Login
or
Register
Home
»
Trains Magazine
»
Forums
»
General Discussion
»
LETS DEBATE OPEN ACCESS
Edit post
Edit your reply below.
Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote]QUOTE: <i>Originally posted by PNWRMNM</i> <br /><br />Dave, <br /> <br />There is an error in my cost analysis. The $100 is per loaded car trip. It would be about 80 cents per loaded car mile. While that is a rate BNSF could afford to pay, they question of why would they still dominates the question. <br /> <br />Mac <br />[/quote] <br /> <br />Mac, <br /> <br />Regarding the old SP&S line, yes it is the better route, and I don't know why BN chose the NP route when they retrenched the Spokane-Pasco line. If your analysis is of an infrastructure entity adding new capacity to the existing rail situation, I'm not sure that is a good example. One, the right of way is owned by the State, and if they determined a need to rebuild the rail line, they would probably do it as a state owned operation. If I was an investor and your company wanted to purchase the ROW from the State for your project, I would not be convinced that it would be a good idea, simply because of existing proprietary lines the already exist on this corridor. You are correct in that without government aid for your project, it would probably fail. <br /> <br />A better prospect in this scenario would be the Milwaukee from Marengo/Lind to the Puget Sound. I don't know the official mileage, so I'll estmate it at 220 miles. If we keep most of the rebuild over the old ROW, at $2,000,000 a mile is $440,000,000, at 15% plus maintenance we need about $70,000,000 per year. Of course, we need to rebuild some viaducts (I don't know, but is the Columbia River bridge still there?), and if we try and mitigate the 2.2 % up the Saddles to a 1.5% that adds another 10 or so miles to the length, or a 1% with another 10 ,miles of track, so let's say we need an even $1 billion, or $160,000,000 per year. At $47 per mile (from your $5555 for 120 miles SP&S example) we would need just under 40 trains per day to break even at roughly $11,200 per train. <br /> <br />Another alternative is to build over the other old Milwaukee/U.S. Government branchline railroad through Hanford from Tri-Cities to the old mainline opposite Beverly, maybe starting the Saddle Mountain climb down by Priest Rapids to achieve the desired 1% up the Saddles. This line would allow both UP and BNSF for use, although probably only UP would use it from Tri-Cities to Ellensburg, and BNSF from Ellensburg west. No real mileage savings from Spokane, but higher usage of UP from Eastern Oregon. <br /> <br />Now, sticking with the first line, we have some more incentives for BNSF, and maybe UP, as well as possible a 3PL or two to use this line. For BNSF it represents an opportunity to send heavier trains over the Cascades instead of down the Gorge, and now they can send double stacks this way. <br /> <br />At 100 cars per train, it is costing $200 per loaded car at 55% loaded, equal to 0.83 per mile for 240 miles over our tracks. For the Lind connection, BNSF has the added costs over their own line from Spokane. If this is the 2nd example out of Tri-Cities, it is roughly the same for UP. <br /> <br />Now there is the chance that BNSF would find it cheaper to buy or lease the Milwaukee corridor, either from Easton, or maybe from Lind, from the State and rebuild this line and abandon the Stampede line. They looked at this at one time, and found it too expensive, or at least more expensive than the current alternative. <br /> <br />It's getting late, and my mind is fried. Mac, do some math on this scenario vs the SP&S scenario you provided. There had been some discussion by others that the Snoqualmie line might make a good open access line to supplement the current proprietary PNW rail grid. <br /> <br />As I have stated before, I do not believe an infrastructure company could go it alone without some form of government aid, in order to help equalize the playing field among rail, highways, and waterways. It can be argued that such aid could just as easily be given to the current proprietary rail scene without the need for open access. That would not be something I believe would benefit the nation, unless relief was also proffered to the captive shippers.
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag
Update Reply
Join our Community!
Our community is
FREE
to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.
Login »
Register »
Search the Community
Newsletter Sign-Up
By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our
privacy policy
More great sites from Kalmbach Media
Terms Of Use
|
Privacy Policy
|
Copyright Policy