Those rails may be an old, obsolete, or incompatible section, and/ or worn too much to be worthwhile relaying anyplace else after the costs of removal and transportation to the new location are added in. Right now scrap steel is at a more nomal price - about $240/ net ton around here - so there's no great bonanza there.
But more likely is that if and when that line is ever restored to service, it is so much easier to get MOW equipment and work trains in and do their thing when there are 2 rails at about the right gage to start with. Even if the ties are almost all rotted, that's still enough to support some basic lightweight MOW equipment to first replace just a few ties at long intervals to allow the heavier and more capable MOW equipment in to replace the rest of the ties, add ballast and surface, repalce rail, etc. In other words, an existing track makes it a lot easier to 'bootstrap' your way back to a functioning rail line. But if the track is gone, then it has to be replaced either all by truck - very tough backing them up on a narrow ROW on the side of a mountain like that, or from the advancing end of a reconstructed track - which is doable but expensive and cumbersome, and depends on very specilaized equipment.
As with many things, restoration is just a lot easier to do if you have the existing, both to use as a guide and to physically support the work.
- Paul North.
Dumb move and the roadmaster/MTM in that country has pitifully few people. Want steel? scrap a locomotive.
I know this is an old thread, but I have one more question. Since there is quite a bit of steel sitting around in terms of rails, why isn't UP taking up the rails between the grade crossings since it doesn't appear that trains will be traversing it for a long time?
Lone Geep
\
Interesting topic:
As long as the UPRR is going to leave it alone. Seems like the best use for it would be to have NARCOA: http://www.narcoa.org/ to run some rail car excursions over it?
Just a thought!
So to sum it up, UP isn't taking up the rails because it would cost more than it would be worth. The mining wouldn't be enough to reopen it and it wouldn't make a good through route because there isn't a good outlet at Pueblo. Thanks for clearing this up.
No one may know what the future holds. But I think it's a pretty good bet that the TP line isn't going to be reopened for double-stack traffic. As I've mentioned in previous posts, the TP route would have to have an eastern outlet at Pueblo other than the front range route to Denver to even be useable as a through route (for intermodal or anything else). And why would UP (or BNSF) put money into reopening the TP route for double-stack traffic rather than spending the money to increase capacity on their primary intermodal routes, whch are far superior to the TP route? Mountain railroads may be photogenic, but they are operating nightmares.
Are there any special operating issues with stacks thru an area such as TP? Obviously...have great braking system. Anything else?
ed
daveklepper As I posted before, the only hope for Tennesse Pass is if double stack traffic on either the UP or the BNSF or both together reach such a point that an emergency detour route makes economic sense. I agree it does not do so now, and may not for many years. But I would not be surprised if it did occur within the lifetime of people reading this.
As I posted before, the only hope for Tennesse Pass is if double stack traffic on either the UP or the BNSF or both together reach such a point that an emergency detour route makes economic sense. I agree it does not do so now, and may not for many years. But I would not be surprised if it did occur within the lifetime of people reading this.
I agree with this general sentiment. no one knows what the future holds and I guarantee that were we all sitting around a table discussing 2011 30 years ago, we would never have guessed at all the things that have happened correctly.
The Raton Pass line and the Tennessee Pass line are not, and will not be, in the plans of BNSF.
Trackage rights over UP take care of their northern CA needs and connection to the southern Transcon is achieved through the Las Animas Jct. to Amarillo line.
They know what their greatest traffic potential is and have planned to spend their money to maximize those areas (both geographic and traffic) while 'passing' on locations and traffic with insignificant potential. The BNSF definately has a PLAN.
But note that they cannot run double-stacks over this route. They could if they could buy Tennessee Pass!
I agree that the Denver-Oakland trackage rights are most critical to BNSF's Denver area operations, especially since they pulled back from Raton Pass. Denver is the largest city between the Missouri River and the Bay Area, and they need the trackage rights to fully serve this important market. On their system map, the line also fills in an otherwise large blank spot.
http://www.bnsf.com/customers/where-can-i-ship/
I noticed also that the map indicates they utilize both the Donner Pass and Feather River routes.
YoHo1975 Aren't the Western Pacific and former SP mains across Nevada operated in a single direction. I think WP is eastbound and SP is westbound an agreement that goes back before the mergers? I thought I remember reading that somewhere.
