New oil find in Sevier County Utah; status of proposed rail link

[dldance]

It was the end of the D&RGW Zephar operation. The last run had already been planned fron Denver to SLC - but due to the rails being closed at Thistle by the slide, the last run was cut short. Right now I cannot remember where they terminated the run.

dd

[MP173]

Ok, I forgot I was on the internet and could access almost any information. I found a history on Thistle landslide, so I know what happened and when.

Now, how much traffic was affected?

thanks

[MP173]

Ok, as a midwesterner that has never been to Utah, let alone Thistle, what the heck happened?

The aerial vs topo comparisons are pretty dramatic.

It appears from the topo there was a pretty good sized yard at Thistle Junction. Was the freight generated on the branch line coal? How much tonnage moved off of the branch?

FM, it certainly would be nice to be able to use a crystal ball to decide which lines to mothball and which ones not to, but I dont see how that is going to happen. What you want to do is transfer ownership of lines from private to public, with no compensation. That is a pretty dramatic violation of our constitution.

Trains Magazine, perhaps David Morgan years ago suggested some sort of rail line mothballing, which today seems to be an interesting concept. However, at the time, the money wasnt there to do it.

Hindsight, as they say is always 20 - 20.

I would like a little history on what happened at Thistle.

ed

[dldance]

FYI

I went to www.terraserver.microsoft.com and entered Thistle, Utah as the location. The topo map is dated 1 July 1975 - before the landslide and the arial photo is dated 17 Aug 1994 - after the landslide and highway/rail rebuilding. Interesting comparison.

dd

[daveklepper]

Yes, but the new line will have lower operating expenses and at the time the branch was abandoned, no one thought it would be needed.

[Anonymous]

Update: To answer my own questions, I found this information:

Estimated cost to rebuild Marysville branch connection to realigned D&RGW at Thistle - $15 million in 1983 dollars.

Ruling grades on Marysville branch - 1.5%

Estimated cost to build new Levan to Salida line - $75 million +

So, it appears that it would have been less expensive to rebuild the connection to the Marysville branch at Thistle than it will be to build the new connection from Levan. This is the gist of the argument, that mothballing even branchlines that have been cut off from their initial mainline connection (with the thought of reconnecting to the mainline in the future) makes more sense than building new lines from scratch. Preserving infrastructure is multiples more important than preserving old buildings.

[Anonymous]

daveklepper:

The question is how much of the original branch was wiped out by the slide and subsequent flooding. A few miles? If so, would not the same relocation efforts for the mainline also work for the branch? Wouldn't it have been less expensive (even emulating the need for new tunnelling aka the mainline) to also rebuild the connection between the mainline and the undamaged branch, rather than this new rail link proposal from the UP main? That's the question that needs more in depth information.

mudchicken: I have a RFI out to the Six Counties rail link folks regarding the proposed profile of the new link. Assuming the weblink is still valid, I hope to hear back from them.

miniwyo: As I stated before, the new rail link proposal is predicated on the coal reserves in Sevier County, and has nothing to do with the new oil find. Thus, if the link does get built, the prospect of additional traffic via oil shuttles would be icing on the cake.

[daveklepper]

Your point about not abandoning the branch would have some validity if it were not for the mudslide and the lake and the relocation of the main line. This would have meant using the old branch a very expensive proposition indeed. Yes the new line might be even more expensive, but holding on to the abandoned line considering the reasons it was abandoned simply would not have made economic sense for anyone, state or railroad, at the time. There are probably much better cases around for mothballing abandoned lines, and as you know in some locations, that was and is being done.

[miniwyo]

Also, is spending all that money justifyable(sp?) in 20 years when the oil runs out there? Especially compared to a pipeline like MC is talking about . I come from a place where Oil is the lifeline for us, Its whats keeping my town alive, and right now, we are booming like never before. The town is expanding and we are gettin new residents and many new businesses. Millions of dollars are being spent on new constructions, however, I honestly don't think that they thought about whats going to happen in 15 years when the oil runs out and we bust again. People will leave, and then we are left will all sorts of businesses with no one to work for them, buildings which housed stores which have gone out of business becasue they are not making money, proving that the millions spent was a waste of money becasue the boom didnt last. Dont get me wrong, I wouldn't be here if I didn't love railroads, but in this situation it just is not fiscally feasible.

So, tell me, how would this spur pay for the building and operating cost once that oil patch goes bust?

