QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Paul, Why do you think eminent domain could not be utilized in a revival of the PCE (or a close approximation of an alternative)?
QUOTE: Originally posted by daveklepper I think BNSF would throw in the towel long before the competition gets built. They will agree to: Invest in additional capacitiy Charge no more for captive shippers than for shippers on two or more lines Become more resonsive to shipper demands, particularly with regard to car supply
QUOTE: Originally posted by samfp1943 QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Paul, Why do you think eminent domain could not be utilized in a revival of the PCE (or a close approximation of an alternative)? This was exactly my thought, eminent domain would be a tool used to reclaim ROW for reconstruction of the line. What about some combination of the MRL plus DM&E, a pairing that would create a number of service options to the operators? What about an electric railway operation, PRB coal for power? As to the finances, I am sure there would be cost overruns, but to an organization that is already geared to fight issues thrown up to impede their PRB line, and already veted in a long political and economic battle, they would seem to have the knowledge to go forward to the Pacific coast. And success would help to increase access to needed investment funds. Sam
QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Paul, Why do you think eminent domain could not be utilized in a revival of the PCE (or a close approximation of an alternative)? It's quite apparent that you haven't noticed the political fallout in the wake of the Supreme Court's recent decision regarding the use of eminent domain as a development tool. Several states have legislative proposals in their respective General Assemblies which would severely restrict the use of eminent domain, especially where a privately-owned entity is involved. Even if the use of eminent domain to resurrect the Pacific Coast Extension was legal, it would be politically unfeasible.
QUOTE: Originally posted by kenneo QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Paul, Why do you think eminent domain could not be utilized in a revival of the PCE (or a close approximation of an alternative)? It's quite apparent that you haven't noticed the political fallout in the wake of the Supreme Court's recent decision regarding the use of eminent domain as a development tool. Several states have legislative proposals in their respective General Assemblies which would severely restrict the use of eminent domain, especially where a privately-owned entity is involved. Even if the use of eminent domain to resurrect the Pacific Coast Extension was legal, it would be politically unfeasible. I wouldn't dare to argue the politics of this subject. However, the recent fuss was about the government taking of private land by condemnation (eminant domain) at the request of a private group of inventers and then transferring it to that private group for their private gain. The legal use of eminant domain is for a use that is to benefit the public good. Usually this is restricted to transportation and public utility rights-of-way be they private or publicly owned.
QUOTE: Originally posted by solzrules I found this on the internet a while ago...It is talking about using the old PCE ROW as a trail for bikers and what not. It is interesting in that it is a very in depth discussion of the currnet land owners in the state of Montana that own PCE ROW. THis is the fist time I have put in a link so I hope it works. http://www.trailsandgreenways.org/resources/highlights/taserve/MontanaReport.pdf
QUOTE: Originally posted by kenneo QUOTE: Originally posted by samfp1943 QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Paul, Why do you think eminent domain could not be utilized in a revival of the PCE (or a close approximation of an alternative)? This was exactly my thought, eminent domain would be a tool used to reclaim ROW for reconstruction of the line. What about some combination of the MRL plus DM&E, a pairing that would create a number of service options to the operators? What about an electric railway operation, PRB coal for power? As to the finances, I am sure there would be cost overruns, but to an organization that is already geared to fight issues thrown up to impede their PRB line, and already veted in a long political and economic battle, they would seem to have the knowledge to go forward to the Pacific coast. And success would help to increase access to needed investment funds. Sam Remember, the BN owns and controls the real estate, roadbed and tracks that the MRL runs on. The MRL is a lease. And, the BNSF will not permit any interchange connections to anyone other than the BNSF (except for MRL captive short lines). A new PCE could get the STB to force the BNSF to give trackage rights over the old NP main (BNSF Terry-Laurel; MRL Laurel-Sandpoint; BNSF thence West). The "Jawbone" part of the PCE is probably the most complete part of the line and may be the easiest to regian a right-of-way. Probably even all the way from Terry to Butte. From there to Seattle/Tacoma would probably require trackage rights over the NP, but if the right-of-way can be regained from St. Regis West, trackage rights probably would not be a real problem since the BN doesn't really want the old NP line all that much --- the State of Montana might be able to convince the BNSF to turn it over to a "PCE" company.
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal
QUOTE: What about an electric railway operation, PRB coal for power? Sam
QUOTE: A third option is to relocate a new PCE further south west of Missoula, connecting Missoula to Lewiston ID wherein WATCO's ex-Camas Prairie lines operate and connect with both UP and BNSF at Ayer. BNSF runs a local from Pasco to Ayer to pick up it's share of the WATCO traffic via trackage rights over UP.
