Ridiculous cost of rail construction?

[erikem]

In reference to SP spending $22 million on the 78 mile Palmdale cut-off.

Railway Man

 ... and left out the CTC and most of the sidings, and ran it as a train-order operation, because it was so cash-poor already.

RWM

 

Funny things was that the SP was doing well in comparison to most other railroads at that time. Does say something of the return on investment for the industry in the 1960's (i.e. dismal).

My point in bringing that up was not to dispute the cost estimate for  the project that started this thread, but to emphasize how much costs have gone up over the years. In a similar vein, the original 75 route mile BART system came in at 1.4 billion, shudder to think how much it would cost to build now.

[blownout cylinder]

Rodney Beck

Rail, ties, switches, signals, installing a island of CTC on the IAIS dispatcher board and labor is not cheap today I all most forgot about land accuation from the land owners (labor cost include MOW departmentand TY&E you have got to have a work train for the duration a 3 member crew engineer, conductor and a brakeman) so the cost is not unreal.

Do those costs include some kind of float just in case there are wait periods, equipment breakdowns and the like? Or how do they factor that in? More nooby questions here----

[PigFarmer1]

dakotafred

I don't like the snotty, dismissive tone taken on this thread by a few of the professionals. It takes us back to the bad old days of Michael Sol and some others. If the questions and comments of us amateurs really hurt their ears, why don't they go someplace else?

I think the substance of sawtooth500's question/comment is right on. If it really costs us this kind of money for a half-mile of railroad track, it's time to call in the Chinese.

 A few years ago, I watched (out my workplace window) a BNSF crew of 6 or 7 plus a lot of expensive machines take a full week (five 8-hour days) to replace a fouled switch and 50 feet of track. It makes you wonder how we ever built the early transcontinentals with just human and animal muscle power.

Alright, I'm going to attempt to be polite even though I don't much care for the tone.  The original comment was not "right on" because it was made in ignorance.  Don't refer to something as being "ridiculous" if you're not familiar with the subject.  I think it has been made rather clear that the costs were not out of line.

Are you familiar with what the BNSF crew that you were observing was doing???  I wasn't there so I DON'T know what was going on but I certainly am familiar with the work.  Did the dispatcher give them time to do the work???  I guess you wouldn't know about that since you were sitting in your office presumably working your tail off for your employer.   Did they have all the material they needed?  I ask because management isn't always real good about getting us the materials that we need.  Perhaps one or more of the machines was down.  For all you know one of the machines could have had an FRA defect.  If you have an FRA defect that machine won't be running.  The bottom line is that you simply don't know what was going on and you had no reason to know what was going on.

Many is the time when the dispatcher and the corridor manager have told us that we simply aren't getting the track.  It's no fault of ours if we can't work.  The corridor manager is pretty much like God and if he/she say's you're not going out then you're not going out.  One time it took us THREE days to move our expensive machines fifteen miles because the dispatcher wouldn't let us have the track.  Told us there was too much train traffic. So we sat there not working for three days because the dispatcher wouldn't let us out.  Kinda hard to work if you can't get the equipment to the worksite.  I don't care how many Chinese workers you want to hire.  If you can't get the track you can't do the work.

 How about just letting us do our jobs.  If you think you can do better then put in an application.  I have no idea what you do for a living but I seriously doubt that I could do it better than you.  How about having the same respect for us.  Thank you.

[Rodney Beck]

 

Paul and other in this post I run that subdivision where the BNSF goes over the IAIS is west of the Hennepin canal the BNSF begins a climb out of he bottom that starts about 3000' west of the IAIS bridge their will have to be aprox 40' drop down to the IAIS. Here is my take on topo maps they are not all that accurate. Amtrak will have to pay for the project.

The RI/IAIS folowed the canal to get to the Quad Cities, the CMT/CB&Q took on the hill at Wyanet directly. Rail, ties, switches, signals, installing a island of CTC on the IAIS dispatcher board and labor is not cheap today I all most forgot about land accuation from the land owners (labor cost include MOW departmentand TY&E you have got to have a work train for the duration a 3 member crew engineer, conductor and a brakeman) so the cost is not unreal.

