Prairietype wrote: Railway Man wrote: Professionally I have had a principal role in the reactivation of several abandoned or embargoed lines with and without track in place. In all cases the cost of rehabilitating the existing track structure was virtually the same as new, or even exceeded new (so we scraped it off and started over). RWM Just curious: what's a ballpark figure of the cost per mile to rehab of a fairly deteriorated but not hopeless right-of-way or railbed?
Railway Man wrote: Professionally I have had a principal role in the reactivation of several abandoned or embargoed lines with and without track in place. In all cases the cost of rehabilitating the existing track structure was virtually the same as new, or even exceeded new (so we scraped it off and started over). RWM
Professionally I have had a principal role in the reactivation of several abandoned or embargoed lines with and without track in place. In all cases the cost of rehabilitating the existing track structure was virtually the same as new, or even exceeded new (so we scraped it off and started over).
RWM
Just curious: what's a ballpark figure of the cost per mile to rehab of a fairly deteriorated but not hopeless right-of-way or railbed?
There was a leingthy thread on this a while back, here's the link.
http://www.trains.com/trccs/forums/1270285/ShowPost.aspx
Railway Man wrote: Prairietype wrote: Just curious: what's a ballpark figure of the cost per mile to rehab of a fairly deteriorated but not hopeless right-of-way or railbed?Hard to answer. Depends what you want to use it for -- main line, branch line, industrial spur, tourist pike? Depends on whether there are bridges, tunnels, grade crossings, grade separations, presence of section 404 jurisdictional wetlands, local communities who will fight it, requirement to build grade separations, detour around built-up areas, NEPA (environmental) considerations, etc. In a broad range it could be as little as $100,000 mile (low useage requirements, good condition, no permit issues) to $5,000,000 mile (high useage requirements, poor condition, significant permit issues), and upward.Ten years ago, BNSF spent $135 million to reopen the Stampede Pass line between Pasco and Auburn, Wash. That included purchase of the Washington Central, which was in operation, and heavy rehab of the dormant portion of the line over the pass itself. RWM
Prairietype wrote: Just curious: what's a ballpark figure of the cost per mile to rehab of a fairly deteriorated but not hopeless right-of-way or railbed?
Hard to answer. Depends what you want to use it for -- main line, branch line, industrial spur, tourist pike? Depends on whether there are bridges, tunnels, grade crossings, grade separations, presence of section 404 jurisdictional wetlands, local communities who will fight it, requirement to build grade separations, detour around built-up areas, NEPA (environmental) considerations, etc. In a broad range it could be as little as $100,000 mile (low useage requirements, good condition, no permit issues) to $5,000,000 mile (high useage requirements, poor condition, significant permit issues), and upward.
Ten years ago, BNSF spent $135 million to reopen the Stampede Pass line between Pasco and Auburn, Wash. That included purchase of the Washington Central, which was in operation, and heavy rehab of the dormant portion of the line over the pass itself.
I was thinking of railway, abandoned for about fifteen years, with a roadbed still intact, and brought back to class III or IV condition, capable of running passenger rail service. the reason I ask is because in 1995 MoDot publiched a report of the per mile cost to rehab a mile: $250,000. This would be a general mile, not an excessive amount of crossings, signals, culverts, etc. Now I know this study was done 14 years ago, and their is an inflation factor, however, I wouldn't imagine that the costs have quadrupled or gone up ten times that amount. In fact, the UP just did a forty mile stretch (and pretty extensive) of rehab east of Jefferson City, Missouri which has contributed to the bad service (that Amtrak has been saddled with) and the cost for this was 10 million dollars, which still translates to $250,000 a mile.
I wanted to see if your costs were going to be in that neighborhood. There is an initiative being pursued by a group in Kansas to extend Amtrak service in that State. I have followed their progress and they are shooting for a figure of 2.9 million for 75 miles of improvement (not rehab). I was curious if these costs come in close to realistic scenarios; because I've been tempted to join this initiative if it has credibility.
There was some report out of the Kansas DOT which threw out a figue of 220 million (it seemed rediculous, unless they were considering builind an all new railway right-of-way (and why would anyone propose that?
So, is maybe $300,000-600,000 a mile a pretty good figure for rehab based on your knowledge?
Also, your high figure of $5 million a mile corresponds almost directly with the mean per-mile cost of standard state highway (publiched reports use a figure of 3-10 million a mile. Per lane cost per mile of interstate is 10 million.
