Gramp,
I like rail trails, I really do. There is a very popular one near where I live and another possible one in the works. I just LOVE riding my bicycle on those on a nice day!
However, some critics have said that if the need to return the trail to rail service should ever revive, the trail proponents would fight that tooth and nail. That's happening right now here in Indiana. A group wants to restore rail service over a proposed rail trail and the trail advocates are fighting it tooth and nail.
Not sure now if the rails are still intact in that case or not. I think so.
Regards,
Fred M. Cain
Fun video found on one of the links.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mfun9t31cE
If you were not aware of or expecting this and you were in a tunnel, this might up your heart rate a bit.
Fred M Cain Gramp, I like rail trails, I really do. There is a very popular one near where I live and another possible one in the works. I just LOVE riding my bicycle on those on a nice day! However, some critics have said that if the need to return the trail to rail service should ever revive, the trail proponents would fight that tooth and nail. That's happening right now here in Indiana. A group wants to restore rail service over a proposed rail trail and the trail advocates are fighting it tooth and nail. Not sure now if the rails are still intact in that case or not. I think so. Regards, Fred M. Cain
Electroliner 1935 Fun video found on one of the links. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mfun9t31cE If you were not aware of or expecting this and you were in a tunnel, this might up your heart rate a bit.
I don't know exactly when these scenes were shot, but these images clearly demonstrate that it would not be difficult to relay track through this section of line at least.
The viaduct is clearly in desparate need of a good paint job and my best guess is that it would probably need some repair work.
I don't know how much of the line looks like this but my point is that it would NOT be as difficult as building an entirely new road from scratch as was done in 1909.
It has been my conviction all along that this is most definitely possible. What's lacking is the will to do it.
FMC
Gabe, If the old "Southeastern" intrest you I might be of some help,I spent 33yrs operating trains on that territory.I can be accessed @ lrausch3135@gmail.com.Be glad to assist.
It's not only the will that may be lacking, the money would also be lacking since rebuilding the PCE would hardly serve "the public convenience and necessity", to borrow a phrase used in ICC determinations.
CSSHEGEWISCH It's not only the will that may be lacking, the money would also be lacking since rebuilding the PCE would hardly serve "the public convenience and necessity", to borrow a phrase used in ICC determinations.
Nah. I have to stand by my statement. It's the WILL that's lacking. Doesn't the will or the motivation to do this have to come before we can figure out how to finance it? If the people and businesses from Montana wanted it bad enough then they might be able to find a way to finance it. Personally, I'd like to see some kind of combination of state, federal and private funds.
Backshop Correct. Like I stated previously, if capacity is constrained, it would be cheaper to use the money to expand the capacity of currently operating routes.
Correct. Like I stated previously, if capacity is constrained, it would be cheaper to use the money to expand the capacity of currently operating routes.
.
I see we are back to the double posts again.
Fred M Cain CSSHEGEWISCH It's not only the will that may be lacking, the money would also be lacking since rebuilding the PCE would hardly serve "the public convenience and necessity" ... Nah. I have to stand by my statement. It's the WILL that's lacking. Doesn't the will or the motivation to do this have to come before we can figure out how to finance it?
CSSHEGEWISCH It's not only the will that may be lacking, the money would also be lacking since rebuilding the PCE would hardly serve "the public convenience and necessity" ...
It's not only the will that may be lacking, the money would also be lacking since rebuilding the PCE would hardly serve "the public convenience and necessity" ...
Nah. I have to stand by my statement. It's the WILL that's lacking. Doesn't the will or the motivation to do this have to come before we can figure out how to finance it?
Before the WILL there has to be a WHY. Behind the 'Build It and They Will Come" is the presupposition that you establish enough 'they' to justify it. Consider Mr. Ham's Ark as a cautionary example. And I doubt anything you can establish via an enthusiast Web site, no matter how compellingly crafted, has even his level of 'unrestricted' access to construction funds.
While I think Todd Jones and the other 'usual suspects' have laid out a compelling case for what should have been done with a non-weasel-lawyer-led CMStP&P in the '60s and '70s, I also think very little of the actual competitive advantage the Milwaukee could offer in the early 1970s is actually achievable today. One major difference is that the rate advantages under Government regulation 'went away' after Staggers, which made much of the eastern gateway redundant; another is that most of the Eastern carriers to which the CTH&SE assets gave access have been 'rationalized' out of existence. A key requirement for 'modern' service would be avoidance of Chicago-area bottlenecking, particularly unpredictable delay -- is there any route, whether ex-Monon or via the Egyptian line, that provides that, or even the promise of that, today?
Meanwhile, the only real strategic 'niche' I see for a rebuilt PCE is fast intermodal bridge traffic ... and have you considered the cost per mile to rebuild the appropriate subgrade and then place track (DC and MC can help you there, and advise on the right kind of top-down TLM)? With, of course, the additional joy that you have to complete the track, the signaling, the operations training ... before you can run one complete train or establish effective service. I doubt you can get this out of some combination of regionals just interested in what floats little Balkanized boats.
Where is your detailed feasibility plan, with numbers? The T1 Trust had that before anyone 'outside' really considered them more than a wishful-thinking fan dream...
A key point about the T1 Trust is that it compellingly demonstrated that it 'knew' where to find the necessary information, could also find the industrial knowledge to engage in actual construction and operation, and obtained -- sometimes at considerable effort -- "buy-in" from people who disagreed with or disparaged the whole premise of the idea. This for a project involving no more than about $20-30 million (when finally completed at the anticipated date) and which has proven marketing and other interest value.
I'm almost sorry I found out about the coast-to-coast powered-bicycle rail trail effort, because that's a far better use of the PCE main and surviving 'improvements' than another PSR-hobbled large MRL-style regional competing for a slice of the bridge pie. Heck, even I could use it, and the promise of achievable sustained high speed from an electric bicycle or similar vehicle makes it likely that a route-66-like culture would build up around developed traffic on it, something with far more distinctive bang-for-the-buck than any piddling adventure trail those peabrains in the Adirondacks could agitate for, and with true national significance, perhaps equal to that of the transcontinental railroad in the first place.
Overmod Before the WILL there has to be a WHY. Behind the 'Build It and They Will Come" is the presupposition that you establish enough 'they' to justify it. <SNIP> Co
Before the WILL there has to be a WHY. Behind the 'Build It and They Will Come" is the presupposition that you establish enough 'they' to justify it. <SNIP> Co
Why?
Well, I feel like I already provided the “why” but to reiterate in the cause of clarity,
1. A rebuilt Milwaukee Pacific Sound Extension (PSE) would increase transcontinental shipping competition and could end up causing shipping rates to fall which would in turn benefit consumers.
2. A possible side effect from the above could result in an increase in the rail market share taken from trucks. That could save taxpayers money on highway maintenance
3. A rebuilt PSE would return rail freight service to local communities that lost it when the Milwaukee management walked away from it. This might prove to be one of the best selling points.
4. Although it’s extremely unlikely to ever happen in our lifetimes, a rebuilt PSE might have some passenger carrying potential. I know that Amtrak is moving in the other direction right now but that could change in the future with a different government in Washington. There has already been some interest in the State of Washington in developing a new east-west corridor across the central part of the state although those plans (now in their infancy) would probably use the ex-NP line or the SP&S. But a rebuilt PSE would not be as circuitous and could serve the Ellensburg area.
And, finally, there is your idea of a faster transcontinental intermodal route. That is also a good idea.
Much of what I have said so far is only my opinion. I have no “detailed feasibility plan with numbers”. If I were ever to do a website it would be a “feeler” to see how much interest would be out there, if any. If there were an interested party or parties out there wanting to see this done, then they would need to do the studies later – I have no ability to do studies like that.
As for the disparaging “built it and they will come”, you know, all investments in infrastructure have a certain element of that in them. Many infrastructure projects were built with the future in mind not just the present. The building of the Interstate Highway system was a little bit like that.
Although I would just love to see the PSE rebuilt, I guess, realistically, that is most unlikely to ever happen. I think it’s a dirty shame that it was removed in the first place. But there again, not all Milwaukee Road fans are in agreement there. There seems to be two conflicting viewpoints as to the original value that the line offered with both sides rather passionate about it.
Fred, just to debate one of your points--How would rebuilding the PCE lower shipping rates? The billions and billions of dollars lent by the banks to repay it would have to be repaid. How are you going to do that by cutting rates? Would you lend money for this project if you were CEO of a bank who has to answer to shareholders? Banks are in business to make money, not to do "good works for society".
Backshop,
Yes, excellent point there. That is true. The cost of any loan would have to be recovered out of necessity by freight rates whether it would be a bank loan or the sale of bonds to investors. Some of the project might be able to be financed through the sale of equities but there would be limits to that. Surely some funds would need to be raised through the sale of debt.
That's why I think it would have to be some kind of public-private partnership with the feds and the individual states involved as well as a private company.
Way down south in Florida, Brightline appears to be accomplishing what I woulda said five years ago was completely and totally impossible. 'Course, the jury is still out on that one - maybe they'll be bankrupt in another year or two.
Some slightly devil's advocate comments inline:
Fred M CainWell, I feel like I already provided the “why” but to reiterate in the cause of clarity, 1. A rebuilt Milwaukee Pacific Sound Extension (PSE) would increase transcontinental shipping competition and could end up causing shipping rates to fall which would in turn benefit consumers.
If you magically waved a wand and had a perfect PSE rebuild (with the appropriate class of track laid and allowed to settle with adjustment) you would certainly add a competent route -- the issue then being whether it has distinctive competence in end-to-end shipping convenience, or time, or precision, depending on your customers' chosen metric that leads them to 'trade with you'. It is hard to believe that even with the advantage of full CBTC on top of PTC you'd be able to run a largely single-track railroad like the wartime SSW, in competition with railroads that have even triple-tracked a considerable part of their plant and have generated the cash flow to keep it well-aligned and improve it as justified.
The Milwaukee itself was repeatedly hampered in financing the extension and then the hot-thing-for-1909 electrification to what in a number of respects was interurban-grade location of their high-quality catenary wiring. While I think the arguments about falsely loading the expenses from the Indiana coal-supply operation onto the PCE are valid, the fact does remain that even with pre-WW1 construction cost the PCE drove the railroad into bankruptcy multiple times. Here, the issue isn't whether or not strategic action by receivers couldn't have eliminated some or all of that debt; it's that the colossal cost to rebuild the entire main couldn't be recovered by comparable -- let alone 'competitive'! -- rates even if you ran every possible train every day to nominal capacity, which is a calculation you should make BEFORE you say one more word about re-establishing the actual operation.
There are far better arguments to make about this on your new Web site. PM Shadow the Cat's owner for a starting list, and then ask her to help you refine it as you go. As you know, OTR trucking is facing its own list of reasons it can't provide the service it wants to, and some of these are far more relevant when convincing prospective shippers, the only cohort of people you really care about convincing, that your capital-intensive project has distinctive advantages to them.
Of course, autonomous and electric trucks pose their own threats to this project, and you will need to discuss this when the time actually comes to get money allocated to construction from banks, governments, etc. -- and again, until you have a DETAILED plan on where you expect the various precise amounts of money to come from, you have little business advocating something that will turn into an enormous boondoggle if not seen fully to completion...
You'd have to be a better seller -- or at least a more amoral Joe-Isuzu sort of guy -- to pull this off with the correct straight face. At this point you'd have to redevelop the demand for rail-centric service to these communities, which by definition would be pathetic and slow compared to truck last-mile (and in most of the territory covered by the 'bridge' PCE it's a lot of last-mile) service.
You would not want a bunch of little peddler freights, even with semi-autonomous operation, cluttering up your high-speed bridge operation. Let alone make their presence pervasive by increasing service to every location that is expecting to receive or dispatch a carload, including your own approximation of LCL 'ramps'.
I'll grant you that this would all have been 'doable' on the early-70s PCE, particularly as the crummier track would have somewhat optimized having a bunch of little slow trains running between the fleets of faster ones. But as a justification of a multibillion-dollar enterprise ... no.
I think there is little question (and for more than a few reasons) why this would be a preferred route for passenger, particularly if it were operated as a one-speed railroad at reasonable passenger through timing. Again, though, the marginal contribution from Amtrak or the Government on the premise of providing enhanced or lower-cost LD service is not likely to be 'enough' to make vs. break the alternative financing arrangements you will require.
While I don't see much advantage in regional passenger 'corridor' development, it should surely be something you discuss early, often, and carefully, as here you'd have a clear State reason to undertake some of the capital, operation, and maintenance cost (at least above the rail!) for much of the perceived small-community demand that currently has to be served with multiple low-passenger-count stops of what should be high-speed LD trains per se. If nothing else, you'd certainly get an idea of required equipment and operations frequency for these regional corridors and 'destination pairs' -- and be able to make a claim for better promotion and service adjustment to increase ridership in ways that don't proportionally increase required subsidies...
But if you're going to spend All That Money, why not spend it meaningfully on a routed-from-scratch Chinese-style-construction new mainline routing, with the grade and superelevation adjusted even as low as Super-C-level freight peak speed, and Class 9 slab track?
That, I think, would be commensurate with the old adage about the first railroad to electrify fully between New York and Chicago: they'd get ALL the first-class business, not just part of it... you'd need good tilting trains to get the sustainable peak speed up, and of course it wouldn't be "true" HSR, but it would happily interchange with standard railroads everywhere, allow higher speeds for trackage-rights services (e.g. the equivalent of those accelerated Z trains that UPS tested with Genesis locomotives years ago) and not repeat all the mistakes and compromises involved in the original PCE routing. I believe at one time Michael Sol or someone like him actually went back and looked at where the 'adaptable' parts of the PCE route and infrastructure that could be used for various speeds of HrSR and HSR would be; I encourage you to do your own study (the various track and grade parameters for speeds of HSR are available from sources like AREMA and I suspect a number of people on these forums can greatly assist you technically).
The great 'joker in the pack' is that if the route that gets built is a true national advantage, it becomes at least practical that any Government incentive (stimulus or otherwise) to throw money at a modern railroad infrastructure would see this kind of optimized new build as something to prioritize ... net of all the screaming the competing railroads would make about private enterprise. That means doing something special in your analysis (and in the promotional arguments on your site): providing strategic advantages for a combined freight-and-passenger plant that do not interfere with the developing PSR operating models on the competitors. Since they appear to be shucking any inconvenient customers with great gusto, it occurs to me you could easily get to a win-win on the potential 'competition' aspects of the new construction... and a win-win talking to prospective shippers or the shipper community as well.
Much of what I have said so far is only my opinion. I have no “detailed feasibility plan with numbers”. If I were ever to do a website it would be a “feeler” to see how much interest would be out there, if any.
You will have to do the numbers before anyone even remotely connected with the necessary 'moving and shaking' would take it seriously. I am sorry to tell you this, but no one else with any experience would tell you differently either.
There is also a dreadful risk in putting up an enthusiast site: you run the risk of inducing MEGO syndrome or worse in anyone who reads it; they would subsequently disparage even better-thought-out alternatives as 'more of the same foam'. This happened badly in the early days of the T1 Trust. In a different form, it greatly hindered practical preservation of ATSF 3763. Since it is relatively easy to determine some of the 'Bekenstein bounds' for required capital and profitability, it really doesn't hurt to do a few hours of hardheaded thinking, no more than that, really, that local banks require for small-business loans, to make your subsequent arguments credible. And, take a leaf from Jesse (The Body) Ventura...
If there were an interested party or parties out there wanting to see this done, then they would need to do the studies later – I have no ability to do studies like that.
So now it's "if someone else builds it, They Will Come".
Seriously, though, there's an answer to this: Delegate. There are plenty of people here alone who would be willing to help you with technical details and investment-banking advice. Once you can establish that your intent isn't just some crayonista foam-fest, you might even get them into an advisory board -- and tap them both for any hard details you're not up to providing (improving your education as you go, too!) and for reality checks and brainstorming for best alternatives when desired.
Yes, do it. But do it right, preferably right from the start.
Fred M Cain3. A rebuilt PSE would return rail freight service to local communities that lost it when the Milwaukee management walked away from it. This might prove to be one of the best selling points.
Are you serious? Can you provide a list (including populations) of former PCE-route communities not served by rail now?
BTW, the 1956 Olympian Hi took 41.5 hours SEA-CHI, 16 hours faster than the 1948 version. I wonder why? Both still used electric traction in two sections.
JOHN PRIVARAIf you can’t get HSR east of the Mississippi, in the most densely populated part of the country, it won’t happen in the least densely populated part of the country either.
That is precisely the part of the country where HSR lines would most logically be built.
By definition, workable HSR operates either between major population or economic centers or areas with good prospect for regional transportation; they will not have stops in rural locations except on the "Metropark" model (where there is new island PUD and real-estate development within 'reasonable' trip time from areas of adequate demand). The great NIMBY objection to true HSR (and it is considerable and politically very well connected) comes when there are actual backyards it needs to go through. When you have the appropriate analogue of 'flyover' country, you can concentrate on the actual missions HSR performs 'better' -- this might have greatly helped California avoid the boondoggle aspects that have likely doomed any practical high-speed operation that matters.
Dear "Overmod",
I would like to respond to both your posts here that you made this afternoon (06/04/19). On your first, long post, I can’t begin to tell you what an excellent well-thought out e-mail that was. You made so many points that it’s hard for me to touch on them all. Suffice it to say that it was helpful to me and, I think, helpful to the group as a whole.
Near the end of your post I couldn’t help but feel that you had some concern about this. Concern that I don’t just fall flat on my face and meet with complete and utter failure. Or, am I reading too much into this? Whatever your concerns, I certainly appreciate them.
On your second post where you responded that those wide-open, desolate areas would work better for HSR uh, well, yes and know. Conventional flanged wheel on steel rail has been tested in the range of around 325 MPH. If we could assume that trains like that could be perfected, the distances would probably still be too vast for the average traveler to foresake their planes and take the train from Chicago to Tacoma for most trips.
*BUT*! What about a HIGHER speed (HrSR) for intermodal that would run in the range of 70 – 90MPH over that distance? Which is what I THINK you suggested in an earlier post. That might be a good idea.
We have some politicians on the far left who are claiming they want to spend TRILLIONS on fighting “global warming” and “climate change”. For at least a couple of them, they have mentioned spending a large share of that amount on railroads.
Lest our forum gets the wrong idea about me, I don’t really support that. Count me in as a “climate change” skeptic. Oh, sure, I think the globe is warming. But is there a pending “crisis”? That’s where my skepticism comes in. But, no matter. If those kinds of politicians would ever get in power, it’s hard to know what in the world might happen. Sometimes in life, facts turn out to be freakier than fiction. Ultra-modern electric loks might be pulling long container trains over St. Paul Pass with their juice supplied by “white coal”. Or, on the other hand, if those politicians ever came to power, the "railroads" part of their plan might quietly go away. I have watched that movie before. Or, one similar to it anways.
But, would I vote for those people? Uh, no. Sure hope I didn’t get too political for this group. I would respect the other folks on here no matter what their political leanings are.
Fred M CainNear the end of your post I couldn’t help but feel that you had some concern about this. Concern that I don’t just fall flat on my face and meet with complete and utter failure. Or, am I reading too much into this?
Deeply and seriously.
If you are going to be passionate about this thing, set it up and do it the best you can -- and that means the best you can learn, not the best you think you already know.
... On your second post where you responded that those wide-open, desolate areas would work better for HSR uh, well, yes and know. Conventional flanged wheel on steel rail has been tested in the range of around 325 MPH. If we could assume that trains like that could be perfected, the distances would probably still be too vast for the average traveler to foresake their planes and take the train from Chicago to Tacoma for most trips...
What I was really getting at is that the real-estate costs to get a continuous line at 'correct' geometry would be orders of magnitude lower than, say, for any of the 'second spine' layouts at the eastern end of the Northeast Corridor (except perhaps for the Orient Point Bridge route coming in on the north shore of Long Island, which has its own fun little 'considerations'). Practical operation at even a fraction of 325mph along much of that alignment is unthinkable much of the year, and in any case the ability of first responders to reach any train encountering 'trouble' in that country makes even entry-level true HSR a dangerous thing to contemplate in our litigious era.
I agree with you that there's no real 'magic bullet' even for semi-enclosed maglev speeds (let alone that silliness called Hyperloop) for long-distance 'transcontinental' traffic, even if much of the traffic mix serves intermediate destination pairs or 'new development' towns and cities (see Garden Cities and Roadtown for two older philosophies of constructing new communities in outlying areas that have the critical mass to be self-sustaining without significant dependence on long road travel (unlike, say, Seaside). There may be effective safeguards to comfort for sleeper service 'overnight from Chicago to the Coast' but I doubt even if we had the many billions to achieve this, it would be worth the opportunity cost of that money.
Note I said 'class 9'. Read the Railroad Research Report about the class 9 slab-track testing at Pueblo. This construction is relatively easily supported both by existing designs of TLM and by the Chinese-capitalized equipment to build elevated track viaducting. It is laid once, adjusted only periodically by machine, and is inherently top-down aligned in ways that are amenable to relatively cheap geometry restoration if there is settlement or seismic realignment, etc.
Keeping this to 'only' 90mph is a little limiting for a proper high-speed 'iron ocean' bridge route -- I'd even consider 125mph as the criterion (not all the freight trains would move that fast, of course! ) as there is, at least according to the test data, no great damage from proper intermodal equipment axle loadings even when operated at high speed. You would not use this route for HAL of any kind ... there are multiple conventional main lines optimizing for that traffic with every move toward conventional PSR they make...
We have some politicians on the far left who are claiming they want to spend TRILLIONS on fighting “global warming” and “climate change”. For at least a couple of them, they have mentioned spending a large share of that amount on railroads. Lest our forum gets the wrong idea about me, I don’t really support that.
I am tempted to note the old adage "Never look a gift horse in the mouth." If Ms. Ocasio-Cortez & Co. want to found a socialist dream on a Green New Deal that extensively prioritizes railroads ... isn't it up to us to show how to do that cost-effectively with minimal waste and wrong choices in design? They sure as hell won't learn much sensible from Californians!
... If those kinds of politicians would ever get in power, it’s hard to know what in the world might happen. Sometimes in life, facts turn out to be freakier than fiction. Ultra-modern electric loks might be pulling long container trains over St. Paul Pass with their juice supplied by “white coal” ...
Have you read Don Oltmann's piece on railroading across Pennsylvania in the 2040s? If not, do so now. It's a pretty good vision of what technology might provide us, in ways that make the additional capital investment for catenary over new construction look advantageous in both the shorter and long runs...
BackshopFred, just to debate one of your points--How would rebuilding the PCE lower shipping rates? The billions and billions of dollars lent by the banks to repay it would have to be repaid. How are you going to do that by cutting rates? Would you lend money for this project if you were CEO of a bank who has to answer to shareholders? Banks are in business to make money, not to do "good works for society".
Also, I might add that intermodal is only marginally profitable. Railroads are not carrying Intermodal because they are making money hand over foot, they are carrying it for lack of a more profitable alternative vs leaving the rails sit idle. If for example there was a huge demand for gravel over the Northern Transcon lines, BNSF would attempt to raise intermodal rates closer to the rate level of gravel and possibly would drop quite a few intermodal runs as the higher rates dropped demand for the service or caused it to shift to another railroad.
If there were aggregate loads of gravel moving in unit trains over the former Milwaukee I might buy into somewhat of a payback for reconstruction costs IF BNSF didn't have so much excess capacity that it has now. Just too much excess capacity now plus not a mix of traffic that would repay the reconstruction costs in a time frame that would make the investment attractive to anyone.
Most people tend to forget the BN Merger was largely to rationalize two lightly used transcon lines plus one granger under one railroad's ownership and reduce competition to an extent for traffic. BNSF still has not filled those two Northern transcon lines to anywhere near capacity yet........instead they added a third transcon line in the South.
Fred M Cain I guess I have to agree with this to a point. Only problem is, a beefing up of the current BNSF Great Northern line would not serve communities that were abandoned when the Milwuakee left town. Rebuilding the PSE would do that AND add capacity and increase competition. Regards, Fred M. Cain
I guess I have to agree with this to a point. Only problem is, a beefing up of the current BNSF Great Northern line would not serve communities that were abandoned when the Milwuakee left town. Rebuilding the PSE would do that AND add capacity and increase competition.
Mark Meyer
Fred M CainR.J. Corman would need to do an estimate
Too large a project for RJ Corman, multi-state rail rebuild your looking at a large company like Bechtel. RJ Corman might be a sub-contractor.
Also, Milwaukee Road didn't just abandon the PCE on a whim, they did an internal feasibility study on what it would take to rebuild the entire PCE with 90lb welded rail (apparently 132 lb rail was too expensive or even then they did not forsee that traffic would warrant), along with new signalling. Study with costs is on the internet for a full rebuild of the PCE, saw it somewhere. If you can't find it perhaps you can contact the railroad archives via Milwaukee Public Library System and ask a copy be made. Milwaukee looked at current traffic and cost to rehab entire line and then decided on abandonment was probably a better option.
You just need to add costs to the Milwaukee Road study for rebuilding /upgrading bridges to replace gaps or handle heavier cars. Enlarging tunnels for double-stacks, reaquire land that was sold off or abandoned.
Also to fund a study like this would be in the millions not a few hundred thousand dollars. It's a lot of miles that has to be resurveyed and inspected for the work that is needed.
Additionally, you need to involve other railroads as well since your going to be bridging over them again or running via trackage rights in places, detour agreements, or sharing facilities in places. You might also want to know what if any joint rates there would be (for revenue projections). They have to submit costs to you and they are going to probably ask for the study money up front before they lift a finger to assist you since you are not a railroad already and statistical chances of you proceeding with it are slim to none. So they are not going to spend their own money on this effort.
CMStPnP Most people tend to forget the BN Merger was largely to rationalize two lightly used transcon lines plus one granger under one railroad's ownership and reduce competition to an extent for traffic. BNSF still has not filled those two Northern transcon lines to anywhere near capacity yet........instead they added a third transcon line in the South.
And THAT pretty much sums up why a new PCE isn’t needed (and wasn’t needed when it was pulled out). If, after all this time, the existing lines are still not double tracked, no one needs a NEW line.
JOHN PRIVARA And THAT pretty much sums up why a new PCE isn’t needed (and wasn’t needed when it was pulled out). If, after all this time, the existing lines are still not double tracked, no one needs a NEW line.
I suppose many of you on this group can dismiss me and my interests. But those interests (and opinions) are NOT mine alone. Once again, I can quote/paraphrase another quote at the end of the print version of TRAINS Magazine that went something like "maybe it wasn't needed then but it IS needed now" (emphasis mine).
So, if that's really so wrong, then maybe we should try and straighten that guy out. But the possibility cannot be entirely dismissed that maybe, just maybe, he knows what he's talking about after all.
Regads,
Fred M Cain So, if that's really so wrong, then maybe we should try and straighten that guy out. But the possibility cannot be entirely dismissed that maybe, just maybe, he knows what he's talking about after all. Regads, FMC
Fred M CainYou have mentioned a couple of times that what I really need to do is come up with some realistic numbers. That would be a good start. From that point on, the results would either be a powerful selling point or a deal killer or perhaps somewhere in between. Trouble is, I have no way whatsoever of doing that.
You actually have every way of doing that -- remember, this is really little different from pro forma earnings in a business plan. We all know the information is fundamentally bullcrap; it's requested because it shows you know business enough to do the analysis and understand where the numbers come from, and because it will show if your assumptions are unjustified by the facts you've provided about the opportunity and the means you're proposing to address it.
You'd be throwing away money to get a 'professional' to do something even at a discounted rate. So either learn 'enough to be dangerous' about the various areas required for a feasibility plan, or make friends with people who know. You may wind up expending a considerable amount for hamburgers and beer (on those respective 'plans') but it will also be adding to your education, understanding, and wisdom.
