Possibly the Towner Line Grain Prople and the UP should enter into a long-term contract for hauling grain to the west. The terms should be confidential, but such that the line would be rehabilitated by the UP itself as ac worthwhile invesrtment.
UP wouldn't need to rehab the TP line to do this -- it could move the traffic on its existing route through Denver, then either west on the Moffat route or via Cheyenne on the overland route. Yes, it would be a longer route than using TP, but it would also be using existing routes that don't have to be rebuilt and aren't as difficult to operate as TP. In freight railroading, the most direct route on a map is not always the best route.
This, by the way, is also the reason it would make no sense for the Towner people to acquire and upgrade the TP route, as they tried to do in their prior "feeder line" application (which was denied by STB). Their own evidence, submitted as part of their application, shows that it would cost about $278 million to return the line to service. They would be far better off interchanging their westbound grain to UP or BNSF at the west end of the Towner line (near Pueblo), which would avoid all of this expense, and also give them two competing railroads to play off against each other. In contrast, the only RR they could interchange with at the west end of the TP line (Dotsero) is UP.
But the Joint Line Pueblo - Colorado Springs - Denver is at capacity.
"daveklepper" But the Joint Line Pueblo - Colorado Springs - Denver is at capacity.
No longer the case. In fact UP use has substantially diminished, and the BNSF coal trains also.
daveklepper But the Joint Line Pueblo - Colorado Springs - Denver is at capacity.
You need to read the March 2021 issue of TRAINS. Traffic between Denver and Pueblo is mostly coal trains and it's down 40% from its peak in 2008 (when the line was at capacity) and over 50% today. It'll recover a bit if we beat COVID, but coal traffic won't return to peak volume.
Mark Meyer
Falcon48 UP wouldn't need to rehab the TP line to do this -- it could move the traffic on its existing route through Denver, then either west on the Moffat route or via Cheyenne on the overland route. Yes, it would be a longer route than using TP, but it would also be using existing routes that don't have to be rebuilt and aren't as difficult to operate as TP. In freight railroading, the most direct route on a map is not always the best route. This, by the way, is also the reason it would make no sense for the Towner people to acquire and upgrade the TP route, as they tried to do in their prior "feeder line" application (which was denied by STB). Their own evidence, submitted as part of their application, shows that it would cost about $278 million to return the line to service. They would be far better off interchanging their westbound grain to UP or BNSF at the west end of the Towner line (near Pueblo), which would avoid all of this expense, and also give them two competing railroads to play off against each other. In contrast, the only RR they could interchange with at the west end of the TP line (Dotsero) is UP.
Exactly. This whole premise is ridiculous. Use the better existing routes. And really, where is this bonanza of grain that isn't (evidently) moving now? Where is it going? Check out the UP and BNSF maps of shuttle grain train facilities in Eastern Colorado as it is, and there aren't many. How do we know there really is demand? And even if there is, the volume would be seasonal and minimal - hardly worth upgrading a mountain railroad and running heavy trains over Soldier Summit. And: How do we know that the grain will bill west? These grain companies readily divert trains all over the place, and right now 75% of export grain in this country goes to the Gulf or Pacific Northwest. My experience with BNSF is that grain in this area goes to the Gulf or feedlots in New Mexico, Texas, Arizona or the Central Valley of California. All places better accessed by the NOT-Tennessee Pass line.
This thing is a non-starter.
