I don't doubt that the state of South Dakota will fight abandonment tooth and nail. But what justification does a state have anymore, to force a railroad continue operating what may become, or already is, a non profitable line? In the end, I picture CP Rail telling S.D. to put their money where their mouth is, and purchase the line for the state. In fact, I think that's how DM&E got started in the first place. What's the significance of Tracy, Minnesota being the cut-off point on the east end?
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Murphy Siding Boyd Murphy Siding Boyd- The answer would be a lack of traffic now, and a lack of any forseeable traffic in the future. The traffic on the far west end is bentonite, cement and wood chips. From Rapid City going east, for the first 200 or so miles, the traffic is....nothing. One you get east of the Missouri River, there is some grain hauling, in competition with the BNSF. The parallel line of the Milwaukee Road was abandonded 30+ years ago for the most part, for the same lack of traffic. So what other RR lines parallel the DM&E in SD? So if and when some of the line is pulled up there must be other lines to get bulk freight from Wyoming to parts east. Another thing to think of is if they put a stop to fracking and there is a resurgence of the use of coal for power plants. BNSF has the former ilwaukke Road transcon, that runs east-west, up by the SD/ND border. Up and BNSF have lines that run east-west through the middle of Nebraska. With the exception of the cement plant in Rapid City, and the bentonite plant in Colony Wyoming, about 70 miles northwest, there is no traffic to haul in western S.D. that can't be shipped by truck. Those same BNSF and UP lines handle all the Wyoming freight (mostly coal) without a problem. If the coal usage pendulum swings back the other way, UP and BNSF already have the capacity. In short, there is not enough current or future traffic to support much of a line east of Rapid City. The line north-south from Colony to Nebraska with probably be able to support itself, but not much imfrastructure improvement..
Boyd Murphy Siding Boyd- The answer would be a lack of traffic now, and a lack of any forseeable traffic in the future. The traffic on the far west end is bentonite, cement and wood chips. From Rapid City going east, for the first 200 or so miles, the traffic is....nothing. One you get east of the Missouri River, there is some grain hauling, in competition with the BNSF. The parallel line of the Milwaukee Road was abandonded 30+ years ago for the most part, for the same lack of traffic. So what other RR lines parallel the DM&E in SD? So if and when some of the line is pulled up there must be other lines to get bulk freight from Wyoming to parts east. Another thing to think of is if they put a stop to fracking and there is a resurgence of the use of coal for power plants.
Murphy Siding Boyd- The answer would be a lack of traffic now, and a lack of any forseeable traffic in the future. The traffic on the far west end is bentonite, cement and wood chips. From Rapid City going east, for the first 200 or so miles, the traffic is....nothing. One you get east of the Missouri River, there is some grain hauling, in competition with the BNSF. The parallel line of the Milwaukee Road was abandonded 30+ years ago for the most part, for the same lack of traffic.
Boyd- The answer would be a lack of traffic now, and a lack of any forseeable traffic in the future. The traffic on the far west end is bentonite, cement and wood chips. From Rapid City going east, for the first 200 or so miles, the traffic is....nothing. One you get east of the Missouri River, there is some grain hauling, in competition with the BNSF. The parallel line of the Milwaukee Road was abandonded 30+ years ago for the most part, for the same lack of traffic.
So what other RR lines parallel the DM&E in SD? So if and when some of the line is pulled up there must be other lines to get bulk freight from Wyoming to parts east. Another thing to think of is if they put a stop to fracking and there is a resurgence of the use of coal for power plants.
I doubt that the state of South Dakota will allow any abandonment of track from Rapid City eastward. They will fight that tooth and nails.
Boyd Another thing to think of is if they put a stop to fracking and there is a resurgence of the use of coal for power plants.
Another thing to think of is if they put a stop to fracking and there is a resurgence of the use of coal for power plants.
This statement seems to support the myth that the project to build into the coalfields had merit to begin with. This is not the case. Never did, never will. Probably only a third of the coal trains dispatched by UP and BNSF even go near someplace where an expanded CP/DM&E could compete, such as Wisconsin and interchange at Chicago. But UP and BNSF ship lots of coal to places like Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Texas, Arizona, Oklahoma, Missouri, Kansas, Southern Illinois, Colorado, Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia where CP doesn't go or whose route would be so circuitous to be uncompetitive. And then even among the routes where CP might have been able to compete, this would assume that they could sufficiently undercut BNSF and UP in price to wrestle the business away, and all the while be making sufficient profit to pay back their loan(s).
My guess it that it's politically incorrect to publicly and blatantly state that the plans of a previous management were simply a boondoggle, so it's not done. The mere fact that no private or public funding could be attained is verification enough.
It's time to stop lamenting that this thing will never be built because it shouldn't have even gotten as far as it did in creating many false hopes.
Mark Meyer
Boyd Abandoned? Why? When I hear abandonment I think of our country that will always grow and will need that line in the future,, and why not leave the line there intact.
Abandoned? Why? When I hear abandonment I think of our country that will always grow and will need that line in the future,, and why not leave the line there intact.
Look at the situation, you have Rapid City as the core of the area, but I can't see what it offers people for major population growth. Second it is now relatively isolated from the main avenues of commerce, it has an Interstate Highway and that is about it. The railroads peter out just a little to the west blocked by the Black Hills. The DM&E's planned coal line into the PRB would have passed to the south in order to avoid climbing over, or tunneling through the Black Hills. Right now rail traffic into or out of the area, and it is mainly out, is no where near profitable enough to support upgrading the line to the east. And even if you upgraded the line to the east the only visible potential traffic is Bakken related, and that can be better served by either the former MILW mainline or the former NP mainline, Currently wells in South Dakota are producing about 5 Mb/d. Compare that to North Dakota which is now producing about 723 Mb/d. of Crude Oil or Montana which is producing about 60 Mb/d/
Modeling the "Fargo Area Rapid Transit" in O scale 3 rail.
jeffhergert I imagine that the decision of about half the power plants served (don't remember the numbers) by the DM&E/IC&E to stop using coal played a part in the decision not to build. I seem to recall the Mayo Clinic pointing that fact out some time back when opposing the projected coal traffic. I must say, I am confused a bit. We have some saying building the line would've just diluted rates going to other established railroads (UP & BNSF). Isn't that what competition is supposed to do? I can understand arguments saying it's bad for the railroads as a whole, Iowa is a prime example as it was overbuilt at one time. It could have even impacted me as we handle coal trains that maybe they might have taken. Still, for those who usually espouse letting the market place govern, it seems a bit hypocritical. It's almost like saying, "Competition is good when I can upset your apple cart, but bad if it scatters my apples all over the ground." Jeff
I must say, I am confused a bit. We have some saying building the line would've just diluted rates going to other established railroads (UP & BNSF). Isn't that what competition is supposed to do? I can understand arguments saying it's bad for the railroads as a whole, Iowa is a prime example as it was overbuilt at one time. It could have even impacted me as we handle coal trains that maybe they might have taken. Still, for those who usually espouse letting the market place govern, it seems a bit hypocritical. It's almost like saying, "Competition is good when I can upset your apple cart, but bad if it scatters my apples all over the ground."
Jeff
- Paul North.
The DM&E hasn't moved any woodchips from western SD for about 10 years now. The 60 odd miles between Rapid City and Wall offer very little in the way of potential traffic, but Wall, along with Phillip and Midland do ship a fair amount of grain, mostly wheat. These wheat shipments are usually tied to the harvest and are, for the most part, seasonal. Some of this wheat is shipped as far east as Buffalo, NY.
Matt
beaulieu Victrola1 If it is not worth while to crash the Powder River Basin for coal, what about the Bakken oil fields? Would any current none players try buying and building their way into the oil fields? The current western tip of the DM&E at Colony, WY is closer to the Bakken Oil Fields than any point on the PRB line would be. CP has announced that the west end of the DM&E will be sold as the only significant customers are at the far tip 360 miles from the point that CP intends to keep. The west end of the DM&E is also connected to the BNSF at Crawford, NE. Look for any buyer to keep that connection and the line to the east to be abandoned. CP already is a major player in the Bakken from points on the Soo Line further north in North Dakota.
Victrola1 If it is not worth while to crash the Powder River Basin for coal, what about the Bakken oil fields? Would any current none players try buying and building their way into the oil fields?
If it is not worth while to crash the Powder River Basin for coal, what about the Bakken oil fields? Would any current none players try buying and building their way into the oil fields?
The current western tip of the DM&E at Colony, WY is closer to the Bakken Oil Fields than any point on the PRB line would be. CP has announced that the west end of the DM&E will be sold as the only significant customers are at the far tip 360 miles from the point that CP intends to keep. The west end of the DM&E is also connected to the BNSF at Crawford, NE. Look for any buyer to keep that connection and the line to the east to be abandoned. CP already is a major player in the Bakken from points on the Soo Line further north in North Dakota.
Yes I agree that adding a third railroad for the purpose of adding competition is a faulty concept in a free market economy.
Now don't make me get all futuremodal on you.... A long story short: One side, OK-really only futuremodal, thought that the PRB needed a third railroad, because having only BNSF and UP competing there wasn't enough competition A third railroad would force those naughty, old railroads from getting rich. (I know- two, competing railroads would surely provide competition, but not in futuremodal's world.) The other side, was made up of two trains of thought. Some thought that Uncle Sam shouldn't be asked to guarantee the loans for DM&E to go into the PRB. Most, however, including me, didn't feel that DM&E had a snowball's chance in heck of making it work anyway. Had DM&E gotten the loans, with or without Uncle Sam, they would have had an expensive, brand new infrastructure to compete with two, older, established railroads operating on existing tracks with lower overhead costs. And they'd have to do it at reduced rates, in order to get the business anyway. Competition is good. The whole DM&E PRB deal was not good, as it would not have been competitive. Imagine what would happen, if they had done the project. With the way the economy went, i's conceivable, that they could have driven the golden spike on Monday, and filed for bankruptsy on Tuesday.
Bucyrus I don’t know what futuremodal knew that you did not know, but I would say that the future of coal from the perspective of then and now could not be more different. Same with the future of oil…
I don’t know what futuremodal knew that you did not know, but I would say that the future of coal from the perspective of then and now could not be more different. Same with the future of oil…
I imagine that the decision of about half the power plants served (don't remember the numbers) by the DM&E/IC&E to stop using coal played a part in the decision not to build. I seem to recall the Mayo Clinic pointing that fact out some time back when opposing the projected coal traffic.
CSSHEGEWISCH As of right now, the market for steam coal is down, so CP may have decided it's not worth the time and money to crash the Powder River Basin. Those of us forum members with some seniority can imagine what "futuremodal" might be thinking right now.
As of right now, the market for steam coal is down, so CP may have decided it's not worth the time and money to crash the Powder River Basin. Those of us forum members with some seniority can imagine what "futuremodal" might be thinking right now.
Raise your hand, if you didn't see this coming. Good. Now, put your hand down, so you don't feel foolish.
The story is out that the Canadian Pacific will not build into the Powder River Basin coal fields.
Is king coal not what it was?
Will the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, MN be happy?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.