QUOTE: Originally posted by kenneo QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: What about an electric railway operation, PRB coal for power? Sam QUOTE: A third option is to relocate a new PCE further south west of Missoula, connecting Missoula to Lewiston ID wherein WATCO's ex-Camas Prairie lines operate and connect with both UP and BNSF at Ayer. BNSF runs a local from Pasco to Ayer to pick up it's share of the WATCO traffic via trackage rights over UP. There is yet another option, at lease physically. From the location where the PCE leaves the valley to climb Pipestone Pass, continue south on the old NP branch, extending it to Dillon and then utilize the basic alignment of the old UP branch to Leadore, ID and then down the Lemhi Valley to Salmon, ID, thence down the Salmon to the Snake and thence the Snake to Lewiston. Yes, I know about the "River of No Return Primitive Areas and the Scenic River Recreation area, but - espicially if the line is electrified - this might be a doable thing. This (from Leadore) was "the other choice" for the OSL. With a new alignment over Bannock Pass, a train could go from Chicago to Seattle without benefit of a helper. The other "bad" part is that although there was once a railroad between Leadore and Salmon, and the R-o-W is still there, it is now known as Idaho 28.
QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH What I find interesting here is that all the proposals for resurrecting the Pacific Coast Extension seem to center on building from the Northern Plains west to Seattle/Tacoma, which would make the line a long, expensive, glorified granger branch. Nobody has even looked at what would be required to rebuild or re-acquire the eastern portions, some of which are operated by BNSF or shortlines, and would terminate at the Twin Cities anyway, about 400 or so miles short of eastern connections.
QUOTE: Originally posted by kenneo What is the grade over Lookout Pass (I-90) over the old UP and NP branches between Plummer and Saltese. From Saltese going east the NP branch operated over the PCE to St. Maries. The grades still exist, so perhaps that may be a reasonable alternative to the original PCE via St. Paul Pass.
QUOTE: Originally posted by kenneo Dave (futuremodal) and Michael Sol ------ (or anyone else who knows) What is the grade over Lookout Pass (I-90) over the old UP and NP branches between Plummer and Saltese. From Saltese going east the NP branch operated over the PCE to St. Maries. The grades still exist, so perhaps that may be a reasonable alternative to the original PCE via St. Paul Pass. Even if it isn't and the Avery-St. Regis alignment needs to be utilized, it would be cheaper (and easier) to rebuild the Forest Service road higher on the hill and then relay the PCE on its original alignment than to build a new grade for those 10 miles.
QUOTE: I have a possible problem with this solution in that there is quite a tourist trade utilizing the PCE between Avery and St. Regis. Also, there is the possibility of a "Snow Train or Ski Train" to the Lookout Pass Ski Area which is just a few feet from the old roadbed for the NP branch at the Continental Divide. This alignment would bring the line up to Spokane using the alignment the MILW used for its passenger trains and PVR branch trains to a connection with the UP at the Spokane International Yard and thence via UP to Pasco. Where this line crosses the old PCE at Marengo, the PCE could be rebuilt west. This would permit a more nearly "straight line" from the MRL to Seattle.
QUOTE: The PCE R-o-W over Snoqualmie still exists and is a rails-to-trails for nearly its entire distance (John Wayne Trail) - all the way to Marengo and somewhat byond towards Plummer. And I never did understand why the MILW climbed out of the Columbia to Ellensburg the way it did. An easier grade and lower "pass" exist through the alignment of I-90, the top of the hill for I-90 is where the MILW crosses over the freeway. The alignment may have been rather putrid, though. And they could have gone around the South end of the hills north of the Tri-Cities to Sela and then used the Yakima River Canyon along with the NP.
QUOTE: As I understand it, using an already existing R-o-W nearly to completely eliminates the EIS requirements because all that's missing is the ties and rails - very little to change in the "environment". New construction, however, takes the whole nine yards and lots of time and much much money which is why I suggested trackage rights over (mostly) the former NP while the rest of these items are taken care of.