Apparently
VerMontanan Falcon48 UP wouldn't need to rehab the TP line to do this -- it could move the traffic on its existing route through Denver, then either west on the Moffat route or via Cheyenne on the overland route. Yes, it would be a longer route than using TP, but it would also be using existing routes that don't have to be rebuilt and aren't as difficult to operate as TP. In freight railroading, the most direct route on a map is not always the best route. This, by the way, is also the reason it would make no sense for the Towner people to acquire and upgrade the TP route, as they tried to do in their prior "feeder line" application (which was denied by STB). Their own evidence, submitted as part of their application, shows that it would cost about $278 million to return the line to service. They would be far better off interchanging their westbound grain to UP or BNSF at the west end of the Towner line (near Pueblo), which would avoid all of this expense, and also give them two competing railroads to play off against each other. In contrast, the only RR they could interchange with at the west end of the TP line (Dotsero) is UP. Exactly. This whole premise is ridiculous. Use the better existing routes. And really, where is this bonanza of grain that isn't (evidently) moving now? Where is it going? Check out the UP and BNSF maps of shuttle grain train facilities in Eastern Colorado as it is, and there aren't many. How do we know there really is demand? And even if there is, the volume would be seasonal and minimal - hardly worth upgrading a mountain railroad and running heavy trains over Soldier Summit. And: How do we know that the grain will bill west? These grain companies readily divert trains all over the place, and right now 75% of export grain in this country goes to the Gulf or Pacific Northwest. My experience with BNSF is that grain in this area goes to the Gulf or feedlots in New Mexico, Texas, Arizona or the Central Valley of California. All places better accessed by the NOT-Tennessee Pass line. This thing is a non-starter.
Apparently some facts are being ignored here about the TP and Colorado Pacific(which is the same people that own and operate the Towner Line), who also just happen to own almost 400,000 thousand acres of farmland in Eastern Colorado and Western Kansas(which they ship on their own railroad). Therefore they control the sale and shipment of all that grain.
First, when the UP was granted the privilege of absorbing the SP(DRGW), BNSF was granted trackage rights over the UP Moffat route, which happens to include the junction at Dotsero with TP. As far as I know, there's nothing excluding the BNSF from setting up an interchange with another railroad if it was to gain use of TP, this is the thinking of the Colorado Pacific people(and the reason they want the entire line, not just a portion).
Second I already mentioned above, there's already a substantial amount of grain traffic available to move over the TP, that which is owned by the people behind Colorado Pacific in the first place. I think 400k acres of prime farmland that already is served by a railroad you own, connecting to another railroad you own with two railroads at the West end to choose from is a win - win, and if they so choose they chould also handle the Eastbound oil trains once the Uinta Basin line is built(I should say if it's built, which it should be, even with Biden taking office, the area is already producing oil, it's not new leases or new drilling, so it doesn't fall under his reducing our use of fossil fuels).
BNSF's trackage rights over the Moffat route (acquired in the UP-SP merger) are "overhead" rights. BNSF cannot interchange with an operator of the TP line at or near the west end of the line, whoever that operator may be.
GERALD L MCFARLANE JR Apparently some facts are being ignored here about the TP and Colorado Pacific(which is the same people that own and operate the Towner Line), who also just happen to own almost 400,000 thousand acres of farmland in Eastern Colorado and Western Kansas(which they ship on their own railroad). Therefore they control the sale and shipment of all that grain.
They might control it at origin, but they don't control it at the destination, and that's pretty much all that counts. What's so special about this wheat that you think it will go to one specific port when no other (shuttle) grain shipments do?
GERALD L MCFARLANE JR First, when the UP was granted the privilege of absorbing the SP(DRGW), BNSF was granted trackage rights over the UP Moffat route, which happens to include the junction at Dotsero with TP. As far as I know, there's nothing excluding the BNSF from setting up an interchange with another railroad if it was to gain use of TP, this is the thinking of the Colorado Pacific people(and the reason they want the entire line, not just a portion).
