I hope that plan goes into effect for the good of the economy of the area.
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.
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.
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.
Thanks for the analysis, makes sense!
daveklepperUnless 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.
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.
daveklepperFor 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."
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."
daveklepper If there were economic activity, the existing short line could become a bridge carrier as well.
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.
daveklepperI wonder if there is any economic reason to revive the"Chili Line" as a standard gauge connection between Antonito and Sante Fe?
I wonder if there is any economic reason to revive the"Chili Line" as a standard gauge connection between Antonito and Sante Fe?
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.
Login, or register today to interact in our online community, comment on articles, receive our newsletter, manage your account online and more!
Get the Classic Trains twice-monthly newsletter