Aren't the Western Pacific and former SP mains across Nevada operated in a single direction. I think WP is eastbound and SP is westbound an agreement that goes back before the mergers? I thought I remember reading that somewhere.
The west junction is at Weso (SP mp 420.9/WP mp 535.8), and the east junction is at Alazon (WP mp 713.6/SP mp 603.6).
Johnny
Large portions of the Western Pacific between Sacramento and Oakland are now gone aren't they and the Altamont pass is primarily commuter. So I don't think they have a choice there, but I know for a fact that their routing over the sierras is via Feather River. They had trackage rights from Bieber south already via BN ne GN and the inside Gateway. So the Feather River routing makes more sense.
I have no doubt BNSF sees no value in a movement via TP and Pueblo today. Only that such a movement is possible and perhaps at this point is the only viable through move on TP.
And I guess then that BNSF is running oakland to Denver (or probably LA to Denver via those Moffat trackage rights, but probably not beyond that. I'd assume any move to a point further east would be better off either Transcon or moving Inside Gateway to the Gorge and then east.
This is a followup to my earlier posts on the BNSF Central Corridor trackage rights.
EricSP is right - I'm wrong - about BNSF's rights between Ogden and Oakland. I checked the UP-SP merger decisions and some other sources. The primary BNSF trackage rights route is over the former SP Donner Pass line. Interestingly, BNSF also has rights over the Feather River route, but I couldn't readily determine how broad these may be (the trackage rights filings UP and BNSF made in the merger would show this, but they aren't available on-line). As an explanation (or an excuse), while I was pretty familiar with the TP line situation and with the BNSF trackage rights over the former DRGW, I never had any reason to be real familiar with BNSF's trackage rights on UP west of Ogden.
You could be right as to the Bay Area itself. But I'm pretty sure that BNSF's rights to the east are over the WP Feather River route and not over the SP Donner route.
BNSF's map shows trackage rights into the Bay Area over the former SP Sacramento Line, but not over the former WP.
http://www.bnsf.com/customers/pdf/maps/div_ca.pdf
"No soup for you!" - Yev Kassem (from Seinfeld)
YoHo1975 One more quick question. What is BNSF moving on it's traffic rights trains on moffat? what are the endpoints in other words? I assume they're moving east or northeast somewhere. If there was a move BNSF wanted to make from that line down to the Transcon, couldn't BNSF try to get rights on TP and move trains to Pueblo and then on to La Junta or even south to Albequerque? I don't pretend to know what kinda of traffic those segments sees and if there's capacity, but that would avoid the joint line. Assuming there were a train that needed to move that way. Would it be faster to move that way out of Oakland vs. the ex-ATSF routing south to Barstow and then over the Transcon?
One more quick question.
What is BNSF moving on it's traffic rights trains on moffat? what are the endpoints in other words?
I assume they're moving east or northeast somewhere.
If there was a move BNSF wanted to make from that line down to the Transcon, couldn't BNSF try to get rights on TP and move trains to Pueblo and then on to La Junta or even south to Albequerque? I don't pretend to know what kinda of traffic those segments sees and if there's capacity, but that would avoid the joint line.
Assuming there were a train that needed to move that way.
Would it be faster to move that way out of Oakland vs. the ex-ATSF routing south to Barstow and then over the Transcon?
MP173 Falcon:Great overview of the SP situation in the latter years. They were literally up against the wall at that time with that Central Corridor traffic. Who did they primarily hand off to at KC? Do you recall what kind of volume they ran on the line to KC? I have great memories of riding the Colorado Eagle to Pueblo in 1964 on that line across Kansas. At Hoisington, Ks. I recall waking up and seeing two clocks on the depot wall, an hour apart. Looking at my OG, we were due to arrive at 233am and depart at 148am. I was confused at the time and asked my dad the next morning. He explained the concept of time zones. We made pretty good time across Kansas. The 622 miles from KC to Pueblo was covered in 11:20 for an average of just under 55mph. Obviously in 1964 the track was in good condition and probably received considerable SP/RG/MoPac freight moving east/west. Was that MoPac line CTC or train orders?Ed
Falcon:Great overview of the SP situation in the latter years. They were literally up against the wall at that time with that Central Corridor traffic. Who did they primarily hand off to at KC? Do you recall what kind of volume they ran on the line to KC?