This assumes BNSF would want the business. Say Grand Junction is the interchange point. How will this work? Assuming a standard shuttle grain train (which we have to because only A LOT of volume - much more than even remotely could happen - could make this work) which is about 16,000 tons....the shortline drops it at Grand Junction which is nowheresville on BNSF, which needs to reposition 9 locomotives from Denver to get the train over Soldier Summit. This assumes that the train is going to somewhere like the port of Stockton. But if it's going to Long Beach - what run it over Tehachapi and Cajon? What about the Pacific Northwest? North from Keddie, BNSF in general limits northward trains to about 4200 feet to fit for unit trains southbound. That leaves you with the UP that won't consider taking the train at Dotsero or Grand Junction because they can do it infinitely cheaper from Pueblo via Denver. Think that BNSF or UP power will operate through to the Towner Line to load? Well, then that makes it part of their shuttle program which is pretty much purchased by the large Ag companies, which makes the shipment subject to market conditions and diversions and the more-efficient routings which would never include Soldier Summit.
GERALD L MCFARLANE JR Second I already mentioned above, there's already a substantial amount of grain traffic available to move over the TP, that which is owned by the people behind Colorado Pacific in the first place. I think 400k acres of prime farmland that already is served by a railroad you own, connecting to another railroad you own with two railroads at the West end to choose from is a win - win,
Second I already mentioned above, there's already a substantial amount of grain traffic available to move over the TP, that which is owned by the people behind Colorado Pacific in the first place. I think 400k acres of prime farmland that already is served by a railroad you own, connecting to another railroad you own with two railroads at the West end to choose from is a win - win,
Please explain how you know that this is prime farmland, and explain how this "substantial amount of grain traffic" is moving now. Remember, it's "prime" farmland, so we know that it isn't just lying dormant!
This map is interesting:
https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/sites/default/files/Glimpse%20of%20CO%20Agriculture%20Map%202.pdf
Of the top 10 agricultural counties in Colorado, only one, Crowley, is served by this shortline railroad, and it's primary commodity is cattle, not wheat. The reality is that most of Colorado's wheat production in in the Northeast part of the state, which is why there are many more shuttle grain train facilities there to accommodate. Another reality is that transportation is the number one cost in grain production and marketing. Assuming that BNSF and/or UP would even consider accepting a shuttle grain at Dotsero/Grand Jct. from this shortline in the first place, I find it impossible to believe that when this bonanza of wheat erupts from this prime farmland, that the producer (even if it does own its own railroad) wouldn't truck it to the shuttle facility at Coolidge or Cheyenne Wells when UP and BNSF offer transportation at a rate significantly lower than the slower and steeper route over Tennessee Pass. (Spoiler: And yes, this is how grain from this area really does move now.) Doing the math, and it doesn't add up. And that doesn't even include the facility (or facilities) that would have to be constructed to load the train (which cost tens of millions of dollars), or how the shortline would supply locomotives and cars if (somehow) it didn't participate in UP or BNSF shuttle programs.
GERALD L MCFARLANE JR and if they so choose they chould also handle the Eastbound oil trains once the Uinta Basin line is built(I should say if it's built, which it should be, even with Biden taking office, the area is already producing oil, it's not new leases or new drilling, so it doesn't fall under his reducing our use of fossil fuels).
and if they so choose they chould also handle the Eastbound oil trains once the Uinta Basin line is built(I should say if it's built, which it should be, even with Biden taking office, the area is already producing oil, it's not new leases or new drilling, so it doesn't fall under his reducing our use of fossil fuels).
I don't think it would be the shortline choosing to handle these yet non-existent oil trains; that would be up to BNSF or UP as to whether they would give the shortline the business. Especially given that coal traffic is down, and that the shortline would expect BNSF and UP to power the trains accordingly for the 3 percent eastward over Tennessee Pass and which time the 2 percent of Moffat looks pretty good, especially when it would likely require yet another set of distributed power cut in midtrain or a reduction in train size - always expensive and time-consuming maneuvers.
And lastly, we must know why there was no effort to do this earlier? Even without Tennessee Pass, there certainly would have been a movement to get a working railroad and shuttle elevator facilities in place by now. Why did the Kansas and Oklahoma Railroad not seek access to this windfall? (The connection at the state line.)
Nope. None of this makes economic sense, but I do think there's something else going on here, likely completely unrelated to moving the fruits of this "prime" farmland....