Prairietype wrote:I was thinking of railway, abandoned for about fifteen years, with a roadbed still intact, and brought back to class III or IV condition, capable of running passenger rail service. the reason I ask is because in 1995 MoDot publiched a report of the per mile cost to rehab a mile: $250,000. This would be a general mile, not an excessive amount of crossings, signals, culverts, etc. Now I know this study was done 14 years ago, and their is an inflation factor, however, I wouldn't imagine that the costs have quadrupled or gone up ten times that amount. In fact, the UP just did a forty mile stretch (and pretty extensive) of rehab east of Jefferson City, Missouri which has contributed to the bad service (that Amtrak has been saddled with) and the cost for this was 10 million dollars, which still translates to $250,000 a mile.I wanted to see if your costs were going to be in that neighborhood. There is an initiative being pursued by a group in Kansas to extend Amtrak service in that State. I have followed their progress and they are shooting for a figure of 2.9 million for 75 miles of improvement (not rehab). I was curious if these costs come in close to realistic scenarios; because I've been tempted to join this initiative if it has credibility.There was some report out of the Kansas DOT which threw out a figue of 220 million (it seemed rediculous, unless they were considering builind an all new railway right-of-way (and why would anyone propose that?So, is maybe $300,000-600,000 a mile a pretty good figure for rehab based on your knowledge? Also, your high figure of $5 million a mile corresponds almost directly with the mean per-mile cost of standard state highway (publiched reports use a figure of 3-10 million a mile. Per lane cost per mile of interstate is 10 million.
I am not knowledgable about what these studies looked at and wanted to do, so I am not able to make any informed comments about them (but if you have links to them on-line, please point me to them). I am not sure from your question if you're looking for reopening a line that has track in place, or is nothing but an embankment, so I'll consider it both ways. I'm thinking that if it's track in the wet climate of the upper midwest, out of service for 15 years, probably wasn't fantastic to begin with ... that the ties are upward of 50% junk, the rail is probably jointed with end batter ... it might be 100% scrape-off. Any wayside or grade-crossing signaling is almost certainly junk.
I also don't know what kind of passenger service you're looking at -- commuter? tourist line ambling through the daisies? so let's say we want commuter rail. In that case we need fairly high-quality track otherwise the maintenance costs, slow orders, and schedule disruptions will be deadly. It's hard to rebuild to "FRA III or FRA IV." FRA track classes are maintenance deficiency standards, not construction standards, and govern quantitative matters of lack of maintenance such as broad gauge, low joints, crosslevel, etc. Brand-new track can be laid with 141RE on concrete ties that won't meet FRA Class I; conversely, 90lb stick rail on wood ties can readily if somewhat expensively be maintained to meet FRA Class V.
Here are the elements:
Right of way: Assuming the right of way is intact but service has been abandoned for 15 years, there will be unknown and possibly very expensive land use, environmental impact, and land ownership issues to resolve. Budget figure -- I don't know.
Structures: May require 100% replacement. Figure $35,000 for small culvert, $150,000 for large culvert, $2-10 million for a bridge (depending upon length, clear span, height above streambed, soils, streambed issues, erosion issues, permits, etc. -- a big bridge is $50 million and up).
Road crossings: Public roads will likely will have to be 100% signalized, figure $350,000 to $700,000 each. Private roads may be sufficient with passive warning devices, $50,000 each. Quiet zones will probably be required in built-up areas, $500,000 to $1,250,000 each
Grade separations: $3,000,000 to $50,000,000 each -- everyone estimates optimistically that these won't be needed and at the end of the day, to get political buy-in from the voters, there often ends up being a lot of them.
Embankment: Probably will require some shoulder armoring, grading, vegetation removal, erosion repair; may require dealing with some soils issues that were never dealt with in the first place. Figure between $10/foot to $200/foot.
Track: For commuter rail we'll need not less than 115RE CWR, wood ties or concrete ties (same price either way), figure $120/foot.
Turnouts: For commuter rail we'll want at least #20s, figure $150,000 each.
Signaling: For commuter rail we'll need CTC (since CBTC isn't quite yet off-the-shelf); figure $500,000 to $2,000,000 per mile. Some lines can feasibly remain "dark" but there are not many cases where that's a good idea.
Stations: Ballpark $1,000,000 to $3,000,000 each for simple platform, shelter, parking lot, street improvements, traffic lights, etc.
Contingency: 20%
Design, permitting, survey, geotech, 10%
Property acquisition -- not included (sky's the limit).