 

Rodney

[Anonymous]

So, who is paying for this project?

[dehusman]

All the money isn't for dirt or steel.  What costs a lot is the "copper', both the type that goes in wires and the type that is applied in thin layers on fiberglass boards.

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

From the

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Feasibility Report on Proposed Amtrak Service

Quad Cities-Chicago

January 7, 2008

at - http://www.qcrail.com/images/QC-Chi%20feasibility%20study.pdf 

II.A.2.ii. Proposed Construction of Connection Track

At Wyanet, just west of Princeton, the BNSF’s route is grade-separated over the Iowa Interstate’s main track and there currently is no connection track between the two lines.  To permit straightaway train movements, a connection track needs to be constructed in the northeast quadrant.  In 2001, the Illinois Department of Transportation engaged the consulting firm of Design Nine, Inc. to prepare a plan and preliminary cost estimate for this proposed connection.  The proposed design includes a crossover with powered switches between the two BNSF main tracks just east of the proposed turnout for the connection, and a turnout in the Iowa Interstate’s main track.  This design would accommodate a passenger train speed of 50 mph.  We believe the preliminary design and assumptions made are still valid and inflated to today’s prices, the total cost of this 4000-foot connection is estimated at approximately $5.6 million in 2007 dollars.  About seven acres of land would have to be acquired to accommodate the proposed connection track and it appears that there has been no commercial or residential development in the immediate area since the consultant’s prior work.  No environmental review has been conducted in the area of the proposed connection track. 

[blownout cylinder]

mmmm--How high could one go with plain fill before one needs to do some kind of support work under the fill? I'm thinking a type of trestlework with rock infill--if they even do that anymore. If they don't what is done if they need fillwork?

Also, in both sets of photos--climbing the Wyanet hill---what is the grade there?

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

Aha - good idea, Dale !    Now we got something to work with. 

Check out this photo looking northeast along the IAIS line from 1975, most likely taken from the BNSF track's fill - the caption says it is known as ''Wyanet/ Tiskilwa Hill'' - http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=301042 

This one is along the Hennepin Canal, which is a little further east, but should give an idea of the terrain and obstacles to be overcome - http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=124157 

This one - behind the train - looks a lot like what I imagine the connector site looks like.  There's even a similar undergrade bridge in the bacjground, but there's a pretty good curve, too, which is not near the site - http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=124157 

- Paul North.

 

[nanaimo73]

Paul, this photo shows the BNSF on a fill, but I couldn't tell you how close it is to the IAIS line-

http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=821623

This picture mentions in the caption that the IAIS line climbs Wyanet Hill-

http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=86468

 

Larry, well said.

[blownout cylinder]

tree68

Paul_D_North_Jr

After some thought, I believe that USGS has merely effectuated a 'soft' conversion to metric - i.e., just changed the labels, but not the contour lines themselves.

I've found that to be the case in a number of places, and that difference of 10 then corresponds to an actual difference in elevation of ~30 feet - much more believable.

Occasionally, when scrolling around an area on the topo maps on such sites you will encounter a border between "sheets" where one carries metric elevations and the other has them in feet.  Interesting.

That 10 amounts to something like 33ft---1 meter being about 3.3 feet. As for the meter/feet switching that can be somewhat annoying at times---

I've noticed some sites seem to have maps showing just contours without much in the way of elevation even---I do not know quite what's up with that---

[blownout cylinder]

tree68

Until you get into the various factors involved (as has been done, quite thoroughly, thank you), the cited price tag for a relatively short stretch of track might seem quite high - even ridiculous - to someone not familiar with construction - railroad or otherwise.  Heck - I think $30M a mile to add one lane in either direction to I-81 in Virginia seems a tad high - maybe even ridiculously so.  I'm sure someone with some experience in such work would be able to straighten me out on that.

