.....Money. Responsibility. Maybe tax....
Quentin
Imisswc wrote:I dont understand why dont they leave the rails in place? You never know if future business might build on those lines. How many rail to trails actually are going to become rails again? I dont see the reason to tear the rails up. There should be a law passed to stop rails from being torn up, but just left in place. I know the rail to trails program is for that reason, but how many railroads are going to put all new track ect. on these former lines?
Older rail still has value as scrap. Newer rail would be valuable to relay or add track in yards , sidings or mainlines. Since the rail is the property of the railroad a law requiring it to remain in place would technically be the taking of property without compensation.
1. Liquidated value of the track materials is not insubstantial. The choice is either the government purchases the track and burdens the taxpayers on the marginal bet that the investment will have future social value, or the other shippers -- the ones on active lines -- carry the cost, which makes their rates higher, which makes their use of railroad service less economical. A plan to hold onto abandoned track could easily end up creating MORE abandoned track.
2. Track left in place, but not maintained, deteriorates rapidly. The cost of rehabilitation of track after about 10 years will virtually equal the cost of replacing with new. Wood ties have a finite lifetime of 35-50 years; their deterioration rate can actually accelerate on idle track.
3. Signal systems, after maintenance ceases, turn to junk in a matter of months.
4. The threshold for STB approval of abandonment is so high that the likelihood of the line requiring reactivation in the forseeable future is extremely small. Even if reactivation DOES become reality, it's usually cheaper to just start over with new track.
5. In some cases, e.g, Stampede Pass, the track was left in place against the possibility of future reactivation. When reactivation did occur, most of the existing track material was junked.
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).
In sum, once a line is abandoned, it's more cost-effective to pull the track.
Another approach is to not abandon at all but maintain minimal service, and there are powerful reasons for and against such an approach, but that's a different discussion.
RWM
....Would leaving track in place support the ROW material {from washing out, etc...}, and help in that manner, if it had a possibility of use in the future....?
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?
I'm fairly certain that at least in Canada here that railroads are taxed on the rails themselves that are in place.....and I think this rule applies to businesses as well. I remember asking a guy who worked for a major chemical company in Ontario if they still had all of the plant trackage, and he said it was removed to save on the industrial property taxes.
In the case of mainlines, I know that unused sidings etc. can become a potential for trouble if the switch to them fails (and then there is the wear and tear at the frog, etc).
Maybe some of the more knowledgable here can testify, but wasn't there a grass roots campaign in effect by railfans to get the tax laws changed to encourage the keeping of rail lines?
3. Signal systems, after maintenance ceases, turn to junk in a matter of months.4. The threshold for STB approval of abandonment is so high that the likelihood of the line requiring reactivation in the forseeable future is extremely small. Even if reactivation DOES become reality, it's usually cheaper to just start over with new track.
I am thinking about the Tennessee Pass route. It has not been used for a while, but occasionally a MOW will traverse at least part of the route. Any thoughts about this?
Assuming that the rail is in useable condition, the RR can use it for yard track, sidings, spurs, or whatever.
At $800.00 a ton, not much rail is left in place as long as it's reuseable.
Norm
spokyone wrote: 3. Signal systems, after maintenance ceases, turn to junk in a matter of months.4. The threshold for STB approval of abandonment is so high that the likelihood of the line requiring reactivation in the forseeable future is extremely small. Even if reactivation DOES become reality, it's usually cheaper to just start over with new track.I am thinking about the Tennessee Pass route. It has not been used for a while, but occasionally a MOW will traverse at least part of the route. Any thoughts about this?
Don't be surprised if UP has Tennessee Pass running next year as a TWC relief valve and access to Climax. Uncle Pete has been out there this fall surfacing on the west end. He also put money into the slide fences. (but not the old CTC plant) The yellow peril would not have pulled Tennessee Pass back from the brink if he didn't have good reason to.
Conversely, I will disagree with RWN on the salvage value issue. A&K is raising the ire of STB on some its actions in Colorado (RFRHA), Illinois(TP&W), Kansas and recently Georgia (GSW). They aren't buying failing rail lines out of the goodness of their hearts to keep running them. Those bleeding balance sheets will go to great lengths to stop the hemoraging.
MC -- I think you and I are on exactly the same page re the vulture outfits. Been fighting several of them lately. I'll buy you dinner next time I'm in mile-high in January if you're around, and fill you in.
We're in the process of "rehabbing" one line that has VERY light rail (MC, I bet you know which one). In that case the scrap value of the rail and OTM is negative because of the expense of hauling all the ties to ECDC (an approved dump for this sort of material).
There is a special case in the developing world to leaving the track material in place to protect the embankment from erosion, particularly vehicle-caused, but those are for railways with totally different relationships to the state and to investors.
matthewsaggie wrote:The primary reason I can see to leave track in place is to retain rights to the Right-of-way, since many r/w's are actually easements with reverter clauses if the RR ceases to use the line. Track in place can still act as a place holder. If they don't wantto retain the r/w, the materials are too valuable to leave to rust away.