[mudchicken]

Pipeline to somewhere would be cheaper in this day and age. One oil & one slurry pipeline would still be cheaper, even just to get the stuff over the hill.

A new connection at Thistle would be an economic disaster. The tunnels built to reconnect the main line cost D&RGW dearly (even after outside aid & insurance). You would never recover the cost of your initial investment in a reasonable period of time.

The new connection (Nephi-Ephraim) would make Soldier Summit look like a walk in the park. The track-train dynamics simulator at AAR would be going "TILT"...Compensated grade figures would be very steep, dictating short trains-if at all. This would out-ugly Raton and challenge Saluda.[:0]

To quote Robin Williams: "Reality - What a concept!"...dreaming will not save the day here.

[Anonymous]

FM: The question to Mudchicken was "Would it be a worthy investment (read profitable) to a railroad company? to develop? operate? or provide alternate services to the area?

[Anonymous]

LC,

Thanks for confirming what I stated, that localities have regulations regarding demolition of structures, you're hair splitting not withstanding. We have a phrase for persons such as yourself. Keep up the inadvertent work!

CSSHEGEWISCH,

No, I do not believe that no rail ROW should ever be taken up, I'm saying that rail lines that serve certain localities should be mothballed if the owner decides to throw in the towell. Where we differ is that I believe if the owner decides to give up on a rail line, then they should abandon the whole works lock stock and barrel, and let the local and state governments take the resposibility for removal of rails and ties if they decide the line serves no public purpose. Use it or lose it (all). Furthermore, I seriously doubt that there is any net value in scraping operations in most cases. The cost of rail and tie removal can cost more than what the scrap dealer will pay (see previous threads on this subject).

Mudchicken,

Seriously, is the profile of the old Thistle branch any worse than that of Soldier Summit and other mountain mainlines? They can run unit trains over those, right? I'm not doubting your analysis of the line, but methinks you doth protest too much regarding operational constraints.

piouslion,

The proposed Sevier rail link is primarily for moving coal out of the County. Any oil trains would be an added bonus, thus the viability of the line is not dependent on the status of the oil discovery.

[dldance]

Remeber that one of the reasons that the Marysville branch was abandoned as that Thistle Junction suddenly found itself under about 100 feet of wafer ( where it remains today) due to the landslide that formed Thistle Lake. D&RGW drilled two tunnels on the north side of the canyon to get the main line pass the lake but never did reconnect the branch.

dd

[Anonymous]

MC, let me get this right, as a former surveyor to one who still is in the art; the geography and remotness of the location would mean that this oil deposit would have to be a find on the scale of a Spindletop. In your practiced and professional opinion would a rail line be a worthy investment for a rail company or would the pipeline alternative be a more approprate one?

[mudchicken]

Marysvale Branch was (before 1983) a 140 mile drop to the south from DRGW's transcon at Thistle, UT with the worst grades centered around a crest about 25 miles south of Thistle with a maximum grade of about 1.6 % and some sharp 12 degree curves. You were basically running south in a box canyon. The bottom 2/3rds of the railroad were undulating with curves less than 6 degees and grades in both directions less than 1%. About 100 miles south of Thistle at Ephraim was a line to the east (Moroni Spur) that went up and over a steep hogback ridge with a narrow saddle in it that connected Ephrain to Nephi on the UP Salt Lake - Las Vegas transcon. The line was only about 16 miles long, but had up to 5 % in grades any many short reversing curves in the six degree range. The UP and DRGW gave up on the pass in the early 50's. Utah Highway Department took over the route through the saddle, it is now Utah Hwy. 132. Railroad and highway cannot exist together through the saddle. With the easy way now a highway, line changes in that country would be tough (massisive, cuts, fills or tunnels - NOT CHEAP) Operating a unit train over that terrain would be a bearcat and a knucklebuster. Go back and read my post above for the rest of the poop. Six County Government is trying to build-in a new line, but the economics are shaky at best. The coal and oil is all in the south third of the line. Any coal or oil/gas would be developed from scratch ; and the jury is still out on the viability question.

[Anonymous]

Now what about this oil find in UTAH, How big, How accessable, How long to full production, What grade, Who owns it, what is its lifting costs, etc, etc, etc. Such small things I'm sure but being of an Enquireing Mind, Would or could anyone in the know fill in this member of the forum on the original title of this thread ?

