Home
»
Trains Magazine
»
Forums
»
General Discussion
»
BNSF vs. The Pacific N.W., Yet Another Round?

Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote]QUOTE: Originally posted by kenneo [quote]QUOTE: Originally posted by samfp1943 [quote]QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Paul, Why do you think eminent domain could not be utilized in a revival of the PCE (or a close approximation of an alternative)? [/quote] This was exactly my thought, eminent domain would be a tool used to reclaim ROW for reconstruction of the line. What about some combination of the MRL plus DM&E, a pairing that would create a number of service options to the operators? What about an electric railway operation, PRB coal for power? As to the finances, I am sure there would be cost overruns, but to an organization that is already geared to fight issues thrown up to impede their PRB line, and already veted in a long political and economic battle, they would seem to have the knowledge to go forward to the Pacific coast. And success would help to increase access to needed investment funds. Sam [/quote] Remember, the BN owns and controls the real estate, roadbed and tracks that the MRL runs on. The MRL is a lease. And, the BNSF will not permit any interchange connections to anyone other than the BNSF (except for MRL captive short lines). A new PCE could get the STB to force the BNSF to give trackage rights over the old NP main (BNSF Terry-Laurel; MRL Laurel-Sandpoint; BNSF thence West). The "Jawbone" part of the PCE is probably the most complete part of the line and may be the easiest to regian a right-of-way. Probably even all the way from Terry to Butte. From there to Seattle/Tacoma would probably require trackage rights over the NP, but if the right-of-way can be regained from St. Regis West, trackage rights probably would not be a real problem since the BN doesn't really want the old NP line all that much --- the State of Montana might be able to convince the BNSF to turn it over to a "PCE" company. [/quote] There's still the question of bottleneck gateways that could raise the cost of either trackage rights or new rails precipitously. 1. Between Avery and Marble Creek (a distance of about 10 miles) the Forest Service built a new paved highway over the ROW. This is in a narrow canyon of the St. Joe River, with a lot of private property belonging to some wealthy people who would fight a realignment on the south side of the river, leaving a possible new alignment on the north side above the highway, still kind of tricky from an engineering standpoint. 2. If option "B" is chosen, namely trackage rights over the ex-NP all the way to Spokane and beyond, then you have another bottleneck through the "Funnel" between Sandpoint and Spokane/Fish Lake, wherein UP's line diverts (and which by the way has plenty of extra capacity all the way to the old PCE ROW at Marengo). Through Spokane I don't believe there is room for another railroad even if the feds pressured BNSF to allow it. UP is already considering shifting to the BNSF line away from the ex-Spokane International line through the Spokane Valley, how could a third player fit in there? If those two bottlenecks can be gotten around (one or the other would be all you need to do), there isn't much left to block a revival (in the form of high priced lands and reroutes) until you approach Seattle/Tacoma and the high priced urban property of that locale. A third option is to relocate a new PCE further south west of Missoula, connecting Missoula to Lewiston ID wherein WATCO's ex-Camas Prairie lines operate and connect with both UP and BNSF at Ayer. BNSF runs a local from Pasco to Ayer to pick up it's share of the WATCO traffic via trackage rights over UP. If trackage rights can be had over the Stampede Pass route from Pasco to Puget Sound, and these rights further extended east to Ayer, then over WATCO's line to Lewiston, then over BG&CM to it's end of line, you have roughtly 60 miles as the crow flies to MRL near Missoula. The advantage of this routing is that the rails from Auburn all the way to Lewiston are in pretty good shape for mainline traffic and underutilized, so the only cost is whatever mitigation is required by the feds, e.g. no cost of relaying ballast and tracks over old gradient. One would then have to upgrade the branchline tracks of the BG&CM to end of line, then finally build a brand new line connecting these two points. The question then becomes.... (1) whether the cost of brand new construction of roughly 60 to 80 miles through the mountains from MRL to BG&CM, plus upgrading another 50 miles of branchline BG&CM track (combined with the trackage rights from Lewiston to Auburn) ...... is less or greater than the cost of....... (2) a new line between Avery and Marble Creek, plus the cost of relaying ballast and tracks between Avery and St. Regis, plus relaying between Marble Creek and St. Maries, plus upgrading the current tracks from St. Maries to Plummer, plus the cost of relaying ballast and tracks from Plummer to (a) at least Marengo, then via UP trackage rights to Wallula and Pasco, or (b) the ex-SP&S grade, then via the ex-SP&S grade to Pasco, and then finally trackage rights Pasco to Auburn. Both alternatives assume getting trackage rights over MRL east to at least Butte, wherein the old PCE grade would be revived as Kenneo suggests.
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag