https://impossiblerailroad.wordpress.com/2018/02/24/today-from-the-san-diego-union/
Baja Rail's plan would seem to depend on no major disruption to NAFTA, which has not been settled yet.
Chuck Geiger (2-25):
Thanks for the info and link.
It was mentioned in the "Sunset Route Two-Tracking Updates" thread with a credit to you.
K.P.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- K.P.’s absolute “theorem” from early, early childhood that he has seen over and over and over again: Those that CAUSE a problem in the first place will act the most violently if questioned or exposed.
Realistically, NAFTA isn't going to go away, despite what Cadet Bone Spurs may say. At any rate, this route has enough legal issues involved to keep a lot of attorneys on retainer for a very long time.
CSSHEGEWISCH ....Cadet Bone Spurs....
....Cadet Bone Spurs....
I don't think NAFTA will go away, but it will be under verbal threat as long as Pres. Trump is in office. Its hard to get financing for a project that has uncertainties.
Here's the link to the San Diego Union-Tribune article:
http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/transportation/sd-me-desert-line-20171221-story.html
One sentence that stands out is "His team isn’t stacked with railroad experts, though. It’s composed mostly of former owners and operators of Tijuana factories known as maquiladoras." HUGE RED FLAG!!
Another one is "Officials with the company have said they’re now ready to spend upwards of another $60 million to repair the desert line and resume freight operations." Looks like a very low-ball estimate to me.
Links to my Google Maps ---> Sunset Route overview, SoCal metro, Yuma sub, Gila sub, SR east of Tucson, BNSF Northern Transcon and Southern Transcon *** Why you should support Ukraine! ***
$60 million won't go very far to repair that line, based on the photos I've seen. I would opine that at least a 10-figure amount would be required.
IF- - -IF the railway did get rebuilt, a great source of income would be the tourist dollar, railroad buffs would kill to ride this railroaders nightmare, just a thought, BTW this whole railroad from inception to present is quite a dream and accomplishment in itself.
While I too run to skepticism about such projects, this one could work.
Is $60 million rehab cost reasonable? Yes, maybe, assuming that only the 44 miles now out of service is to be rehabbed.
Start with the ties. The line has been out of service for decades. Most track men would tell you average tie life is about 30 years, but that is in wetter cliamates and wet brings rot, and under traffic. There has been no traffic, hence no traffic related wear. Sight unseen I would figure 1,000 ties per mile at $200 each installed or $200,000 per mile plus $100,000 per mile for 2" lift and surfacing including an occassional grade crossing. Say 300K on 44 miles, $13,200,000.
What about rail? SP was famous for having heavy rail on its branch lines. It could be that immediate rail needs are quite modest. If it is the original rail from 1915 +/- would need to be relaid BUT that can be done under traffic so could open and operate at 10 MPH almost regardless of rail, given good tie support.
The big issue, and unknown to us, is the trestles. Again you are generaly looking at 30-50 year life for each piece, though caps go faster than other members. Again they have sat unmaintained for decades. Here is where the big money is, and is work that must be done to run that first train. Is the rock competent enough to support frame construction as opposed to driven piles? From the one photo it looks like it might, so say yes. Modern construction would be concrete or steel bases, steel I beam posts, probably with precast concrete deck with trough for ballast. Long ago I was told by someone who would know to figure $1,000 per running foot for modest trestle of say 20 feet hight. Lets double that and say $2,000 per foot. We still have in excess of $45,000,000 to spend which will buy us about 22,500 lineal feet of trestle. At $3,000 per foot we can do 15,000 feet of modern trestle. That is almost three miles, which seems sufficient, again without benefit of track chart and on the ground inspection, both of which the proponents should have.
In short $60 million to rehab enough to start service seems ballpark correct given that we know almost no facts.
The $20,000,000 for an intermodal terminal seems far too low, but this is Mexico so all of the environmental overhead goes away. It still looks light to me but we do not know what volume they anticipate.
Volume is the key to making this work, and of course the newspaper knows nothing. One strongly favorable fact is that the shippers are the ones putting up the money. Some here have sort of scoffed at that, the implication being that they are incompetent to run the railroad. They do not have to know how to run the railroad. They can hire that done and run their own trains to Yuma on UP trackage rights, or give the UP trackage rights and maintain the fixed plant, or lease the line to UP and UP maintains the fixed plant. What they bring is traffic and traffic is everything!
What volume do the proponents need? They control the traffic, which removes much of the risk that an independent railroad or UP would otherwise face in this deal. Yes, there is political risk in terms of tariffs and trade deals, but the proponents are in the best position of any of the players to evaluate that.
Lets do rough numbers. Assume $100 million project costs. Assume need 20% ROI, or $20 million Net Income after taxes. How many boxes is that? That depends on what the UP will allow as divisions and what the operating costs are. For the purpose of this example I will assume a shortline operator.
Does the operator supply the power? If so and if I were doing it I would look to 4 axle units of 2,000 HP to minimize rail and curve wear. The other alternative is UP run thru power which will be 6 axle and bring with them higher track damage per train.
Assume double stack cars and train capacity of 250 boxes per train. At 45 tons per loaded box, gross train weight will be 11,250 tons. My recollection is that ruling grade is 2.2%, so need 2.5 HPPT with DC motors or 2.0 with AC. That is 28,125 DC or 22,500 AC over the hill, or 14 DC units or 6 AC. Looks like power adjustments at Yuma or Plaster City, but it can clearly be done technically.
So what does our mythical shortline get paid per box? Paid for loads only, or loads and empties? Any inbound traffic? Lets assume paid loads only and 100% outbound, no backhaul. I would guess UP would go $250 delivered in trainload lots at Yuma, and throw in trackage rights from Plaster City. Assume 70% OR, including terminal operating costs of $50/box. That is $125 per box to operate and maintain the railroad, or $31,250 per round trip. That leaves $75 for capital costs.
How many boxes at $75 are required to throw off $20,000,000 after 30% income tax? Need pretax earnigs of $28.751 million, so answer is 383,000 paying loads per year. At an average of 225 boxes/train, that is 1,276 trains per year, or 4 trains per day on a six day per week basis. Design the railroad from Niland for 6 trains per day capacity. The 44 miles of line under discussion can handle that with a couple of sidings, but I suspect a larger termal than can be had for $20 million would be required to support that volume which is over 700,000 lifts per year.
Mac
I dunno, but the potential for freight loadings seems a bit questionable, at best. Consider that now one can reach Niland from Tijuana in about 300 rail miles using BNSF/UP routings, whereas using the implausible railroad gets you there in about 150 not-so-good miles.
I suppose the question is how much freight traffic is already using the route that exists already? More importantly, how much freight is going in that direction by truck at this point? Since I don't get out on the "back country" sections of I-8 a lot these days, I can't really make a guess but I can observe that there is not a huge amount of truck traffic on that route when I do hit that road, certainly not by comparison to the I-15 corridor going north.
Just my worth of questions that seem relevant.
According to Hanft's book, th eruling grade eastbound is 1.47%. Westbound is 2.2% but in two segments, first a stretch about 10 miles between Coyote Wells and Dos Cabezas, and the second being 7-8 miles between Jacumba and Hipass. FWIW, Coyote Wells to Hipass is about 35 miles.
P.S. having "fun" posting due to the slow script...
First, based on BNSF practice on 2.2% grades of Stevens Pass power of 3 + 1 4400 HP 6 axle units is sufficient for 250 boxes. That eliminates need to adjust power at Plaster City, saving the cost of a yard. That gives 9:30 as expected time on duty between Yuma and Tecate, about 175 miles, at speeds not exceeding 25 MPH west of Niland and 10 MPH in the canyon.
As to CAPEX, flying it on google earth I got about 5,500 feet of trestle, which at $3,000 per foot average is $16.5 million.
The line also has 17 tunnels that almost certainly require the floor be lowered for double stack equipment. I do not have total length, so will guess an average of 1,000 feet for total of 17,000 feet of tunnel work. I do not know what this work would cost but at $1,000 per track foot it is $17,000,000.
In addition there is a 20 degree curve in bypass track around collapsed tunnel 7, and if I read correctly at least one 15 degree curve on a trestle. I doubt you can get a full size stack train around 20 degree curve, and perhaps not 15 degree. I would be looking to daylight tunnel 7 and return to original alignment. This will be expensive as evidenced by the fact that SP chose to bypass it. Another $2-3 million, perhaps more. I know 10 degree curves are OK, again based on Stevens Pass.