I have great memories of riding the Colorado Eagle to Pueblo in 1964 on that line across Kansas. At Hoisington, Ks. I recall waking up and seeing two clocks on the depot wall, an hour apart. Looking at my OG, we were due to arrive at 233am and depart at 148am. I was confused at the time and asked my dad the next morning. He explained the concept of time zones. We made pretty good time across Kansas. The 622 miles from KC to Pueblo was covered in 11:20 for an average of just under 55mph.
Obviously in 1964 the track was in good condition and probably received considerable SP/RG/MoPac freight moving east/west.
Was that MoPac line CTC or train orders?Ed
I don't have ready access to volume figures for the former MP Kansas line (often referred to as the "Hoisington line"). However, the operating plan included with the UP-SP merger application should show this information, although it may not separate the SP from the UP traffic using the line.
Unquestionably, the Hoisington line was in much better shape in 1964 than it was in the early 1990's. And it undoubtedly handled a lot of DRGW/MP traffic (the Pueblo connection with MP was one of DRGW's most important interchanges, and the potential loss of the friendly MP connection was the reason ICC gave DRGW trackage rights over the Hoisington line in the UP/MP merger). However, I don't think it would have handled a lot of SP/DRGW/MP traffic. In 1964, DRGW's principal western connection would have been WP, not SP. And, in 1964, SP's major connection to the east over the Central Corridor was UP (the historic "Overland Route"), not DRGW.
YoHo1975 Why run across there to go up the inside gateway when you can just run over the Northern Transcon? I could see that move being anticipated in 2007 when there looked to be big constraints across Stevens, stampede and the Gorge. But not right now. With Abo Canyon double tracked, there really isn't a strong need to divert off the Transcon given those mileages. I would have thought they were more different than that.
Why run across there to go up the inside gateway when you can just run over the Northern Transcon?
I could see that move being anticipated in 2007 when there looked to be big constraints across Stevens, stampede and the Gorge. But not right now.
With Abo Canyon double tracked, there really isn't a strong need to divert off the Transcon given those mileages. I would have thought they were more different than that.
North of Keddie, I was thinking more of potential traffic from the area Klamath Falls to Portland.
The mileage over the Moffat and WP shows the surprising circuity of those lines. The traditional CNW-UP-SP route to Oakland is 2258 miles, or better than 10% shorter. (The mileage figures are from the table in the TP article, Trains June 2003, p44.)
The MP across Kansas to Pueblo was mostly time table & train orders.
I have an old issue (1978ish) of Rail Classics magazine that has an article about this MOP line. Most coverage in it was centered around Hoisington.
Jeff
I've also wondered what traffic BNSF was moving on the Moffat trackage-rights. Chicago-Oakland via (using former names) CB&Q-DRGW-WP routes is 2521 miles. Via the all ATSF route is 2548 miles. So the Transcon is only about 1% longer, but has higher speeds and less helper districts. Does some of the trackage-rights traffic go north at Keddie, or south at Denver?
Huh, I knew that SP was diverting resources to the Sunset indicating that their norcal connection really wasn't as important, but I had no idea it was that dire.
It's an interesting view into the dominoes nature of really history in general. SP was ripe for acquisition by Rio Grande, because of the horrible financials coming out of the SFSP merger failure, but it sounds like what it would have needed to really make the TP/MP routing work was money to upgrade the system. The one thing it didn't have.
In a world where SP had the money to do the required maintenance to make the route viable, would it be a competitive route? Especially looking at the pre-2008 world levels of traffic.
Obviously, that's an alternate history question, not a question about the possibilities for TP moving forward, but interesting to me at least.
YoHo1975 Falcon48: On the other hand, the through traffic SP used to move over DRGW (much of which went via TP) is virtually all gone (except for what BNSF is handling), rerouted to other UP lines. In other words, the increased coal volume since the merger has replaced the through traffic. That's actually good - the DRGW lines are doing what they do best. OK, dumb question, when did the MP line get abandoned? How did SP route the Through traffic off of the TP line given that there was no longer a good connection at Pueblo? Also, I assume that at the time they were doing this, the UP lines were being relatively speaking underutilized? You mentioned that SP discounted this routing heavily, were they losing money on this? Obviously, SP, even after the buyout wasn't known for it awesome financials, so I could see this. Also, and I say this from a 10,000 foot railfan view, I have to assume that while the DRGW routes through Colorado could never equal the UP route through Wyoming, The Feather River route could at the same time not equal the mostly double track and shorter Donner. So coming into and out of NorCal bound for the midwest, neither railroad had a "perfect" route.