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH

If I'm reading his take on this issue correctly, it appears that FM believes that no railroad right-of-way should be taken up, EVER, against the possibility that it might be needed in the future. Of course, if such a line remains in place with no traffic, maintenance would be minimal to non-existent and rebuilding if and when a future need comes up would be quite expensive. Of course, such a situation would be in violation of the Fifth Amendment prohibition against deprivation of life, liberty or property without due process of law.

Paul

Paul -

That is the way I read what he says...

LC

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

If I'm reading his take on this issue correctly, it appears that FM believes that no railroad right-of-way should be taken up, EVER, against the possibility that it might be needed in the future. Of course, if such a line remains in place with no traffic, maintenance would be minimal to non-existent and rebuilding if and when a future need comes up would be quite expensive. Of course, such a situation would be in violation of the Fifth Amendment prohibition against deprivation of life, liberty or property without due process of law.

Paul

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

LC,

In a way you made my point. Railroads are not subject to local and state building regulations, ergo the hypocrasy of giving localities the "right" to force the preservation of an otherwise nondescript brick structure built in 1910, but not the right for force preservation of a rail line built in the 1880's. Given the total impact on local economies, it would make more sense to preserve the rail line than the old brick building. The Sevier County oil find is a case in point. There was a rail line running down from Thistle to Richfield that would be very useful right now for moving unit trains of oil to Salt Lake refineries, but because of the federal pre-emption regarding railroad regulation and FEMA funds distribution, that line is gone and now they're talking about building a new line east from the UP's LA to Salt Lake line, the cost of which is much more than if they had just been able to finance the reconstruction of D&RGW's Thistle branch after the slide. So now all the oil is moving by truck, and if they do get that line built, it may come too late to serve as an oil shuttle, because by then they will have built a pipeline. And to top it off, by accessing off of UP's LA-SL line rather than via the old D&RGW line, the potential Sevier rail shippers will be subject to UP rate monopolization rather than having UP and BNSF compete for rates via Thistle.

Whether the State of Utah was "offered" the Thistle branch via sale is moot, because:
1. Most such offers go through each state's DOT (read: Highway Depts.), and those guys don't want to fool around with railroad politics, they'd rather sling the asphalt around. Such sales should be offered through the States' Commerce departments, but nonetheless........
2. Unless such a sale can afford the online shippers better rates and services, there is no justification for a state to take over rail lines such as the State of Washington deal. All that resulted in was Watco getting a sweet deal at the expense of the State's taxpayers, while the online shippers did not gain anything other than still having a railroad nearby. They are still subject to rail rate monopolization depending on which former Class I owner their plant/elevator lies next to, even though the former UP and BNSF lines interconnect.

That being said, check your local government regs, I bet you find some building codes therein.....

NO, thank you FM, for making my point. Virtually the only regulations that can prevent demolition of a structure (a non-RR or other structure subject to Federal Regulations, that is) are those governing historical preservation or in very rare cases those structures that by their demolition would create significant environmental risks. Anything else is a pure taking. A taking, of course allows us to invoke all of our Constitutional protections against the taking of property without due process of law, which are substantial. I have had very few cases in which a client couldn't demolish an existing structure. Oh, and yes, in the past I've represented a few real estate developers. Glad to be in the RR industry now. It is easier than dealing with localities who invariably have at least one know it all like you in some bureaucratic position clogging the works...

Oh, and you'll find that most of the Building Codes deal with "building" and not demolition. Most laws and regulations concerning demolition are in the Public Health and Welfare titles of the States or localities. But thanks for that little lie again. Hoping to slip that one by are we??

If the line was offered someone had an opportunity to acquire it. If they failed to do so it is a shame, but how could they have known about an oil discovery decades later?!? Many other states and localities have managed to save and maintain rail service over lines that were to be abandoned by acquiring them through the proper STB channels. So, what, since you have this "Brainstorm" we should just all bow to you and say what a brilliant AH he is? FOFLMAO...LOL...LOL...LOL...LOL...LOL...

GET REAL!