The route also needs sidings spaced no more than an hour's running time apart. The three between Niland and Plaster City, including Plaster City would be relatively easy to locate on flat ground. They need to be at least 8,000 feet long, 10,000 would be better. Lets make the happy assumption that UP would put these in. That leaves four more that need to be added. Figure $4,000,000 each, or $16,000,000.
The items above have used up virtually all of the $60 million rehab budget, so it looks ballpark correct to me.
I did not find an obvious place for an intermodal terminal in the Tecate area. That is a problem.
Finally, I am certain the line is largely original rail. Most likely weight is 90 pounds/yard. That would need to be replaced as a capital maintenance item once operations were underway. Finally the long stretches of sharp curves should get concrete ties, again as a capital maintenance item. Good wood ties recovered should go to the line east of the eastern summit since this is relatively straight track.
Your analysis looks reasonable.
There's plenty of space to put a siding in the Jacumba area, Hipass isn't out of the question and there's room east of Campo as well. I did ride the line between Campo and Jacumba back in 1999, the track wasn't looking great at that time, but wasn't looking awful either. The cuts are pretty tight, so some work would have to be done to widen them.
The 15 and 20 degree curves are in Carrizo Gorge, which is part of the Anza-Borrego Desert State Park, so any work to ease the curves would be a royal pain to get the permits to do the work. On the other hand, the Gorge would make for a spectacular train trip.
Traffic and terminals.
After 20 degree curves, which I am squeamish about, the big issue is traffic.
Is 1,000 boxes per day each way reasonable? The only 'sort of real data' I could find was a San Diego Union Tribune item May 5, 2017 that said 6,000 trucks per day each way at the I 5 crossing. Would 1/6 of that volume be going to destinations that UP and eastern connections could serve? My sense is yes.
If that is true, then there is a lot of dray cost money on the table, which is what the proponents are looking to capture. I suspect they could impose a surcharge of $100-$150 per load and save themselves at least that much in drayage, after draying to Tecate. Happy, Happy, Happy!
UP would like it for two reasons. One, it precludes BNSF from the traffic. Two, it would effectively add capacity to their LA basin terminals.
The problem is space for, and cost of, a terminal. To get an idea of the scale of the terminal, UP's ICTF does 600,000 lifts per year. Tecate would be a bit more. UP spent $400 million recently at Santa Teresa. Yes, that includes many millions for the fueling facility, but it is twenty times more than what the proponents are budgeting. Fuel may or may not be required at Tecate. Working tracks look to be 8,000 feet and the IM yard is 1500 feet wide, including container parking. Memphis BN is also 8,000 feet tracks which look like 6 working plus two working stubs. Do not see a separate departure yard which makes sense. Memphis is 800 feet wide excluding parking.
Tecate would probably be 8,000 feet working track length, so new ground would be 2 miles long and say 1/4 mile wide which is 1/2 square mile or 320 acres. It is a good thing there are big dray savings on the table because this yard will be far more expensive than the proponents admit to. Not impossible, but in the 100-200 million dollar range. They need to figure the terminal out first.
The state park will be a big pain in the posterior. Delay, delay, delay.
Erikem,
As to sidings they need to be located about an hour's travel time apart, so existing sidings may or may not be usefull as a starting point.
Can you do a 'timetable'
Station
miles (run time)
Say Plaster City to Tecate. I have SP ETT beyond. For consistency with SP ETT start at Plaster City and work west.
As far as UP territory tracks, Plaster City to El Centro (El Centro Sub) and to Niland (Calexico Sub) to meet up with the Sunset Route (Yuma Sub), I would venture to say UP would play it safe, and request the new trains be fleeted. That would avoid new sidings having to be laid, at least on UP territory.