Leaving track in place will NOT continue rights to the right-of-way if the railway has been abandoned. If the railway has been embargoed that's another matter, but in those instances the railway has no intention of abandonment.
Easements are a right of use, not a right of possession, and extinguish the moment the right of use is abandoned.
Reversionary clauses usually are attached to deeds that gives the railway right of possession (AND use) and become enforceable depending on how the clause was written.
"Abandoned" means vacate with the approval of the STB the right and obligation to provide common-carrier service. It has nothing to do with removal of track. Once a railway line is abandoned, the easements can expire and the reversionary clauses can be enforced. Land grant land is usually seen as reversionary and return to adjoining property owners. Leaving the track in place won't do an end-around on the law.
MC, your comments and additions are welcome, as always.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Embargo is defined by the AAR:
Definition: "An embargo is a method of controlling traffic movements when, in the judgement of the serving railroad, an actual or threatened Physical or Operational Impairment,of a temporary nature, warrant restrictions against such movements."
Please see this link for further information (which is important to understand this!):
https://aarembargo.railinc.com/epdb/showTD1.do?step=viewTD1Circular
Abandon is defined by the U.S. Code (see USC 49 10901):
Definition: Permanent extinguishment of the legal requirement to provide service to the public.
What about the track that the wis southern wants to rebuild? They wanted to extend some of there track that hasn't been used for a long time. It was in SW wis. somewhere, I think it was old Milwaukee Road track. Is that stuff still in place?
Thanks
Justind
Dale -- I'm getting deep into the domain of the right-of-way experts here. I'm not expert on this, but from what's been explained to me, the two dominant forms of land acquisition by a railway from a private land owner is fee simple absolute, and fee simple defeasible. In the former the railway acquires the land without condition, usually upon payment of a lump sum. In the latter the railway acquires the land with condition of providing rail service, usually without payment of a lump sum, the land seller presuming that the appearance and operation of the railway will increase the rent of his remaining land. The reversionary clause is to ensure that the railway is for real, not a fraudulent means of obtaining free land. The land owner doesn't want his land back at some future day, he wants the improved rent he gets from the presence of the railway -- and when these clauses were granted, I don't think anyone anticipated that railways would ever be abandoned.
MC will no doubt improve on this.
Railway Man,
That makes a lot of sense, I had not thought of it that way. Thanks
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.
Who is buying all the old rails and ties when they are removed?
Andrew
Watch my videos on-line at https://www.youtube.com/user/AndrewNeilFalconer
Who is buying it? The highest bidder. Assuming it is sold -- the railroad that owns it may recycle all or some internally.
Rail and OTM is generally purchased by track material companies such as L.B. Foster, A&K Railroad Materials, and Progress Rail. Rail with useful life is resold to railroads and industrial customers for reuse. Rail without useful life is sold to steel mills and remelted to make new steel.
Ties with useful value are purchased by the same companies and resold to railroads and industrial customers for reuse. Ties without useful value go mostly to landfills licensed for their disposal. Some scrap ties and poor-quality second-hand ties are resold for landscaping use.
Railway Man wrote: Ties with useful value are purchased by the same companies and resold to railroads and industrial customers for reuse. Ties without useful value go mostly to landfills licensed for their disposal. Some scrap ties and poor-quality second-hand ties are resold for landscaping use.RWM
http://i118.photobucket.com/albums/o88/bronzegod4ever/TieGrinderMay3107007.jpg
Chipping saves on transportation charges to the approved landfill.
Cheers, RWM
spokyone wrote: Railway Man wrote: Ties with useful value are purchased by the same companies and resold to railroads and industrial customers for reuse. Ties without useful value go mostly to landfills licensed for their disposal. Some scrap ties and poor-quality second-hand ties are resold for landscaping use.RWM Sometimes they get chipped up. Dan's pichttp://i118.photobucket.com/albums/o88/bronzegod4ever/TieGrinderMay3107007.jpg
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.
Modelcar wrote: .....Money. Responsibility. Maybe tax....
If you mean liability by responsibility, I agree. And, I think tax is not a maybe.
.....Yes, Gabe....that is what I meant.
Railway Man wrote: Imisswc wrote:I dont understand why dont they leave the rails in place? You never know if future business might build on those lines. How many rail to trails actually are going to become rails again? I dont see the reason to tear the rails up. There should be a law passed to stop rails from being torn up, but just left in place. I know the rail to trails program is for that reason, but how many railroads are going to put all new track ect. on these former lines? 2. Track left in place, but not maintained, deteriorates rapidly. The cost of rehabilitation of track after about 10 years will virtually equal the cost of replacing with new. Wood ties have a finite lifetime of 35-50 years; their deterioration rate can actually accelerate on idle track.Another approach is to not abandon at all but maintain minimal service, and there are powerful reasons for and against such an approach, but that's a different discussion. RWM
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.
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
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.