Falcon48 BNSF's trackage rights over the Moffat route (acquired in the UP-SP merger) are "overhead" rights. BNSF cannot interchange with an operator of the TP line at or near the west end of the line, whoever that operator may be.
While we're on the subject. How much time does the Rio Grande even have at this point? It's handicapped by a tough operating profile and can not accommodate anything over Plate F..
My only point is that if the linbe is returned to service at all, the rehabilitatioin should be done by UP and nobody else, regardless of which railroad's business the line serves.
Agreements between railroads on sharing the profits of new business don't involve intrusions by NIMBYS or the EPA and can be done with minimum legal fees. Even the STB mght not be involved.
If new and profitable business isn't involved, why would anyone want to repair the line?
Additional thoughts to ponder:
(1) BNSF is already picking-up, switching and setting out cars at Rifle (frac sand) and Parachute (soda ash) ....no idea how the Elkins rules apply at either site.
(2)UP is trying hard to dump everything south of Denver right now (if they can get the proper trade-off)..BNSF already dispatches and maintains everything south of South Denver (I-25 & Broadway to Pueblo to NA Junction)...CDOT's rubber-tired muggles, in one of the dumbest deals in the history of Earth, has already purchased 6+ miles of former DRGW R/W and the Burnham Shops in a related move.
(3) BNSF already had (historically, via CB&Q in 1905) the right to operate over and/or possibly purchase the Moffat line to Osterod (Bond) as a condition of the help that Moffat's DNWP got from CB&Q (Colorado Railway)during the Gore Canyon War with (ironically) the UP and Harriman.
mudchickenOsterod
Osterod spelled backward is Dotsero - the connection of the Moffit Tunnel line with the D& RG original line over Tennessee Pass.
diningcarOsterod spelled backward is Dotsero
What I typed, Orestod, is what all my references have ever indicated.
My bad - I know the name connection but did not look at the misspelling.
A couple of quick responses to Ver Montanon:
I certainly agree that the Towner line-TP concept makes no ecomonic sense. Something else that hasn't yet been disclosed is very likely going on here. Maybe it will eventually come out.
A couple of other factoids that may be of interest. When the Towner line ws operated by MP, there was very little grain traffic produced by the line in Colorado. I have a copy of the UP abandonment application, and the line was producing roughly 200 cars of grain traffic per year - only about 2 cars per mile. Now, of course, there were a number of active grain elevators along the line at the time - how was their grain moving? Answer - it was either moving by truck direct to market, or the online elevators were trucking it to unit train loaders on other rail lines in the area (like Cheyenne Wells on the UP "KP" line). They made more money doing this than by shipping it rail direct from their own facilities in small carload lots. Of course, much may have changed in the last 20 something years but, the line was definitely not a big player in grain transportation at the time of the UP-SP merger.
SD60MAC9500 While we're on the subject. How much time does the Rio Grande even have at this point? It's handicapped by a tough operating profile and can not accommodate anything over Plate F..
Which route can't accommodate anything over Plate F???
Deleted due to formatting issues.
AuTiger19 Probably the Moffatt route due to tunnel clearances. SP used to route doublestacks over the TP route SD60MAC9500 While we're on the subject. How much time does the Rio Grande even have at this point? It's handicapped by a tough operating profile and can not accommodate anything over Plate F.. Which route can't accommodate anything over Plate F???