I don’t know what the specifications are, but the sharp more than 90 degrees curve that would be used in Niland …
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Niland,+CA/@33.2397017,-115.5080503,402m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x80d0adc937706d67:0xe0b89b9d62bc6cd8!8m2!3d33.2400366!4d-115.5188756
May 4, 2014
… is comparable to the east end of West Colton Yard in the Colton (CA) area that I believe has a speed limit of 15 M.P.H., that curve RISES to go over the I-10 Freeway.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Colton,+CA/@34.0673971,-117.3450548,398m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x80c4a685df718ced:0x674a567510e91e3f!8m2!3d34.0739016!4d-117.3136547
April 30, 2009
For the forum’s info, where the El Centro Sub wyes into the Calexico Sub (far background), UP (ex-SP) has never upgraded the wye switch to a turnout one. UP reportedly hates wye switches.
June 1, 2013
If the Carrizo Gorge route became viable and UP made money interchanging traffic to or from it, rest assured the wye switch pictured would eventually be traded out. That is somewhat off top, but merely a related tidbit.
If nothing else, at least the UP track on the eastern end of the line under discussion can be partly visualized.
KP,
Fleeting is unlikely to work. It implies more control than I think UP has.
Two sidings, say $8,000,000 total is pocket change in comparison to the cost of terminal capacity in the LA basin. Given the advantages UP stands to gain, they can pay for it and I am a stockholder!
The top of the wye switch at Niland needs an electric motor ad DS control. I have no idea why a wye switch design would bother the UP. It may not be standard, but as long as they can get the frog why bother?
The wye at El Centro is very tight but could be eased if necessary without impacting structures.
CSSHEGEWISCHRealistically, NAFTA isn't going to go away, despite what Cadet Bone Spurs may say. At any rate, this route has enough legal issues involved to keep a lot of attorneys on retainer for a very long time.
I believe the proposal was....
1. Attempt renegotiation.
2. Slap on Tarifs.
3. Abrogate sections or all of the treaty.
So it was progressive escalation and it was never to walk away or dispose of any treaty. We have to reduce or trade deficits we have a half a trillion trade defiicit with China, we are at step 2 with China now. Not sure where we are with Mexico and NAFTA. However, Tariffs usually kill a trade agreement fast if the partners cannot agree to terms. Mexico has threatened to replace the United States with China if we apply tariffs...........not a very realistic threat but one that China could subsidize for a while. Really the original promise behind NAFTA was to lift Mexico economically to a level where it would fix both our immigration issue on our Southern border as well as reduce the trade imbalance. What is really sad is Costa Rica did better than Mexico over the last 20 years and it is not even a member to the NAFTA treaty. So the concluision is Mexico is not really serious about fixing it's internal problems and now it's time for Mexico to face the music. I am tired of subsidizing that country not sure about the rest of you.
I believe this rail route has potential because LA to San Diego and LA itself are becomming choke points. So if they can get the frieght over the mountains to AZ relatively fast, then I think they have a viable route. Going to cost a lot of money to fix that route though and I don't see any deep pockets yet. One of the biggest issues the route has is part of it is in Mexico and part the United States. A U.S. Carrier would have problems that a Mexican carrier might not due again to the corruption South of the border.
CMStPnP CSSHEGEWISCH Realistically, NAFTA isn't going to go away, despite what Cadet Bone Spurs may say. At any rate, this route has enough legal issues involved to keep a lot of attorneys on retainer for a very long time. I believe the proposal was.... 1. Attempt renegotiation. 2. Slap on Tarifs. 3. Abrogate sections or all of the treaty. So it was progressive escalation and it was never to walk away or dispose of any treaty. We have to reduce or trade deficits we have a half a trillion trade defiicit with China, we are at step 2 with China now. Not sure where we are with Mexico and NAFTA. However, Tariffs usually kill a trade agreement fast if the partners cannot agree to terms. Mexico has threatened to replace the United States with China if we apply tariffs...........not a very realistic threat but one that China could subsidize for a while. Really the original promise behind NAFTA was to lift Mexico economically to a level where it would fix both our immigration issue on our Southern border as well as reduce the trade imbalance. What is really sad is Costa Rica did better than Mexico over the last 20 years and it is not even a member to the NAFTA treaty. So the concluision is Mexico is not really serious about fixing it's internal problems and now it's time for Mexico to face the music. I am tired of subsidizing that country not sure about the rest of you. I believe this rail route has potential because LA to San Diego and LA itself are becomming choke points. So if they can get the frieght over the mountains to AZ relatively fast, then I think they have a viable route. Going to cost a lot of money to fix that route though and I don't see any deep pockets yet. One of the biggest issues the route has is part of it is in Mexico and part the United States. A U.S. Carrier would have problems that a Mexican carrier might not due again to the corruption South of the border.