Note that a feasibility plan is nothing like a business plan per se. You won't be going to a bank or expecting politicians to cough up even grant money to conduct development of it. In part, you're assessing what it would take to do the job based on free public information and training you can receive via the Internet or social sources. In the olden days it would take weeks and perhaps some repeated requests to get information about the practical operation and economics of TLM systems. Nowadays it's a couple of quick self-amplifying searches followed by some downloading and e-mails. There may be enough in just the thread on rebuilding the ex-New Haven Springfield Line to provide you with enough source material and data to derive a cost per mile for physically placing top-down aligned track with proper drainage and subgrade adjustments on an 'old' right of way.
Likewise, you don't need detailed surveying at this stage; you can start, for example, by reviewing the route using Google Maps aerials and identifying the obvious showstopping encroachments on the current line of route. That in turn would give you a further start on determining where new routing or line construction (and perhaps later 'cutoffs' or line remediation once operations had commenced) would be made.
To the extent surveying is actually necessary at this stage, I suspect the state-of-the-art drone scanning would be sufficient; I see reports in the surveying trade press that this has already progressed to at least the miles per day range. It would be expensive to acquire both the necessary second-hand (or older) flying capability, and more to obtain the required licenses to fly it 'commercially' (outside the 400' and line-of-sight restrictions imposed at present for amateur operation) but this would be a far better use of your available money or credit; you might even be able to 'lease back' the equipment by the month to surveying firms for compensation including the actual feasibility-project flying.
I did come up with an idea, however. Perhaps we could get someone like R. J. Corman to survey the entire route and come up with an estimate. They would surely know.
Suspect this may be more difficult now that Mr. Corman has passed on. You might ask MC and some others, but the R.J.Corman company may outsource its surveying -- you can find out to whom, if so. Again, paying for professional service is a step to be taken only once the earlier and less-expensive-out-of-your-pocket proofs of feasibility have been covered. Otherwise you risk falling into an analogue of the Chicago-New York Electric Air Line Railway trap... a preliminary survey of an unbuildable route, or one with a currently unfeasible price tag, is just like Liberty Mutuals 'money thrown right into the harbor'.
Indeed, it might not even be necessary for them to survey the entire route. Perhaps if they only did from Terry, MT to Avery, ID, they could develop an average that might allow them to come up with a pretty close ball park of what the whole thing would cost all the way to SEATAC.
Even the history of the first Transcontinental, which should still be fresh in our minds after the Sesquicentennial, disproves this idea, and in my opinion fairly dramatically. Some portions of the route were historically far costlier than others, and this was demonstrably true for the PCE as well -- I believe the reasons for the differential do still persist and would affect both restoration and maintenance costs for the sections involved. In addition, there would be questions of inherent analytical bias: did you artificially select lower-cost sections to make your case look more attractive? Did you artificially select worst-case examples so as 'not to run out of money' on the project as a whole (a laudable thing in itself, but self-defeating here)? I think with the help of Michaels Sol and Meyer you might be able to select a representative 'basket' of sections that would give a reasonable net figure for the overall cost ... but why bother, when the potential cost increases year over year for new construction are greater than the likely precision a 'better' estimate might provide?
charlie hebdo Are you serious? Can you provide a list (including populations) of former PCE-route communities not served by rail now?
I won't go through the bother, but they are minimal. According to the 1970 census, there were only three communities west of Mobridge, SD with a population of greater than 3,000 which were exclusively served by the Milwaukee Road (Othello, Moses Lake, and Port Angeles). All of these retained service after the 1980 abandonment. To quote the article about the Milwaukee in the June 2019 issue of TRAINS: "Union Pacific and Burlington Northern stepped in to provide service to more than 90 percent of the customers along the Milwaukee's Pacific Extension." Considering how little of the main line west of Miles City was kept, it's pretty obvious how few customers there were. Moreover, I would guess that while more than 90 percent of the customers were still served, the percentage of shipments were much higher. Small businesses in places like Melstone and Ryegate and Kittitas lost service, but their percentage of total shipments was miniscule.
charlie hebdo BTW, the 1956 Olympian Hi took 41.5 hours SEA-CHI, 16 hours faster than the 1948 version. I wonder why? Both still used electric traction in two sections.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.