QUOTE: Originally posted by kenneo QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal A third option is to relocate a new PCE further south west of Missoula, connecting Missoula to Lewiston ID wherein WATCO's ex-Camas Prairie lines operate and connect with both UP and BNSF at Ayer. BNSF runs a local from Pasco to Ayer to pick up it's share of the WATCO traffic via trackage rights over UP. There is yet another option, at lease physically. From the location where the PCE leaves the valley to climb Pipestone Pass, continue south on the old NP branch, extending it to Dillon and then utilize the basic alignment of the old UP branch to Leadore, ID and then down the Lemhi Valley to Salmon, ID, thence down the Salmon to the Snake and thence the Snake to Lewiston. Yes, I know about the "River of No Return Primitive Areas and the Scenic River Recreation area, but - espicially if the line is electrified - this might be a doable thing. This (from Leadore) was "the other choice" for the OSL. With a new alignment over Bannock Pass, a train could go from Chicago to Seattle without benefit of a helper. The other "bad" part is that although there was once a railroad between Leadore and Salmon, and the R-o-W is still there, it is now known as Idaho 28.
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal A third option is to relocate a new PCE further south west of Missoula, connecting Missoula to Lewiston ID wherein WATCO's ex-Camas Prairie lines operate and connect with both UP and BNSF at Ayer. BNSF runs a local from Pasco to Ayer to pick up it's share of the WATCO traffic via trackage rights over UP.
QUOTE: Originally posted by nanaimo73 QUOTE: Originally posted by kenneo What is the grade over Lookout Pass (I-90) over the old UP and NP branches between Plummer and Saltese. From Saltese going east the NP branch operated over the PCE to St. Maries. The grades still exist, so perhaps that may be a reasonable alternative to the original PCE via St. Paul Pass. BN abandoned the Lookout Pass line in the fall of 1980, and had to keep the St. Regis to Haugan section running for a few months.[;)] I'm not sure if a line could be put through Wallace now that the interstate is there. http://terraserver.microsoft.com/image.aspx?T=1&S=12&Z=11&X=726&Y=6572&W=1&qs=%7cwallace%7cidaho%7c
QUOTE: Originally posted by kenneo Futuremodal -- Dave, your mention of the problems the UP is having in Spokane turned on a light bulb- or perhaps it just got it off of dim, I don't know. The SI at Sandpoint has the ability of going either south on the SI to Spokane or east on the MRL eventually passing through Silver Bow on its way to Butte. Now, since a good portion of the UP (SI) traffic is destined for California 9Sacramento and south, you have the perfect bypass, fully operational, from Spokane to Ogden via Silver Bow and Pocatello. Much better grades than the other bottleneck over the Blue's. And, if the PCE is rebuilt between Marengo and Plummer, the old MILW main that the UP shared between Plummer and Spokane complete the bypass. Now, should the PCE be rebuilt between St Maries and St. Regis, the MRL could also use this short cut around the traffic jam in Spokane and deliver its trains to the BNSF directly to Pasco. I am not much in favor of the Yakima Canyon route. It would take a huge bunch of straightening and it is a rather heavely used recreation area. The State of Washington might be able to be convinced to purchase the line from the BNSF and then build a new line north of Pasco to connect with the PCE R-o-W -- a decent grade to the currect top of the grade at Boylston should be obtainable. That leaves getting through Ellensburg. As to Stampede Pass, I seem to remember that at one time the NP was looking at putting a much lower tunnel through from near Easton about where the grade stiffens to 2.2% level through to the Green River drainage and the current R-o-W. I don't know where the west side of the Cascades stiffens but my memory says that this proposed tunnel would be below that point on both ends. Since both the NP and the PCE arrive between Tacoma nad Seattle with about 5 or so miles of each other, this could also be part of a viable solution. For relief in Spokane, the BNSF might just be agreeable to some of this.
QUOTE: Originally posted by kenneo As to Stampede Pass, I seem to remember that at one time the NP was looking at putting a much lower tunnel through from near Easton about where the grade stiffens to 2.2% level through to the Green River drainage and the current R-o-W. I don't know where the west side of the Cascades stiffens but my memory says that this proposed tunnel would be below that point on both ends. Since both the NP and the PCE arrive between Tacoma nad Seattle with about 5 or so miles of each other, this could also be part of a viable solution.
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol QUOTE: Originally posted by kenneo As to Stampede Pass, I seem to remember that at one time the NP was looking at putting a much lower tunnel through from near Easton about where the grade stiffens to 2.2% level through to the Green River drainage and the current R-o-W. I don't know where the west side of the Cascades stiffens but my memory says that this proposed tunnel would be below that point on both ends. Since both the NP and the PCE arrive between Tacoma nad Seattle with about 5 or so miles of each other, this could also be part of a viable solution. BN did a complete study on this, for re-routing the Stevens Pass entirely, down the "Front" to Easton, then across the Cascades. About a $1.2 Billion price tag. Compared to the high costs and negative rate of return endured at Cascade Tunnel since it was built, I am told that the plan was favorable ... just didn't have the bucks ...
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.