That is what gets me in trouble though. If I assume that something is rediculous --or--even worse a direct ripoff---I shoot my mouth off and then watch what happens. But if I assume that A) I do not know diddleeboo about something and B) the old saw about innocent until proven otherwise I'll ask the question without banging on someone's skull with a cudgel. I have discovered that it does better that way than the former----

tree68

We come from a wide spectrum here - and it doesn't do anyone any good to cop an attitude at either end of that spectrum.

I try not to get into hoohaws ---- but if I have an opinion about something I'll say it---I'll just be a little more watchful of context---especially if I do not know summat

[tree68]

Paul_D_North_Jr

After some thought, I believe that USGS has merely effectuated a 'soft' conversion to metric - i.e., just changed the labels, but not the contour lines themselves.

I've found that to be the case in a number of places, and that difference of 10 then corresponds to an actual difference in elevation of ~30 feet - much more believable.

Occasionally, when scrolling around an area on the topo maps on such sites you will encounter a border between "sheets" where one carries metric elevations and the other has them in feet.  Interesting.

[tree68]

blownout cylinder

dakotafred

I don't like the snotty, dismissive tone taken on this thread by a few of the professionals. It takes us back to the bad old days of Michael Sol and some others. If the questions and comments of us amateurs really hurt their ears, why don't they go someplace else?

I'm not so sure that this is really called for---first post and being a little trollish ain't we?

If there is a question then one should be able to ask it without getting into hoohaw territory. I may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer but sheeeesh--

I'm not a newby here by any stretch of the imagination, but I tend to agree with fred.

Until you get into the various factors involved (as has been done, quite thoroughly, thank you), the cited price tag for a relatively short stretch of track might seem quite high - even ridiculous - to someone not familiar with construction - railroad or otherwise.  Heck - I think $30M a mile to add one lane in either direction to I-81 in Virginia seems a tad high - maybe even ridiculously so.  I'm sure someone with some experience in such work would be able to straighten me out on that.

We come from a wide spectrum here - and it doesn't do anyone any good to cop an attitude at either end of that spectrum.

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

MP173

  Paul:

Interesting to note they chose to build a ramp over the Rock, rather than have an interlocking tower.  That didnt seem to occur too often in the prairie land.

Great question as to "why?" 

ed 

ed, and others -

Upon my further review of the Topo maps - and contrary to my previous question - there does not appear to be a 'hump' or ramp in the BNSF line over the IAIS.  Instead, the Burlington appears to have run its line from the 'high ground' in downtown Wyanet, over this valley on a pretty decent-sized fill, and then reached equivalent high ground on the other side of the valley about 1/2 mile SW of the bridge over the IAIS.  There, it runs through a shallow cut, and then heads upgrade as it curves more westerly.  I surmise that the Rock Island just stuck with the lower 'water level' route, and there was enough elevation difference between them here to make the separated crossing reasonably practical.  As such, it might be tough to tell which one came first - either the newer Burlington built its bridge over the existing Rock, or the newer Rock paid to install a bridge in the existing Burlington.  Maybe Rodney Beck can provide more insight into this.

By the way, the on-line USGS topo maps of this area are 'pretty crappy', to use a term of art.    The generally prevailing elevations are in the 600 ft. above sea level range, per the 'Terrain' view in the Acme Mapper link that Larry provided.  However, the 'index' contour lines on the topo maps are marked-in - not printed - as '195' along the BNSF fill in this vicinity, and the IAIS line just to the east is marked as about 185 - but only 10 ft. vertically between them cannot possibly be correct.  After some thought, I believe that USGS has merely effectuated a 'soft' conversion to metric - i.e., just changed the labels, but not the contour lines themselves.  Those contour lines were probably originally printed at 5 ft. vertical intervals, which doesn't make it real easy to interpret them or correlate those 5 ft. lines with labels in 3.3+ ft. increments.  Those of you who are accustomed to using and reading topo maps might want to take a look at this and see what you think.  In the meantime, maybe Rodney's 'Mark I' eyeball and 'SOP = Seat Of Pants' technology can describe it better for us than the now-botched 'official' government document.

- Paul North.

P.S. - The 'Terrain' view in the Acme Mapper labels the stream that roughly parallels the IAIS line as 'Pond Creek'. - PDN.