LC

[Anonymous]

No doubting you passion LC. An old judge friend of mine used to have a way of looking at the railroads that was somewhat contrary to that of his brethrin and sisterine in Georgia. "The railroad being the way it is about real estate is really one of the primary lines of defense against the loss of private property belonging to the private citizen." In short "The sacred nature of deeds and titles is dependant of the attention of the owner Large and Small, Rich or not rich, Railroad property or a Private citizens home." Judge W. Reynolds State of Georgia to a young friend of his at that time in the 1960's, --- me.------------------What strikes me as strange is the lack of clarity when folks discuss the real assets of a railroad company. Your holding to the statutory side of the matter is a good attempt to keep this view in focus. Unfortunatly there are those that would choose to use local opinion substituting as legal and practical reality that gets many an arguement going. I feel that your reserch while falling on many deaf ears, for me shows why I have always respected those know that they know and keep their minds active in those areas they have spent their lives developing. In short, well said. - PL

[Anonymous]

LC,

In a way you made my point. Railroads are not subject to local and state building regulations, ergo the hypocrasy of giving localities the "right" to force the preservation of an otherwise nondescript brick structure built in 1910, but not the right for force preservation of a rail line built in the 1880's. Given the total impact on local economies, it would make more sense to preserve the rail line than the old brick building. The Sevier County oil find is a case in point. There was a rail line running down from Thistle to Richfield that would be very useful right now for moving unit trains of oil to Salt Lake refineries, but because of the federal pre-emption regarding railroad regulation and FEMA funds distribution, that line is gone and now they're talking about building a new line east from the UP's LA to Salt Lake line, the cost of which is much more than if they had just been able to finance the reconstruction of D&RGW's Thistle branch after the slide. So now all the oil is moving by truck, and if they do get that line built, it may come too late to serve as an oil shuttle, because by then they will have built a pipeline. And to top it off, by accessing off of UP's LA-SL line rather than via the old D&RGW line, the potential Sevier rail shippers will be subject to UP rate monopolization rather than having UP and BNSF compete for rates via Thistle.

Whether the State of Utah was "offered" the Thistle branch via sale is moot, because:
1. Most such offers go through each state's DOT (read: Highway Depts.), and those guys don't want to fool around with railroad politics, they'd rather sling the asphalt around. Such sales should be offered through the States' Commerce departments, but nonetheless........
2. Unless such a sale can afford the online shippers better rates and services, there is no justification for a state to take over rail lines such as the State of Washington deal. All that resulted in was Watco getting a sweet deal at the expense of the State's taxpayers, while the online shippers did not gain anything other than still having a railroad nearby. They are still subject to rail rate monopolization depending on which former Class I owner their plant/elevator lies next to, even though the former UP and BNSF lines interconnect.

That being said, check your local government regs, I bet you find some building codes therein.....

[Anonymous]

Oh, and while we're on the subject, you might just want to examine the recent case of CSX v. Williams decided on May 3, 2005 by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit holding that a D.C. ordinance establishing an exclusion zone for hazardous materials transportation was preempted by the Federal Railroad Safety Act, and as such unenforceable.

LC

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Look at your local regs. Most local governments have a say in how abandonded property is disposed. For example, if the owners of the Space Needle in Seattle suddenly converted to the sect of environmentalism and subsequenty decided that the structure was a blight on the environment and needed to be torn down, they would have a hard time getting the necessary permits to do so. The governments of Seattle, King County, and the State of Washington simply would not allow them to do so.

Governments at all levels do have an absolute say on how improved property is disposed. They need to take that oversight right and start applying it to railroads.

Mudchicken and LC are simply reactive antagonists who once again pull shortsighted retorts out of their anal brain holes.

FM -

SHOW ME THE STATUTES!!! Mr. Anal-IST. That is simply NOT TRUE. PERIOD.

Local governments can control zoning and to a lesser degree permitting, they cannot and do not have absolute control over property use or demolition.

Further, railroads are exempt from Anti-trust laws and which are not subject to local or state regulation of their operations, routes, and services by virtue of Federal preemption. Land use and permitting are expressly preempted under City of Auburn v. U.S. 154 F.2d 1025 (9th Cir. 1998) as is permitting of railroad constructed structures. Green Mountain RR v Vermont No. 04-0366 Slip Op.(2d Cir 2005).

So c'mon genius. Lets see it. No more smoke and mirrors. You can't just bend everything your way, nice try.

LC

[ChuckCobleigh]

QUOTE: Originally posted by mudchicken



Somebody turn up "Big Rock Candy Mountain" now please.....fade to black.

Spoken like someone who has been in that neighborhood, at least a bit south of the oil find as depicted on the Deseret News map.

