Trains.com

FRED FRAILEY'S CONCERNS AND OURS CONCERNIG THE RIO GRANDE MAIN LINE

4054 views
20 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 20,096 posts
FRED FRAILEY'S CONCERNS AND OURS CONCERNIG THE RIO GRANDE MAIN LINE
Posted by daveklepper on Thursday, May 26, 2016 8:48 AM

Apparently, according to the June Issue, we need not worry for the next fifteen years, since there is a shuttle train four times a week delivering nuclear material to a burial site near the juction with the Creek Subdivision.  This program is intended to contiue for another fifteen years and must be a quite profitable movement for the UP.  Very good news for those wanting Amrak's California Zephyr to contue delighting scenery viewers. 

  • Member since
    March 2016
  • From: Burbank IL (near Clearing)
  • 13,540 posts
Posted by CSSHEGEWISCH on Thursday, May 26, 2016 10:12 AM

This is starting to look like the ex-PRR main before Amtrak discontinued the "Three Rivers".  It becomes a glorified branch line operation with strategically located sidings to get everything out of the way when the passenger train is scheduled.

The daily commute is part of everyday life but I get two rides a day out of it. Paul
  • Member since
    February 2004
  • 223 posts
Posted by MarknLisa on Thursday, May 26, 2016 10:16 AM

Today there is a UP business train titled 'Engineering' traveling up the line via Helper UT to Bond CO. Then on to CSJunction [not sure where that is] then to Cheyenne.

  • Member since
    May 2004
  • From: Valparaiso, In
  • 5,921 posts
Posted by MP173 on Thursday, May 26, 2016 10:25 AM

What is a typical daily train count on the line these days?  Was out there last summer and it didnt seem very busy.

 

Ed

  • Member since
    August 2005
  • From: At the Crossroads of the West
  • 11,013 posts
Posted by Deggesty on Thursday, May 26, 2016 10:49 AM

MarknLisa

Today there is a UP business train titled 'Engineering' traveling up the line via Helper UT to Bond CO. Then on to CSJunction [not sure where that is] then to Cheyenne.

 

CS Jct. may be what SPV calls "C&S Jct," on the former D&SL It still has to get over to the UP, which I see as a move involving backing over the Belt Line (which SPV calls "DRWY"--Denver Railway) from Utah Jct. to the UP's line up to Cheyenne. If the DRWY has not been surfaced in the last year, there is going to be some interesting rocking of the cars. 

Johnny

  • Member since
    October 2014
  • 10 posts
Posted by BEN BACHMAN on Thursday, May 26, 2016 11:02 AM

Unfortunately, the movement of uranium tailings from Moab to Brendel, which were recently cut back to twice a week, perhaps temporarily, do not depend on a connection with Denver, as long as the route to the Salt Lake City area remains intact. On the bright side, there is always the possibility that the potash mine at the south end of the Cane Creek Sub could ramp up production so that more than one train a week would be required. That was the hope when the line was built in 1962. It hasn't happened yet, but the future holds many surprises. I do note, however, that Intrepid Potash has recently scaled back operations at another mine in the West.

  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 20,096 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Thursday, May 26, 2016 1:01 PM

According to the June issue, there is one UP Manifest (probably better called a peddler, since it would handle any and all local traffic) each way plus the CZ plus an occasional, unspeidified frequency, BNSF train.  Plus the four-days-a-week radioactive shuttle.

  • Member since
    October 2003
  • 7,968 posts
Posted by K. P. Harrier on Thursday, May 26, 2016 9:19 PM

Ben Bachman (5-26):

Your current TRAINS piece (June 2016, pp. 48-55) has some of the coolest and eye catching photos that has appear in the magazine in years!  Great work, Ben!

Out of curiosity, what do you photo-shoot in, Ben, JPG, TIFF, RAW or something else?  Thanks.

daveklepper (5-26):

You, and Ben (above) paint a bleak picture of continued ex-D&RGW route use.  As most know the BNSF obtained rights Oakland to Salt Lake City and over the D&RGW to Denver with the UP-SP merger.  It is unknown how few know, however, the BNSF trains are manned by UP crews, at least on the western part, and it is probably the same way on the eastern Denver end.  BNSF wouldn’t do that if the route was a big money maker for them.

Thus, it wouldn’t surprise me if UP tries to mothball the line as Tennessee Pass and the Phoenix Line west of Phoenix were done to them.  But, the California Zephyr is the monkey wrench, as with the Southwest Chief in Kansas and over Raton Pass.  Taxpayers are keeping the Southwest Chief route open, and now it is just a matter of time before the D&RGW will likely suffer the same fate.  It simply is too costly to keep a line of several hundred miles open for a few trains (including Amtrak).  Somehow it envision Mr. Bachman’s cool photos will become collector’s items, commanding high prices!

Best,

K.P.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- K.P.’s absolute “theorem” from early, early childhood that he has seen over and over and over again: Those that CAUSE a problem in the first place will act the most violently if questioned or exposed.