Probably the Moffatt route due to tunnel clearances. SP used to route doublestacks over the TP route
With respect to the nature of BNSF's trackage rights over the Moffat route, here's what Colorado Pacific itself said about this (remember that Colorado Pacific is the "Towner Line" railroad that's opposing the CMP/RGP lease):
"The tracks that run through Dotsero are owned by UP, not BNSF. Dotsero is on UP Glenwood Spring Subdivision, which is part of the rail line between Denver, CO and Salt Lake City, UT. BNSF has rights to operate over these tracks pursuant to trackage rights it was granted as a condition imposed by the STB on its approval of the UP/SP merger. However, according to the STB's decisions in that proceeding these trackage rights are apparently only overhead rights to permit BNSF to transport its trains from Denver to Salt Lake City without stopping in between, The Board later affirmed this restriction in a subsequent decision in that proceeding stating 'the basic structure of the BNSF agreement provides BNSF only 'overhead' trackage rights (also known as 'bridge' trackage rights) - trackage rights that do not allow BNSF to access intermediate points on the trackage rights lines.'" FD No. 36471, Colorado Pacific Motion to Reject Notice of Exmption, 1/8/2020 (Filing No. 30128), pp 7-8
daveklepper If new and profitable business isn't involved, why would anyone want to repair the line?
Just because someone claims the proposition to be profitable doesn't mean it could be. Case in point: DM&E's desire to expand into the Powder River Basin. Something without merit right from the start, and long before today's decline in coal demand. Or another example summed up in two words: Ed Ellis.
Falcon48 When the Towner line ws operated by MP, there was very little grain traffic produced by the line in Colorado. I have a copy of the UP abandonment application, and the line was producing roughly 200 cars of grain traffic per year - only about 2 cars per mile.
When the Towner line ws operated by MP, there was very little grain traffic produced by the line in Colorado. I have a copy of the UP abandonment application, and the line was producing roughly 200 cars of grain traffic per year - only about 2 cars per mile.
Thanks for the information. One also has to wonder why the line was mothballed west of the KS/CO border and in service east of it. Well, the reason is that the current operator (Kansas and Oklahoma Railroad) moves the grain to Hutchinson and Wichita where it is taken to Gulf ports where most of the grain in this area goes.
Here is an interesting perspective on a shuttle grain train facility from 2015:
https://www.agweek.com/business/3794452-elevators-scale-back-building-rail-terminals
This is about a shuttle facility south of Parkston, SD (Beardsley on BNSF) which was pretty much the only such facility in that part of the state (as the article suggested, one was later built at Napa, near Yankton). Even as one of the busiest shuttle elevators in the state, the article indicates that on average 8 to 10 trains are loaded in a month. (My experience with this indicates that's only during peak times, and even the 6 per month given in the article during off-peak shipping times is a stretch, but I can't definitively say.) So, 9 trains a month on average is only 108 trains a year, or about 1 every 3.4 days. Not a lot of traffic to activate 150 miles (including NA Jct. to Pueblo) from Towner to Pueblo, much less the fantasy of it all going west. The article also gives information on the cost of "recent" shuttle facilities built on the Dakota Southern, with price tags between $35 million and $40 million. Just examples of additional huge expenses to get this thing up and running in addition to track (and locomotive and cars, necessary to fulfill the fantasy of single origin and single destination service).
mudchicken (3) BNSF already had (historically, via CB&Q in 1905) the right to operate over and/or possibly purchase the Moffat line to Osterod (Bond) as a condition of the help that Moffat's DNWP got from CB&Q (Colorado Railway)during the Gore Canyon War with (ironically) the UP and Harriman.
VerMontananWell, the reason is that the current operator (Kansas and Oklahoma Railroad) moves the grain to Hutchinson and Wichita where it is taken to Gulf ports where most of the grain in this area goes.
Likewise, any discussion of anticipated use at different periods during the year involves mainly 'proprietary' production and storage of his operation, plus whatever other traffic might be 'attracted' by existence of the line and service over it.
Being from New York, I can say that none of the 'huge expenses to get the thing up and running' are particularly difficult for Soloviev's operation to source ... but that large amounts of sharp dealing or complaints about limited funds will typify what is 'claimed' up to the point OPM can no longer be used or some cheaper alternative adopted. That this is being used to extract better terms or rate from the railroads involved goes almost without saying.