[Anonymous]

Look at your local regs. Most local governments have a say in how abandonded property is disposed. For example, if the owners of the Space Needle in Seattle suddenly converted to the sect of environmentalism and subsequenty decided that the structure was a blight on the environment and needed to be torn down, they would have a hard time getting the necessary permits to do so. The governments of Seattle, King County, and the State of Washington simply would not allow them to do so.

Governments at all levels do have an absolute say on how improved property is disposed. They need to take that oversight right and start applying it to railroads.

Mudchicken and LC are simply reactive antagonists who once again pull shortsighted retorts out of their anal brain holes.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by mudchicken

LC - FM likes to play fast and loose with the facts or he ignores them altogether if it does not suit his agenda/ view of the world here. His reality is selective - nothing new. Tried to avoid stepping into the last paragraph, but you jumped in feet first. Have fun!!

Somebody turn up "Big Rock Candy Mountain" now please.....fade to black.

Absolutely true MC, couldn't agree more. A terminal case of head in A** disease as I like to say...

LC

[mudchicken]

LC - FM likes to play fast and loose with the facts or he ignores them altogether if it does not suit his agenda/ view of the world here. His reality is selective - nothing new. Tried to avoid stepping into the last paragraph, but you jumped in feet first. Have fun!!

Somebody turn up "Big Rock Candy Mountain" now please.....fade to black.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

When a property owner abandons a brick business building, he is not allowed to take the bricks with him. The local government condemns the whole lot intact, and either auctions it off to other bidders, refurbishes the building with public funds, or razes it themselves. This idea of letting railroads scavenge the remains of railroads and then just walking away is detrimental to the national economy, and is inconsistent with standard infrastructure abandonment procedures.

Generally, when such a decrepit building is abandoned, it is because the value of the building is so low, that no one will pay to buy it, and the cost to demo the building exceeds any residual land or scrap value. So typically the owner strips what fixtures can be easily liquidated, and then the property sits until property taxes fall far enough behind to srize the property, having the end result of sticking the taxpayer with the cost of demolition .

Rail, on the other hand, has an ideal set up for recovering the scrap value remaining, everything is out in the open, no building wrapped around it all, and the perfect means to haul away the materials, just as you pull them up behind you

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,600131526,00.html

One interesting blurb from the article states that they are trucking the 1500 barrels per day to Salt Lake area refineries. Since one barrel equals 42 gallons, that's only 63,000 gallons per day or 441,000 gallons per week, not enough to justify a shuttle train just yet. They would need roughly 5 times their current production to justify a weekly oil can move by rail. By the same token, if daily production doesn't exceed 10,000 barrels a day, that may not be enough to justify the construction of an oil pipeline into the area. Relatively small production quantities may favor unit train transport over pipeline transport.

Of course, the question is mute if the proposed Sevier rail link is not built. Does anyone know the current status of that project? The line is being proposed to move coal out of the region, but of course it wouldn't hurt to move some oil out as well.

It is unfortunate that the D&RGW chose to abandon rather than rebuild the Thistle branch which once ran into this area. This is one of those sticking points with me regarding current railroad abandonment regulations. If a railroad no longer wants to operate a rail line, then that property should immediately be transferred to the State with everything intact, rather than letting the railroad sell the rails and ties for scrap. When a property owner abandons a brick business building, he is not allowed to take the bricks with him. The local government condems the whole lot intact, and either auctions it off to other bidders, refurbishes the building with public funds, or razes it themselves. This idea of letting railroads scavenge the remains of railroads and then just walking away is detrimental to the national economy, and is inconsistent with standard infrastructure abandonment procedures.

WHAT??!!

Where in the U.S. does the government stop owners of buildings from demolition for the sake of keeping the structure??? Unless you are talking about structures on the National Register of Historic Places, I know of no such regulation. Even so, the government does not conmdemn such structures it merely forbids demolition. There is no such justification for stopping railroad abandonments unless the government is willing to nationalize the entire system or Pay the RR the net liquidation value of the line which is already possible under the Offer of Financial Assistance procedures regulated by the U.S. Department of Transportation, Surface Transportation Board. Anything beyond that is a taking of private property without due process of law. So, what you are suggesting already exists, it is merely local governments who don't have the wherewithall or motivation to buy these lines except in a few cases. The ability to buy them is already a matter of black letter law. Get with the program...

LC