As far as what happens to old rails? It gets reused or recycled. The plant I work at was built in the 60's and the rail's going into our warehouse are date stamped 1890's - 1920's
gabe wrote:Thank you on both points.The first is something I always suspected, but was never really able to articulate into a theory. Why is it that an idle rail line actually deteriorates more quickly? To me, this is simply fascinating.
Thank you on both points.
The first is something I always suspected, but was never really able to articulate into a theory. Why is it that an idle rail line actually deteriorates more quickly? To me, this is simply fascinating.
1. Signals both wayside and grade-crossing, as well as detectors and slide fences, turn to junk very quickly after they are powered down -- it's the nature of electronic equipment in the great outdoors. Vandals and copper thieves break into the cases and dig up the cable, and the doors are left open for the elements to come in. Mice get into the cases and chew on cable. Lightning strikes burn things out. The problem is, even if only one little thing in an installation fails, locating that failure is very expensive, and very hard, and you're never sure if you really got it or you only think you got it, and since these are safety-critical applications you can't exactly turn it on and run it for awhile to see what happens. So in most cases it's cheaper to simply throw it all away and start over. On an active line there's a maintainer out there 24/7 keeping after the equipment and the failures, and little failures stay little.
2. Wood ties have peculiar deterioration characteristics. The cycle of rail traffic tends to pump creosote through the fibers. When that ceases the tie tends to rot faster.
3. Rail and OTM doesn't deteriorate, much, but alignment dribbles away with freeze-thaw cycles. However, in jointed rail the joints freeze.
4. Ditches clog and water starts infiltrating the embankment. Cuts and shoulders slough. Vegetation infiltrates the ballast and begins clogging it and breaking down. Bridge piers and abutments scour; debris collects in bridges and culverts, leading to severe washouts and bridge. All of this occurs on an active line but there's a track inspector and section gang out there to keep after it every day before little problems become very expensive problems.
With regard to your second point, I am not really experienced enough in rail operations to speek authoritatively on the subject; but, I would like to read about more on this subject, as it seems intuitive to me. I wonder what the insurance rates, liability costs, maintenance costs of a rails-to-trails compare to a minimal service line? Of course, because the rails to trails serves a benefit to a group of people that vote, cost-benefit doesn't really matter. Still, well, I digress.Gabe
With regard to your second point, I am not really experienced enough in rail operations to speek authoritatively on the subject; but, I would like to read about more on this subject, as it seems intuitive to me. I wonder what the insurance rates, liability costs, maintenance costs of a rails-to-trails compare to a minimal service line? Of course, because the rails to trails serves a benefit to a group of people that vote, cost-benefit doesn't really matter. Still, well, I digress.
Gabe
There are three general cases here. First is the embargoed but not abandoned line (think Saluda). Second is the abandoned but not removed line (think the Rock Island across Missouri). Third is the abandoned and removed line. The reactivation difficulty increases exponentially with each case.
I'm interested in the scenario where a line has fallen below the threshold for economic viability but there is reasonable potential to expect it to return in say, 10-15 years. If it hasn't got that potential you might as well pull the service off.
The reason to maintain minimal service is that once a rail line is out of service, the people in that locale and state very quickly forget that it's a railroad and begin treating it as free land, As experience is showing, they will vehemently resist reactivation, even with a collossal expenditure for quality-of-life and grade-crossing safety by the railroad upon reactivation. While the line is out-of-service, grade crossings are punched through wherever it's convenient for a municipality or a developer, no matter how unsafe they might be or how much they might impinge on future railroad operations, and the states back this in the courts. Existing grade-crossings in built-up areas now need to become quiet zones (at $250K-$1MM each) because otherwise property values are negatively affected. Grade separations become essential. Sound fences become essential; again, it's a property value issue. While the line is out of service adjacent property owners and the municipality begin using it as a storm sewer and drainage channel; later, when the railroad wants to bring it back on-line, it finds that it now has to deal with all the drainage issues of everyone else (and this can be, again, collossally expensive). People use the railroad as a short cut between housing projects and shopping centers, as well as an ATV trail, and you can actually get into situations where the railroad has to erect pedestrian bridges or underpasses to protect these "historic" uses.
Does this make any sense? It's hard to explain.