  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 20,096 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Friday, May 27, 2016 1:45 AM

Again, the radioactive trains are  profitable for the UP and will keep the line for the next 15 years.   After that, hopefuly during the 15 years the financing will be found for a tourist oriented short line.

  • Member since
    June 2009
  • From: Dallas, TX
  • 6,952 posts
Posted by CMStPnP on Friday, May 27, 2016 8:00 AM

daveklepper

Again, the radioactive trains are  profitable for the UP and will keep the line for the next 15 years.   After that, hopefuly during the 15 years the financing will be found for a tourist oriented short line.

Also, not mentioned is the Ski Train which Amtrak is trying to make it's own operation.

  • Member since
    October 2014
  • 1,139 posts
Posted by Gramp on Friday, May 27, 2016 8:32 AM

Would UP be required (or have the right) to operate the Cal. Zephyr via Cheyenne with the Rio Grande route being downgraded?

  • Member since
    February 2004
  • 223 posts
Posted by MarknLisa on Friday, May 27, 2016 11:12 AM

daveklepper

Again, the radioactive trains are  profitable for the UP and will keep the line for the next 15 years.   After that, hopefuly during the 15 years the financing will be found for a tourist oriented short line.

 

Hello Dave, I'm not all that familiar with the operations of the uranium tailings train.  From what I understand it runs from near Moab to Brendel on the Potash branch.  How does this train preserve the section of the CZ route between Brendel and the Denver Metro?

I'm thinking maybe if coal & other mineral traffic in CO slows to a trickle, they'd keep the line west of Bond open and close it east of Bond to the Denver outskirts. 

 

  • Member since
    July 2010
  • From: Hotchkiss, Colorado
  • 294 posts
Posted by steve24944 on Friday, May 27, 2016 11:40 AM

I have made the round trip from Grand Jct Colorado - Green River over Solider Summit to Salt Lake City five times since January.  I see maybe 1 or 2 trains each time, sometimes 3, but not heavy rail traffic you would think to see with the double track from Helper to Provo.  The trains vary from Utah Railroad and UP Coal drags and UP and BNSF mixed freight.  I was able to catch the Eastbound Zeypher Leaving Grand Jct last friday.   There are a lot of empty coal hoppers stored on the sidings between Grand Jct and Price.   The UP has been upgrading signals for quite a few years now.  Looks like most of Solider Summit is done, The single track from Grand Jct to Price has had new signals in place for 2 years now ( with the heads turned ) but the old signals still in use.  Last week I saw UP crews installing the communication masts.  The Union Pacific is spending a lot of money along this route.

Steve

  • Member since
    October 2014
  • 10 posts
Posted by BEN BACHMAN on Friday, May 27, 2016 12:07 PM

It is true that the prospects for the former Rio Grande mainline across Colorado and Utah are far from bright, but I don't think we should write the obituary just yet. Grand Junction is the largest metro area in western Colorado and politicians will promote continued rail service of some sort. In addition, while coal is on the way down, there are other mineral and energy resources in the ground that could be extracted. Oil shale in the Book Cliffs, for example. Plus oil from the Uinta Basin, which will start to flow again once prices recover. Yes, Americans care about climate change, but we want to keep driving our cars, too. Then there are the uranium tailings from Moab. This operation, paid for by the federal government, could possibily continue if the Cane Creek Sub was isolated from the rest of the U.S. rail system (as the Deseret Power Railway in northeastern Utah-western Colorado is), but it would be a lot easier with a connection to the outside world. As for the photos in "Red Rock Rails," thanks for the comments. They were all shot in the RAW format.

  • Member since
    September 2011
  • 6,449 posts
Posted by MidlandMike on Friday, May 27, 2016 10:04 PM

I think an important question, is why does BNSF maintain trackage rights over the ex-Rio Grande and west to the Bay Area?  CHI-SFO is only 50 miles longer by BNSF's own southern Transcon/Central Valley route, which is better and faster.  It seems that to them it might be important to have a presence in the Central Corridor, perhaps to counter UP's dominance in that lane.  UP was forced to grant them the trackage rights.  Some have assumed that if UP wants to close the Moffat Route,  BNSF will simply be moved over to UP's Sherman Hill main line.  I don't assume that at all.  It's all in how the agreement was written.  I would not be surprised if UP was smart enough to specify that the Moffat was their trackage rights, and if UP did not have need to maintain the route any longer, BNSF would have to maintain it to preserve their rights.  The most likely scenario I see in that case is for UP to lease the line to Genesee & Wyoming, which already has trackage rights Ogden-Grand Junction, and keep BNSF on this seemingly less advantageous line.