[blownout cylinder]

dakotafred

I don't like the snotty, dismissive tone taken on this thread by a few of the professionals. It takes us back to the bad old days of Michael Sol and some others. If the questions and comments of us amateurs really hurt their ears, why don't they go someplace else?

I'm not so sure that this is really called for---first post and being a little trollish ain't we?

If there is a question then one should be able to ask it without getting into hoohaw territory. I may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer but sheeeesh--

[dakotafred]

I don't like the snotty, dismissive tone taken on this thread by a few of the professionals. It takes us back to the bad old days of Michael Sol and some others. If the questions and comments of us amateurs really hurt their ears, why don't they go someplace else?

I think the substance of sawtooth500's question/comment is right on. If it really costs us this kind of money for a half-mile of railroad track, it's time to call in the Chinese.

 A few years ago, I watched (out my workplace window) a BNSF crew of 6 or 7 plus a lot of expensive machines take a full week (five 8-hour days) to replace a fouled switch and 50 feet of track. It makes you wonder how we ever built the early transcontinentals with just human and animal muscle power.

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

blownout cylinder

  Would that amount of fill be compacted?

  

Yes.  Usually the 'method of measurement' and 'basis of payment' is on a 'complete in place' fill.

blownout cylinder

  Or could it be more based on the uncompacted fill? I'm thinking that if it is uncompacted the amount would be about 10-15% more? 

  

See above.  You're right about the loose fill - like on the trucks - having a slightly greater volume.  But think about where it came from - some quarry or 'borrow pit' nearby.  There, it would normally be very well compacted from millenia in that location, and about the same volume as when re-compacted in the new fill.  Actually, if measured closely there might be a couple per cent of 'swell' from the borrow pit to the fill if it was really dense in situ, or 'shrinkage' if it was not well consolidated at the source and the compaction specs were really tight and closely monitored, etc.

blownout cylinder

 And would the turnouts require another fill area? What would the incline be on something like those turnouts?

The new fill would be placed against the existing embankment to blend and taper the roadbeds into each other - kind of like an arrow point or a wedge.  So the existing embankment would mostly just get gradually wider.  If BNSF wants room for the signal bungalow and an access road alongside the length of that connecting turnout and maybe any others for an adjoining crossover, the added width along the turnout may well amount to another 'pad' a couple hundred feet long x 20 to 25 feet wide or so that's attached to the side of the existing embankment.

For that back-of-an-envelope calculation (literally !), I used a common side-slope for the fill of 2-horizontal to 1-vertical, which is around 30 degrees or so from horizontal, for the track - the turnout fills would be the same.  Other than that, I'm not sure what you mean by "incline" ?

Sensible questions from someone not in the trade, politely phrased = not a problem at all.  Hope this answers most of them.

- Paul North.

[Railway Man]

 ... and left out the CTC and most of the sidings, and ran it as a train-order operation, because it was so cash-poor already.

RWM

[erikem]

Westbusway

Arizona and California spent 22,000,000 for a 10 mile spur in the desert---Of course land is cheap and not much of a grade there.

 

If I'm not mistaken (miss-steaken?), SP spent only 22 million to build the 78 mile Palmdale cut-off. Of course this was in the 1960's - costs have gone up a "wee bit" since then.

- Erik

[blownout cylinder]

Paul_D_North_Jr

For the average fill height of 20 ft. (half of the 40 ft. stated), a typical earthwork prism would use about 45 - 50 cubic yards at say $10 = $500 per lineal foot of track = $500,000 per 1,000 ft., or $1.5 million for this 3,000 ft. or so.

Would that amount of fill be compacted?  Or could it be more based on the uncompacted fill? I'm thinking that if it is uncompacted the amount would be about 10-15% more? And would the turnouts require another fill area? What would the incline be on something like those turnouts?----I know, dumb question time from this noob

[rvos1979]

Interesting little tidbit from the November Trains, I think, was that to widen Interstate 81 from two to three lanes in the state of Virginia, they were estimating costs around 30 million a mile......

[MP173]

Paul:

Interesting to note they chose to build a ramp over the Rock, rather than have an interlocking tower.  That didnt seem to occur too often in the prairie land.

Great question as to "why?" 

ed

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

At last - more facts and less opinion.  For the average fill height of 20 ft. (half of the 40 ft. stated), a typical earthwork prism would use about 45 - 50 cubic yards at say $10 = $500 per lineal foot of track = $500,000 per 1,000 ft., or $1.5 million for this 3,000 ft. or so.

Access to the work areas was touched on above in a couple posts - but the most difficult would be the eastern side of the BNSF line, where a cross-over's turnout would most likely be located several hundred feet away from the actual connection turnout, on the opposite side of the main.  Crossing over that or getting to it from that other side would be tough, and likely expensive.

Anybody know the history and profile here ?  It seems as if the IAIS line was perhaps there first, and the CB&Q came later and so had to build up a fill with a 'hump' profile to cross over it.  Is that correct, or not ?  If not, what are the facts ?  Thanks in advance. 

- Paul North.

[Rodney Beck]

5.6 mil to consturct .7 mile of track is not over stated for where it will be located their will be a lot of dirt moving their is all most a 40' drop also you are not concidering a new control point with crossovers that could be 3-5 switches on theBNSF side of the connection not to mention 1 switch on the IAIS now lets put in the signals and the labor cost to do the work. I run on this subdivision and know where it will be placed not an easy location.

 

Rodney

[selector]

mudchicken

...as long as some folks trivialize and mock what they clearly do not understand - it's an uphill battle...

Yes, very true, Mudchicken.  I hope I came across as supporting your view with my first comment which was meant for Sawtooth500.  Word choices have a way of getting people's backs up. 

Responding with vituperation can only hope to cow a person, not teach them.  He doesn't strike me as someone easily cowed.  So as not to compound a bad situation, a more temperate response might have been to simply offer a more gentle correction/explanation.  Blustering and intemperate terms exchanged for others serves no useful purpose here unless escalation is the goal, so those exchanges are going to be discouraged.

-Crandell 

[blownout cylinder]

mudchicken

We (RWM,PDN, PigFarmer,LC, myself and others in the business) can continue to try and teach, but as long as some folks trivialize and mock what they clearly do not understand - it's an uphill battle

I, for one really appreciate the work you guys do in informing me--at least--of all manner of things. I just hope that I actually learn here!! Again, thanks for the help from one who does not always express himself well---

[mudchicken]

selector

Sawtooth500

Ya know, give me a break, I really meant absolutely no harm in my question, for a railfan who's never worked in the railroad industry and doesn't know anyone who works for a railroad I thought that was the purpose of these forums - to ask what you didn't know. It was never my intention to offend anyone, I just wanted to know, so if I have offended you, sorry.

Hello, Sawtooth500.  I happen to think that the comment to which you responded above was well over the top.... a lot of protesting too much.  Be that as it may, I think some of the 'ire' expressed in his and earlier posts can in fairness be attributed to your choice of adjectives in the title to this thread.  The word root was the noun 'ridicule', which means to heap scorn on a preposterous thing, or to make fun of something.  I'm afraid such reactions are more often borne out of ignorance, and that was relayed back to you in due course.

It might be a learning/teaching point for those looking on to consider using less judgemental language, or to avoid couching one's questions in terms that bespeak a conclusive state of mind and opinion.  Said another way, don't situate the question or observation in absolute and predefined terms unless you want some vociferous argument.  Invite instruction, knowledge, and dialogue.  Don't force it into a corner and expect a cheering section to build a platform for you.

Lighten up, folks.

-Crandell 

We (RWM,PDN, PigFarmer,LC, myself and others in the business) can continue to try and teach, but as long as some folks trivialize and mock what they clearly do not understand - it's an uphill battle.

"Choice of adjectives" only scratches the surface of the abundant mis-information problem.

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

Is that just for the track ?  Equipment ? Stations and shops ?  Catenary ?  R-O-W and property acquisitions ?