would not hold my breath for such an increase, but it may happen some day. 

Restoration of the "mothballed" portions of the Tennessee Pass Subdivision are very doubtful, and here's another reason why. 

From time-to-time BNSF and UP have been in discussions with the State of Colorado about giving them the Joint Line trackage for passenger train development with both roads retaining trackage rights for serving local freight customers (including, presumably, the downtown Colorado Springs and Nixon power plants).   In exchange for this "giveaway," the railroads are asking for state assistance with building a new, lower-grade, north-south line maybe 50-to-100 miles east of I-25.  I've heard Sterling, Colo. mentioned as a possible north terminal for the new line and somewhere around LaJunta anchoring the south end.  

[daveklepper]

I hope that plan goes into effect for the good of the economy of the area.