Railway Man wrote: Your post made me curious how much tonnage of scrap railroad tie goes to power plant boilers. As near as I can tell, not much. There are several small power plants configured to handle wood waste, including chipped rail ties, as a fuel source, such as French Island (LaCrosse), Wisc., and Bayfront (Ashland), Wisc. Several others have done test burns such as LaCygne, Kansas. But the quantity apparently isn't enough for the Energy Information Administration to break it out separate from the waste stream generated by the forest products industry.RWM
Your post made me curious how much tonnage of scrap railroad tie goes to power plant boilers. As near as I can tell, not much. There are several small power plants configured to handle wood waste, including chipped rail ties, as a fuel source, such as French Island (LaCrosse), Wisc., and Bayfront (Ashland), Wisc. Several others have done test burns such as LaCygne, Kansas. But the quantity apparently isn't enough for the Energy Information Administration to break it out separate from the waste stream generated by the forest products industry.
"We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics
Railway Man wrote: gabe wrote: Thank you on both points.The first is something I always suspected, but was never really able to articulate into a theory. Why is it that an idle rail line actually deteriorates more quickly? To me, this is simply fascinating.1. Signals both wayside and grade-crossing, as well as detectors and slide fences, turn to junk very quickly after they are powered down -- it's the nature of electronic equipment in the great outdoors. Vandals and copper thieves break into the cases and dig up the cable, and the doors are left open for the elements to come in. Mice get into the cases and chew on cable. Lightning strikes burn things out. The problem is, even if only one little thing in an installation fails, locating that failure is very expensive, and very hard, and you're never sure if you really got it or you only think you got it, and since these are safety-critical applications you can't exactly turn it on and run it for awhile to see what happens. So in most cases it's cheaper to simply throw it all away and start over. On an active line there's a maintainer out there 24/7 keeping after the equipment and the failures, and little failures stay little. 2. Wood ties have peculiar deterioration characteristics. The cycle of rail traffic tends to pump creosote through the fibers. When that ceases the tie tends to rot faster.3. Rail and OTM doesn't deteriorate, much, but alignment dribbles away with freeze-thaw cycles. However, in jointed rail the joints freeze. 4. Ditches clog and water starts infiltrating the embankment. Cuts and shoulders slough. Vegetation infiltrates the ballast and begins clogging it and breaking down. Bridge piers and abutments scour; debris collects in bridges and culverts, leading to severe washouts and bridge. All of this occurs on an active line but there's a track inspector and section gang out there to keep after it every day before little problems become very expensive problems. With regard to your second point, I am not really experienced enough in rail operations to speek authoritatively on the subject; but, I would like to read about more on this subject, as it seems intuitive to me. I wonder what the insurance rates, liability costs, maintenance costs of a rails-to-trails compare to a minimal service line? Of course, because the rails to trails serves a benefit to a group of people that vote, cost-benefit doesn't really matter. Still, well, I digress.GabeThere are three general cases here. First is the embargoed but not abandoned line (think Saluda). Second is the abandoned but not removed line (think the Rock Island across Missouri). Third is the abandoned and removed line. The reactivation difficulty increases exponentially with each case.I'm interested in the scenario where a line has fallen below the threshold for economic viability but there is reasonable potential to expect it to return in say, 10-15 years. If it hasn't got that potential you might as well pull the service off. The reason to maintain minimal service is that once a rail line is out of service, the people in that locale and state very quickly forget that it's a railroad and begin treating it as free land, As experience is showing, they will vehemently resist reactivation, even with a collossal expenditure for quality-of-life and grade-crossing safety by the railroad upon reactivation. While the line is out-of-service, grade crossings are punched through wherever it's convenient for a municipality or a developer, no matter how unsafe they might be or how much they might impinge on future railroad operations, and the states back this in the courts. Existing grade-crossings in built-up areas now need to become quiet zones (at $250K-$1MM each) because otherwise property values are negatively affected. Grade separations become essential. Sound fences become essential; again, it's a property value issue. While the line is out of service adjacent property owners and the municipality begin using it as a storm sewer and drainage channel; later, when the railroad wants to bring it back on-line, it finds that it now has to deal with all the drainage issues of everyone else (and this can be, again, collossally expensive). People use the railroad as a short cut between housing projects and shopping centers, as well as an ATV trail, and you can actually get into situations where the railroad has to erect pedestrian bridges or underpasses to protect these "historic" uses. Does this make any sense? It's hard to explain. RWM
gabe wrote: Thank you on both points.The first is something I always suspected, but was never really able to articulate into a theory. Why is it that an idle rail line actually deteriorates more quickly? To me, this is simply fascinating.
Perfect sense. Thank you.
Thanks for all the feed back on this issue everyone!
Everyone, this was a great read!
Thanks
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.