Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
Posted this previously, but I want Murphy's response: http://news.mywebpal.com/partners/865/public/news729187.html Okay, once you get past the NIMBY angle (which all newsfolks seem to push when reporting on local rail issues), what this item is about is the fact that a regional division of UP (and BNSF as well) was wise enough to hold onto an underutilized rail line, and now it is on the threshhold of becoming a secondary main: "One of UP’s biggest bottlenecks between St. Louis/Chicago and Texas is between Rockview, located in northern Scott County, and Dexter. 'It causes a lot of congestion, a lot of dispatching maneuvering,' Peterson said. Meanwhile, the rail line extending west from Sikeston to Dexter is underutilized, he said. To address this bottleneck and better use the underutilized line, UP officials formed a deal with the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad to acquire the rail line which runs from Sikeston north to Rockview. " You will also note that the *cost* of keeping these underutilized lines is now apparently far less than the cost of trying to double track the existing main. (Comment, Mudchicken?[;)]): "Peterson said it costs $2.5 million to $3 million per mile to double track. 'Steel is becoming more and more expensive,' he explained. He added that the railroad would also need another 10 miles of right-of-way land to double track that line. As the cost for UP to take the northern route would be at least $60 million to $70 million, it would be 'a much more expensive alternative to the plan we are pursuing,' Peterson said. 'That’s why we are not pursuing the double track.' " [^]
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