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Denver / La Junta
  • 10,820 posts
Posted by mudchicken on Saturday, May 28, 2016 3:04 PM

MidlandMike

I think an important question, is why does BNSF maintain trackage rights over the ex-Rio Grande and west to the Bay Area?  CHI-SFO is only 50 miles longer by BNSF's own southern Transcon/Central Valley route, which is better and faster.  It seems that to them it might be important to have a presence in the Central Corridor, perhaps to counter UP's dominance in that lane.  UP was forced to grant them the trackage rights.  Some have assumed that if UP wants to close the Moffat Route,  BNSF will simply be moved over to UP's Sherman Hill main line.  I don't assume that at all.  It's all in how the agreement was written.  I would not be surprised if UP was smart enough to specify that the Moffat was their trackage rights, and if UP did not have need to maintain the route any longer, BNSF would have to maintain it to preserve their rights.  The most likely scenario I see in that case is for UP to lease the line to Genesee & Wyoming, which already has trackage rights Ogden-Grand Junction, and keep BNSF on this seemingly less advantageous line.

 

MM: BNSF predecessor CB&Q has rights on the line (but not all of it), ironically going back to the Gore Canyon War between 1905 and 1906 and the DNWP/ CB&Q (Colorado Railway)/D&RGW agreements. BNSF is also picking-up and setting out at Parachute (Soda Ash) and a few other key places where it exercised some unwritten rights. Better efforts might be directed towards sniffing out the source of the next traffic surge.

I don't think the line is in any great jeopardy. The to be expected ups and downs will happen. The line will soldier on and it still has value as a relief valve.

Mudchicken Nothing is worth taking the risk of losing a life over. Come home tonight in the same condition that you left home this morning in. Safety begins with ME.... cinscocom-west
  • Member since
    August 2005
  • From: At the Crossroads of the West
  • 11,013 posts
Posted by Deggesty on Saturday, May 28, 2016 3:34 PM

Quite interesting, MC, particularly concerning the  ancient trackage rights that date from more than a hundred years ago. In my travels (not many of them) between here and Denver in my early years here, I never saw a BN train on the Rio Grande--and when I see one now, it is almost a memorable incident.

I doubt that the UP really wants a passenger train between Speer and East Riverdale (4.0 miles from Ogden), where there is a connection to the LA&SL. Except for two or three very short stretches, the line has ACS--and I doubt that Amtrak has many, if any, engines that are so equipped.Whenever the California Zephyr is detoured across Wyoming, not only are there UP pilots on board, but a UP engine is on the point. I am not sure, but I believe that an ACS-less engine must be operated as though it were in dark territory, just as in double track ABS territory a train running against the current of traffic is limited to the speeds allowed in dark territory..

 

Johnny

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Denver / La Junta
  • 10,820 posts
Posted by mudchicken on Saturday, May 28, 2016 4:47 PM

The ironies are many on the Moffat Line and through Glenwood Canyon if you ever start to dig into it. The big irony at the top was DNWP & CB&Q (Colorado Railway) killing off Union Pacific (UP&WC) in Gore Canyon when UP tried to backhandly dam Gore Canyon with a hydro-electric plant to kill the upstart DNW&P. Even TR with his big stick got involved.

Mudchicken Nothing is worth taking the risk of losing a life over. Come home tonight in the same condition that you left home this morning in. Safety begins with ME.... cinscocom-west
  • Member since
    October 2006
  • From: Allentown, PA
  • 9,810 posts
Posted by Paul_D_North_Jr on Saturday, May 28, 2016 8:32 PM

Off Topic And Willliam Ackman - with his CP - NS merger attempt - thought he was fit to play in the big leagues with these guys.  Laugh

"This Fascinating Railroad Business" (title of 1943 book by Robert Selph Henry of the AAR)
  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,292 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Saturday, May 28, 2016 10:08 PM

Paul_D_North_Jr

Off Topic And Willliam Ackman - with his CP - NS merger attempt - thought he was fit to play in the big leagues with these guys.  Laugh

Ackman may have known money!  He didn't understand geography.

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 20,096 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Sunday, May 29, 2016 8:28 AM

If you check carloadings, I think you will find there is enough business Grand Junction - Denver and connections to keep that line in freight service indeifinitely, and the only threat to the CZ is the added maintenance expense for passenger operation, not closure of the line.  It was the portion of the line west of Grand Junction, as far as Utah Junction, that historically was the weaker part, saved for a long time by the extensive thru freight service, partnered first wirh WP and then with SP.  And this part of the line is well-saved by the Uranium trains.  I think the UP has decided to keep the whole shebang in the interests of future business, which is possible.   After the Uranium train stops runing, then they will look and see how jmuch business has been developed.  And the question will be what standards should be  maintained, not continiued oiperaiton or closure of the line. My guess is that if the traffic is there, the existing standards will be maintianed, and that if not, communities will be interested enoiugh to see the daily CZ continued.  Expecially since it is daily, not like the three-times-a-week each way beloved RGZ.   I rode the line 32 times, but twice only Denver - Grand Junction and return, because of the Thistle avalanch. Four trips were Amtrak, two the original CZ, two the "California Service Chicago - St. Lake City train, and 24 the RGZ.   (I have to thank the Mormons for paying for about half these trips, and the airlines for charging much less NY - Denver than NY - SltLCy.)   My older sister Lillian Klepper Katzman lived in Denver at the time.   And she and Alice and Leanord Bernstein became good friends.

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy