Wondering if some of the "railbanking" confusion has to deal with STB "Discontinuance of Service" issues where a line is not abandoned, but is sitting out in the weeds a-la UP's Tennessee Pass line or NS' old CR/PC/NYC-P&E line in Illinois between Mansfield and Bloomington along I-74 (Peoria to Urbana line)
Is "Discontinuance of Service" the same as being listed o/s?
James
In the February issue of Trains we have a map of the Penn Central in 1969. What is apparent is Penn Central is overbuilt with duplicating lines like St Louis to Indianapolis among others. How we got from this map to the creation of Conrail is legal, political, and historical story. Part of this is that cute political animal known as the ICC. I think it is important to know the why and the wherefore and Messrs Richards,Metzger,and Van Hattem did that without using the words liberal or conservative or a US President.
Anyone who follows the Passenger or Transit forums knows that politics lurks just below the surface. The big buzz word is Federal funding and state subsidies. It is tough not to cross the boundary sometimes.Are we crossing the line if we say that a politican supports favorable railroad legislation or as happened in Don Phillips column that a certain politican is a railfan ?
I feel that this issue posed it this thread did cross the line because it asked a political question and sought a political conclusion.
Sometimes. Other times it is "embargoed" or lost its common carrier status for multiple reasons. Your Missouri Central/ CRIP main falls into the discontinuance of service catagory west of Union MO plus MODOT did a really stupid stunt on US-65(?) over by Sedalia which effectively cut the line in two without permission.
The Butler Is "Discontinuance of Service" the same as being listed o/s?
mudchicken Wondering if some of the "railbanking" confusion has to deal with STB "Discontinuance of Service" issues where a line is not abandoned, but is sitting out in the weeds a-la UP's Tennessee Pass line or NS' old CR/PC/NYC-P&E line in Illinois between Mansfield and Bloomington along I-74 (Peoria to Urbana line)
Is that like the scenario being played out on Stampede pass out west? Last I heard there was no traffic going over Stampede but that it was being sent over Stevens instead---or was it the other way 'round---
Any argument carried far enough will end up in Semantics--Hartz's law of rhetoric Emerald. Leemer and Southern The route of the Sceptre Express Barry
I just started my blog site...more stuff to come...
http://modeltrainswithmusic.blogspot.ca/
Stampede is running and back in BNSF's hands since the late 90's..... When it was in Washington Central's hands, Cle Elum over the hill to almost Kent was embargoed and almost discontinued due to a washout.
Railway Man BT CPSO 266 Gas companies are looking to railroads to aid in the drilling. The only problem is the rail industries flexibility. The railroads are focusing on intercity intermodal movements and a focus on perfecting their steel interstates. I have no idea what you are talking about. Could you explain? RWM
BT CPSO 266 Gas companies are looking to railroads to aid in the drilling. The only problem is the rail industries flexibility. The railroads are focusing on intercity intermodal movements and a focus on perfecting their steel interstates.
Gas companies are looking to railroads to aid in the drilling. The only problem is the rail industries flexibility.
The railroads are focusing on intercity intermodal movements and a focus on perfecting their steel interstates.
I have no idea what you are talking about. Could you explain?
RWM
mudchicken Stampede is running and back in BNSF's hands since the late 90's..... When it was in Washington Central's hands, Cle Elum over the hill to almost Kent was embargoed and almost discontinued due to a washout.
That explains that then---I saw on another forum recently that there seemed to be something messing it up again and that somehow Steven's Pass was thrown in there. One of the two was reported to have some traffic being rerouted or somesuch----AACH!!--whatever
mudchickenNS' old CR/PC/NYC-P&E line in Illinois between Mansfield and Bloomington along I-74 (Peoria to Urbana line)
I remember that line going behind the dump I lived in in Urbana as an undergrad. It had night trains back then (late 60's). I heard somewhere a chartered train brought the West Point football team there in 1959. Is anything left of it?
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
In Champaign-Urbana closest to the school, the NS uses a rail line that is the cobbled together combination of the remnants of the Wabash and P&E parallel rights of way on one main track that is 105# and 112# jointed with poor allignment. Both railroads were relatively narrow in R/W width.
Anyone else notice that our original poster hasn't been back on this thread?
mudchickenremnants of the Wabash and P&E parallel rights of way on one main track that is 105# and 112# jointed with poor allignment
The C-U area used to be great railfanning back in the late 60's: IC, IT, P&E and C&EI and NKP not too far away. I had forgotten about the Wabash, but never saw their engines over in Urbana. But the ROW did parallel Rt. 47 and saw the Bluebird once or twice.
TomDiehlAnyone else notice that our original poster hasn't been back on this thread?
Railway Man Convicted One I'm sure I will end up hating myself for opening my big mouth without having my own source at arms reach, but I have a vague memory of reading a source that claimed that the Cloverleaf was a line that was strategically dismantled by the acquiring Class 1 to assure no one would pop up and compete with their nearly parallel former Wabash. This was done despite active protests from line side shippers that wished to continue using the line. This was before the regulated era? I wasn't looking back more than about 50 years in time. Prior to the regulated era many interesting things happened. If it was during the N&W acquisitions, then I disbelieve the source. Lots of small shippers complain during abandonments. If you can get them to be honest, their expectation is that their service is either a "right" or "should be subsidized by large shippers somewhere else." Again, no railroad will walk willingly away from a business opportunity that pays its costs. Railroads don't necessarily even have to turn a profit on the opportunity because it can generate system efficiencies that generate the profit. However, there are many cases where the line doesn't generate enough traffic to cover its costs, but still has a few small shippers on it who lose their rail service. It leads to the question of whether the many should pay for the misfortune of a few. RWM RWM
Convicted One I'm sure I will end up hating myself for opening my big mouth without having my own source at arms reach, but I have a vague memory of reading a source that claimed that the Cloverleaf was a line that was strategically dismantled by the acquiring Class 1 to assure no one would pop up and compete with their nearly parallel former Wabash. This was done despite active protests from line side shippers that wished to continue using the line.
I'm sure I will end up hating myself for opening my big mouth without having my own source at arms reach, but I have a vague memory of reading a source that claimed that the Cloverleaf was a line that was strategically dismantled by the acquiring Class 1 to assure no one would pop up and compete with their nearly parallel former Wabash. This was done despite active protests from line side shippers that wished to continue using the line.
This was before the regulated era? I wasn't looking back more than about 50 years in time. Prior to the regulated era many interesting things happened.
If it was during the N&W acquisitions, then I disbelieve the source. Lots of small shippers complain during abandonments. If you can get them to be honest, their expectation is that their service is either a "right" or "should be subsidized by large shippers somewhere else." Again, no railroad will walk willingly away from a business opportunity that pays its costs. Railroads don't necessarily even have to turn a profit on the opportunity because it can generate system efficiencies that generate the profit. However, there are many cases where the line doesn't generate enough traffic to cover its costs, but still has a few small shippers on it who lose their rail service. It leads to the question of whether the many should pay for the misfortune of a few.
I believe the "strategic severance" of the Clover Leaf/Nickle Platte line was a little more complex than that, Convicted One. The initial discontinuance of through-train service was wrought by a fire on a fairly large wooden bridge (just northeast of Metcaff, Illinois I seem to remeber). Once the line was severed via fire, N&W claimed that there was no reason to undergo the expense to rebuild the bridge, and so beganeth the dismantling of the south western brance of the Clover Leaf.
It was clearly arson that started the fire. Of course, shippers/conspiracy theorists claimed the fire was set by the N&W (I am pretty sure that the line was N&W at that time, rather than Wabash) in order to facilitate abandonment proceedings and not allow a potential competitor to use the Clover Leaf.
Of course, I don't have any idea wheather the black-helicopter believers (thanks for giving me yet another great term RWM) are right or wrong on this one. However, interestingly, the way I learned of the bridge fire, in 1992ish, NS wanted to build a spur to a landfill near Litchfield, Illinois. A building was in the way of NS' desired spur, and was basically blocking the multi-million dollar deal. The building burned as a result of arson a week later. Tragically, a volunteer fire fighter was either killed or severely injured (I can't remember which) in the attempt to fight the fire. Of course, people blamed NS for the fire fighter, and cited the burning of the bridge as NS' history of starting fires to achieve its end (I am still surprised NS did not sue the paper for the defamatory inuendo on that one, other than the fact that it was judgment proof).
At the time, I more or less believed that NS/N&W was responsible for both fires. Now, as an attorney, there is no way I believe that NS has such temerity, as the risk/reward for such criminal activity for a non-judgment proof corporation simply is not worth the risk. Also, it is noteworthy that NS eventually passed on the landfill deal and did not build the spur.
In any event, the initial severance of the Clover Leaf line was from this bridge fire, rather than a straight abandonment.
Gabe
P.S. RWM, the reason I am copying you on this one is, I seem to remember an individual with unequalled knowledge of the railroad industry and whom I have very high respect for once told me at a University of Depaul rail confernce that there was a Missouri Pacific line that was abandoned more or less to keep it from falling into the hands of a competitor. Of course, I am not contending that this disproves the claim that railroads do not abandon lines for such reasons, but I am wondering whether the MoPac line (that I believe saw SP freight, or vice versa) was some kind of exception that proves the rule.
If a rail line is converted to a trail, there is no need to rip up the tracks.
Just put 3" of asphalt or concrete over the ties. Allow the flanges to clear the rails.
In an emergency the trains can detour back over the "abandoned" rail lines.
Andrew
Watch my videos on-line at https://www.youtube.com/user/AndrewNeilFalconer
The only place asphalt or concrete belongs is under the ballast. No railroader worth his salt is going to consent to rrunning for miles on that type of scenario.
Andrew Falconer If a rail line is converted to a trail, there is no need to rip up the tracks. Just put 3" of asphalt or concrete over the ties. Allow the flanges to clear the rails. In an emergency the trains can detour back over the "abandoned" rail lines. Andrew
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
OK--My brain went into spasm mode----
The track that I was thinking about was the BNSF line on the Snoqualmie Pass. There were sections in/out of service(?) that are being dealt with and the one section that I caught recently was that the state of Washington recently had extended some kind of an agreement to sometime in July of 2010 for something to be done between Ellenburg and Lind. So now what?
cx500 Convicted One Railwayman's explanation that at abandonment anyone may purchase a defunct line at cost is certainly intriguing, but I have to suspect that in many instances - railroads have gone out of their way to prevent potential competitors from picking up valuable corridors There is certainly an appearance in some cases that this strategy has in fact been reality. Incremental abandonment effectively prevents anyone else taking over and I suspect it has been so used. First of all abandon say 30 miles in the middle of the line. There is no way that that can become a viable operation on its own, and the rails disappear. Then shorten one or both stubs by another 15 miles; again completely unviable for any other operator. Finally the rest get abandoned. A short line or regional might have been able to succeed with the entire line, perhaps developing new local business, connecting parts of their local empire, or to a new interchange. But it would be foolish for them to buy up the portions as they came up for abandonment since there would be no possible return on the investment until the whole route was available, at best many years in the future and possibly never. The above is a hypothetical case, but I have seen some instances in Canada that resembled this approach more than a little. The old rules under the ICC and other state (and Canadian) agencies made it very difficult for the railroads to get out of money losing lines. That all too often led to bankruptcy of a railroad; we are well rid of that rigid and confiscatory regulatory regime. On the other hand I can see value for some control to discourage incremental abandonment, perhaps by requiring an interval, say 10 years, before the next portion can be abandoned. Usually the entire route has no role in the long term strategy of a Class 1. This would encourage them to make it available as whole and give the line a better chance of survival under a local operator. John
Convicted One Railwayman's explanation that at abandonment anyone may purchase a defunct line at cost is certainly intriguing, but I have to suspect that in many instances - railroads have gone out of their way to prevent potential competitors from picking up valuable corridors
Railwayman's explanation that at abandonment anyone may purchase a defunct line at cost is certainly intriguing, but I have to suspect that in many instances - railroads have gone out of their way to prevent potential competitors from picking up valuable corridors
There is certainly an appearance in some cases that this strategy has in fact been reality. Incremental abandonment effectively prevents anyone else taking over and I suspect it has been so used.
First of all abandon say 30 miles in the middle of the line. There is no way that that can become a viable operation on its own, and the rails disappear. Then shorten one or both stubs by another 15 miles; again completely unviable for any other operator. Finally the rest get abandoned. A short line or regional might have been able to succeed with the entire line, perhaps developing new local business, connecting parts of their local empire, or to a new interchange. But it would be foolish for them to buy up the portions as they came up for abandonment since there would be no possible return on the investment until the whole route was available, at best many years in the future and possibly never.
The above is a hypothetical case, but I have seen some instances in Canada that resembled this approach more than a little. The old rules under the ICC and other state (and Canadian) agencies made it very difficult for the railroads to get out of money losing lines. That all too often led to bankruptcy of a railroad; we are well rid of that rigid and confiscatory regulatory regime.
On the other hand I can see value for some control to discourage incremental abandonment, perhaps by requiring an interval, say 10 years, before the next portion can be abandoned. Usually the entire route has no role in the long term strategy of a Class 1. This would encourage them to make it available as whole and give the line a better chance of survival under a local operator.
John
I've been involved in close to a hundred rail abandonments. "Incremental abandonment" may look good as a conspiracy theory, but it doesn't match reality. If you look at the actual economics, there's no way you can make a line more "abandonable" by abandoning a money losing segment of a longer line. It's the other way around. If the railroad's end game is to abandon the entire line, it's better from a regulatory perspective to treat it as a single line. The reason railroads abandon segments of longer lines is because they see the remaining segments as potentially viable, at least for the short term.
With respect to "rails to trails", I doubt if any railroads do trail deals as a way to preserve the ROW for future rail reactivation. If a railroad wants to preserve a ROW for potential reactiveation, it does a "discontinuance" (for example, Tennessee Pass). From a railroad's standpoint, a trail deal is normally a convenient way of liquidating a right of way for which the railroad has no use.
gabe A few points:(2) Greyhounds, I 50% agree with you. However, I think there are two lines that should not have been abandoned--and I think there are a lot of people in Chicago who agree with me that the North Shore was a tragic loss and would be extremely useful to have today. Gabe
A few points:(2) Greyhounds, I 50% agree with you. However, I think there are two lines that should not have been abandoned--and I think there are a lot of people in Chicago who agree with me that the North Shore was a tragic loss and would be extremely useful to have today.
Gabe:- Concerning the late, great, Chicago, North Shore & Milwaukee, emotionally I have to agree with you. Everytime my travels take me from Waukegan to North Chicago, I have to detour along all of those side streets and back alleys to inspect what was once a great interurban right-of-way, and by extension my favorite railroad. To this day I can never make that journey without getting a little misty-eyed.
But in the end the North Shore Line's competition wasn't just the modernizing, air conditioned commuter trains operated by the CNW and MILW, but the motorist who abandoned the North Shore for the Edens Expressway, competing toll roads that lead northwards out of Chicago, and the connecting freeways into Milwaukee. If taxpayer financed operating subsidies and capital grants would have been available exclusively to the North Shore in 1962, I seriously doubt Ben Heineman would have been as enthusiastic about improving comuter services and equipment along the Kenosha Subdivision as he was.
Now let's entertain a dream. What was essentially the Shore Line Route of the C.N.S.& M. could be resurrected fairly easily and at less cost than one might think.
How, you ask?
An amusing fantasy, no?
During the late 1960s or early '70s Trains editor David P. Morgan commented quite vigorously about The Milwaukee Road's attempts to abandon two money-losing branchlines in northwestern South Dakota. The longer of the two lines connected with the Puget Sound Extension a few miles west of Mobridge and extended to Faith. The other line branched from this one and ran to Isabell(?). If I recall correctly, the upshot of Mr. Morgan's argument for abandonment centered around the U.S. Constitutional question of the taking of private property - in this case the railroad stockholder's equity and profits - without fair and just compensation.
Also, if I recall correctly, the case surrounding the abandonment of these two branchlines led to the development of an I.C.C. formula that effectively said that a branchline had to generate so many revenue loads per route mile annually in order to be considered economically viable.
QUESTION: Does anyone recall what that I.C.C. formula was?
During the 19th century period of railway expansion, the real money was made in building lines, not operating trains. Once the construction of a branchline between "Nowhere" and "West Podunk" was completed, operating trains may have been an afterthought. But as expressed elsewhere in this thread, as long as there were no paved roads, automobiles, or trucks to provide competition, somehow the branch could be made to pay.
In today's world, Class-1-to-branchline spinoffs don't necessarily mean that the branchline is unprofitable. The spinoff may have occurred because the branch has become a seasonal, one commodity piece of railroad and because it will need significant upgrades to track structure in the future. Such upgrades would include heavier rail, crosstie renewals, and the replacement of aging trestles that can barely handle today's 132-to-157 ton freight cars. Spending money for those upgrades, particularly if they're going to cover a declining traffic base, could mean the difference between profitability and a losing proposition.
If the future of the line looks marginal, spin it off to "Ma & Pa" (and I don't mean the Maryland & Pennsylvania Railroad). Let Ma & Pa operate it, and when the line becomes too decrepit, let Ma & Pa either abandon it or ask for a government handout for rehabilitation. Politics being what they are today, it's a whole lot easier for a shortline operator to get a taxpayer subsidy to keep a marginally useful line open than a big, bad, old, "robber-baron driven," "bottomless-well-of-money" Class 1.
After many years of foolishness by the ICC they settled on allowing the railroad abandoning a line to account for its "opportunity costs", At the C&NW in the late 1970s our oppurtuinity cost was equal to about 6% of the lines liquidation value. It was a very low hurdle to appease ag. shippers who didn't want to lose rail service.
mudchickenRailway Man BT CPSO 266 Gas companies are looking to railroads to aid in the drilling. The only problem is the rail industries flexibility. The railroads are focusing on intercity intermodal movements and a focus on perfecting their steel interstates. I have no idea what you are talking about. Could you explain? RWM Any chance that this was somehow twisted in some convoluted way from the pipeline industry's whining and bawling about having to play by the railroad's rules every time they show up at a proposed pipeline crossing at the last minute and totally clueless?
It's interesting to note that both the west end and the east end of the Cloverleaf were eventually abandoned and/or dismembered as a result of bridge catastrophes. The east end of the Cloverleaf ceased as a through route after September, 1968, when a load failed to clear a bridge over the Auglaize River at Dupont, OH, causing damage to the structure. Some said that the N&W did this purposely, too, to speed up the process of ending the through route.
The east end of the Cloverleaf, east of Frankfort, IN, was never used as a mainline like the west end was after 1933, when the NKP rerouted traffic.
The Cloverleaf, as most know, was built as a narrow gauge railroad, had a heavy, twisting grade out of Cayuga, IN, was dark-territory (unsignalled) railroad for most of its length, and no route into St. Louis proper. It was doomed from the start of the N&W/NKP/WAB unification.
Bob-Fryml gabe A few points:(2) Greyhounds, I 50% agree with you. However, I think there are two lines that should not have been abandoned--and I think there are a lot of people in Chicago who agree with me that the North Shore was a tragic loss and would be extremely useful to have today. Gabe Now let's entertain a dream. What was essentially the Shore Line Route of the C.N.S.& M. could be resurrected fairly easily and at less cost than one might think. How, you ask? Build a short, multi-billion dollar connection between the CTA's Howard St. terminal and the Kenosha Sub. - remember, this would be a State of Illinois government project (hence the outrageous price tag). Hang wire all the way to Milwaukee! An amusing fantasy, no?
I think Gabe is right too. My bad in leaving out the North Shore.
But I disagree with the connection between the "L" and the Kenosha Sub. Do it in Evanston where the lines are virtually side by side. Those North Shore (the place, not the railroad.) commuters would love to get off their tains closer their work on the east side the Loop and on Michigan Avenue.
'Course they'd all want the rest of us to pay for it. And bein' it's Illinois, by the time everyone was paid their customary fee there wouldn't be enough money left to buy a shovel.
bobwilcox After many years of foolishness by the ICC they settled on allowing the railroad abandoning a line to account for its "opportunity costs", At the C&NW in the late 1970s our oppurtuinity cost was equal to about 6% of the lines liquidation value. It was a very low hurdle to appease ag. shippers who didn't want to lose rail service.
The ICC never allowed lines to be abandoned based solely on "opportunity costs" ( ie., the return the railroad could have earned by reinvesting the net liquidation value of a rail line) unless the abandonment was unopposed. In contested abandonments, the ICC always required that there be an actual operating loss.
Bob-Fryml During the late 1960s or early '70s Trains editor David P. Morgan commented quite vigorously about The Milwaukee Road's attempts to abandon two money-losing branchlines in northwestern South Dakota. The longer of the two lines connected with the Puget Sound Extension a few miles west of Mobridge and extended to Faith. The other line branched from this one and ran to Isabell(?). If I recall correctly, the upshot of Mr. Morgan's argument for abandonment centered around the U.S. Constitutional question of the taking of private property - in this case the railroad stockholder's equity and profits - without fair and just compensation. Also, if I recall correctly, the case surrounding the abandonment of these two branchlines led to the development of an I.C.C. formula that effectively said that a branchline had to generate so many revenue loads per route mile annually in order to be considered economically viable. QUESTION: Does anyone recall what that I.C.C. formula was?
The constitutional issue is something called a "regulatory taking". The issue is the extent to which the government can require a business to provide a money losing service without having to pay compensation. The basic principal is that the government can do so as long as the enterprise as a whole is profitable, but cannot do so if the company as a whole is unprofitable.
With respect to comments about railroads abandoning rail lines to "keep them out of the hands of a competitor", this isn't a viable strategy. Under the "offer of financial assistance" provisions of the 1980 Staggers Act, a rail line approved for abandonment is available for sale to a person proposing to continue rail service for "net liquidation value". If a railroad believes that a competitor might be interested in a rail line and wants to keep the line out of the competitor's hands the very last thing it would do is file for abandonment.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.