Overmod As I recall, the whole discussion of the Towner Line acquisition and anything other than a 'real-estate play' regarding the use of the Tennessee Pass line hinges on Soloviev's own origination of grain traffic, and on his apparent desire to move it to points of his choosing ... few of which, as I understand the situation, are Gulf ports as presently served.
As I recall, the whole discussion of the Towner Line acquisition and anything other than a 'real-estate play' regarding the use of the Tennessee Pass line hinges on Soloviev's own origination of grain traffic, and on his apparent desire to move it to points of his choosing ... few of which, as I understand the situation, are Gulf ports as presently served.
True, that is what is being reported. Obviously, if the intention is to access the Tennessee Pass route, the entity involved is going to say that the traffic they want to move is going to use this route. They need to have something they can tout could use the line. However, the reasoning is without merit. Once is mystery grain would arrive in Pueblo - other than someplace between Pueblo and Provo via Tennessee Pass - there is absolutely no destination from Pueblo that BNSF and/or UP couldn't handle the cars to more efficiently than would be the case for the Tennessee Pass route. BNSF and UP are common carriers, so they must take the cars wherever they're billed to. So, there is no logical reason that traffic would operate via Tennesse Pass. Then, let's look at the illogical reason - that it would. Here is an interesting presentation on export wheat in the US:
https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/Wheat%20Transportation%20Profile.pdf
The map on page 7 and chart on page 9 are revealing. Wheat is by far the number 1 crop raised in Kiowa County (the primary county served by the Towner line), but the map shows that overall, Southeast Colorado is not a huge wheat producer relatively speaking. The chart shows that export grain in minimal through ports in California. This is important because California (specifically, Oakland, Stockton, and Sacramento) would be the logical destinations for anything routed via Tennessee Pass. (And that really probably is the destination, as indicated in a Bloomberg article about Soloviev stating, "he’d like to extend from the railroad’s origin in Towner, Colorado, to the West Coast and beyond. When he sees a freighter with his name on the side passing beneath the Golden Gate Bridge, he said, he’ll know he’s succeeded." https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-09-09/stefan-soloviev-is-one-of-america-s-largest-landowners) The Pacific Northwest is a possibility, but the UP route via Denver and Green River, WY is infinitely better. BNSF can give a better haul to Los Angeles/Long Beach. Now, only about 50% of grain in this country is exported, so giving the Towner Line proposal the benefit of the doubt, it could be going somewhere domestically. Again, UP and BNSF can get it to wherever that is faster and cheaper, but it should be noted that the moving west from Pueblo is moving away from most of the population in the U.S. In other words, what makes THIS wheat so special that it has a special destination? That's why the whole concept is illogical.
Overmod Likewise, any discussion of anticipated use at different periods during the year involves mainly 'proprietary' production and storage of his operation, plus whatever other traffic might be 'attracted' by existence of the line and service over it.
Just as is the case with any other shuttle grain facility. A given.
Overmod Being from New York, I can say that none of the 'huge expenses to get the thing up and running' are particularly difficult for Soloviev's operation to source ... but that large amounts of sharp dealing or complaints about limited funds will typify what is 'claimed' up to the point OPM can no longer be used or some cheaper alternative adopted. That this is being used to extract better terms or rate from the railroads involved goes almost without saying.
Mark, your analysis makes lots of sense. I think the real motive is either real-estate or just plain ego(s).
Does anybody know the names of the railroad people involved the Colorado Pacific proposal? I haven't seen them mentioned anywhere, although it's possible I missed something. In particular, I wonder if any of them were involved in the prior Colorado Kansas and Pacific, in either of its versions - the 1998 attempt to buy the Towner and TP lines for a passenger/freight operation through a state sponsored line sale effort (which was rejected by the state evaluation panel) and the later version of CKP which operated the Towner line after the state had purchased it, and ultimately failed. The reason I'm asking is that what CP is trying to do now seems suspiciously similar to the 1998 CKP proposal that the state rejected, which may not be a coincidence
I'm posting this to the other active Tennessee Pass tread as well.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.