CSSHEGEWISCH Realistically, NAFTA isn't going to go away, despite what Cadet Bone Spurs may say. At any rate, this route has enough legal issues involved to keep a lot of attorneys on retainer for a very long time.
Let the trade wars begin! Will the next wars be hot?
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
K. P. Harrier UP reportedly hates wye switches
The picture looks fine. What is it that UP doesn't like about them. The frog's?
Mac,
Going off the map on the endpages of Hanft's book and my recollection of the topography of the line, the following are places that I think will work. No time estimates, but will include MP as indicated in the book.
Plaster City 130
Dos Cabezas 110
Jacumba 95
Hipass (?) 85 (siding possible to MP 80?)
Campo 65
Tecate 53 (border ~ MP62)
Note that the Carrizo Gorge would be approximately MP 100 to 108 or so
- Erik
P.S. The slow script is back with a vengence somethings causing 3.6 GB of memorry for Firefox!
BaltACDLet the trade wars begin! Will the next wars be hot?
Not likely, to ever go to a hot war with our deficit trade partners.
CMStPnP BaltACD Let the trade wars begin! Will the next wars be hot? Not likely, to ever go to a hot war with our deficit trade partners.
BaltACD Let the trade wars begin! Will the next wars be hot?
Little Rocket Man is not among our trade partners and Vlad is rattling his sabers.
For those of you that have never seen the Gorge here is a video of MoW train making it through the Gorge in 2012 starting at Jacumba......with an F unit no less!!! You can see plenty of evidence the curves are very tight radius and the clearences are also pretty close.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L66pfI5fuqY
zardoz CSSHEGEWISCH ....Cadet Bone Spurs....
Nice!! "The Orange One" was getting a bit old.
"Bankrupt Billionaire" is another favourite of mine.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
Some photos from a fellow who hiked the Desert Line:
http://www.railpictures.net/showphotos.php?railroad=Carrizo%20Gorge%20Railroad
SD70DudeNice!! "The Orange One" was getting a bit old. "Bankrupt Billionaire" is another favourite of mine.
Your going to be cursing at him pretty soon.........
Before Trump: Canada's Corporate Tax Rate much lower than the United States.
After Trump: U.S. Corporate Tax Rate much lower than Canada.
It's not only the tariffs Canada has to worry about but your PM refused to cut the Canadian Corporate Tax in his latest budget. Have you checked the Capital outflows from Canada recently? We just exported one of our problems to you guys North of the border. Not sure all Canadians realize it yet but your definitely going to feel it over the next 5-7 years.
RE: tax cuts, the race to the bottom continues. How far will it go, shall both Canada and the U.S. continue until we undercut say, the Cayman Islands?
But I can understand wanting to keep things on a relatively even footing between our two countries. That is why I despise other measures the U.S. is currently taking, like re-igniting the softwood lumber fight and the just announced tariffs on imported steel.
For a free-market Republican Mr. Drumpf (look it up) sure likes protectionism.
I think it is understandable that the USA has an adequate domestic Steel and Aluminum Industry, it is required for National Security.
Also no details have been announced and it is possible that Canada is exempt, we just do not know at this point. We have been exempt in the past. Actually Canada imports a lot of made in the US steel.
Canada is an unique ally of the US and poses no threat.
Our spoiled rotten idiotic child of a Prime Minister is far more removed from any kind of reality than the US President is. Rolling Stone magazine asked why can't we ( the US) have this guy ( picture of Prime Minister). Well I wish you would.
Also please keep forever down there Celine Dion, Jim Carey and Justin Beiber. All yours. Free
We used to send you great people like Mary Pickford, Lorne Greene, Peter Jennings.
Then we starting sending the maybe good maybe nots like Alex Trebek and William Shatner.
Now we send you the real annoying ones.
You can't have Nickel Back though and I'm not sure where Shania Twain is?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.