Falcon48: On the other hand, the through traffic SP used to move over DRGW (much of which went via TP) is virtually all gone (except for what BNSF is handling), rerouted to other UP lines. In other words, the increased coal volume since the merger has replaced the through traffic. That's actually good - the DRGW lines are doing what they do best.
On the other hand, the through traffic SP used to move over DRGW (much of which went via TP) is virtually all gone (except for what BNSF is handling), rerouted to other UP lines. In other words, the increased coal volume since the merger has replaced the through traffic. That's actually good - the DRGW lines are doing what they do best.
OK, dumb question, when did the MP line get abandoned?
How did SP route the Through traffic off of the TP line given that there was no longer a good connection at Pueblo? Also, I assume that at the time they were doing this, the UP lines were being relatively speaking underutilized? You mentioned that SP discounted this routing heavily, were they losing money on this?
Obviously, SP, even after the buyout wasn't known for it awesome financials, so I could see this.
Also, and I say this from a 10,000 foot railfan view, I have to assume that while the DRGW routes through Colorado could never equal the UP route through Wyoming, The Feather River route could at the same time not equal the mostly double track and shorter Donner. So coming into and out of NorCal bound for the midwest, neither railroad had a "perfect" route.
The MP line east of Pueblo was never completely abandoned, but it was "severed" as a through route by several segment abandonments (which is typically what railroads do when they stop using a through route). One of thes was the NA-Towner line, running from about 12 miles east of Pueblo to the Kansas border. This abandonment was approved in the UP-SP merger, although the state of Colorado bought it. I'm not sure it's still there, as the state's contract operators failed, and the state may have salvaged it to recover its purchase price. In any event, there were a couple of abandonments in Kansas after the merger which severed the line as a through route. Keep in mind that this was not a through route for UP before the UP-SP merger. But SP had trackage rights over it (the rights were granted to DRGW in the UP-MP merger to protect it from the loss of an important and previously friendly connection at Pueblo), and used it and the TP line as part of its Central Corridor routing.
I think that the UP Feather River route + the UP Wyoming line beats SP Donner Pass + TP line as a through route hands down, particularly after UP rehabbed the Feather River route. The TP route wasn't only handicapped by its own physical features and location, but by the relatively poor condition (for through traffic) of much of the connecting MP line in Colorado and Kansas. From UP's standpoint, it was just a branch line, and that's how they maintained it (late in its life, SP got the ability to maintain much of the line, but they were never able to rebuild the bulk of it). But the best alternative is the Donner- Wyoming route, which is what you historically had, and what you now have again.
With respect to whether the TP line was "losing" money, that depends on what question is being asked (there are all kinds of measures of financial performance that can be used to evaluate individual rail lines). I think the proper question is whether the SP was, on the whole, financially better off using the line than it would have been they shut it down (essentially the test used to evaluate abandonment decisions). The issue then becomes not how expensive the line is to operate, or how poor the route is, but whether the traffic and revenue the railroad would lose by shutting the route down vs the costs saved would make the railroad better off or worse off. SP didn't have good rerouting alternatives for much of the traffic using its Central Corridor routing (unlike a combined UP-SP, it didn't have the alternative of shifting this traffic to the UP Wyoming line). That meant that shutting down TP would have meant losing lots of this trafffic. True, there might be some traffic they could reroute over Moffat and down the front range to Pueblo and vice-versa, but that routing would be worse from a service perspective than TP (not to mention that the Moffat route couldn't handle the double stack traffic then using TP). Now, since SP's people weren't stupid (I knew a lof of them and they really weren't), they necessarily concluded, at least up to the time of the merger, that SP was better off with the TP route than without it.
However, given the death spiral SP was in, this situation was not sustainable. If you can find it, there's a fascinating filing that was made by John Gray in the UP-SP merger (I think it may have been in one of the "oversight" proceedings following the merger). Mr. Gray was a SP executive in charge of strategic planning, went to UP after the merger, and is now an executive at AAR. The filing describes the "doomsday" plans SP had developed in the event the UP merger didn't go through. I don't have a copy of it, but I distinctly recall that it called for a shutdown of the TP line and the rest of the Central Corridor route. In other words, SP had reached the point where it was better off without the line (and its traffic) than with it.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.