why don t railroads leave track in place when they abandon rails?

[Norm48327]

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. 

[spokyone]

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?

[Night Freight]

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?

[matthewsaggie]

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.

[Prairietype]

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?

 

[Modelcar]

....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]

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? 

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

[dmoore74]

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.

[Modelcar]

.....Money.    Responsibility.   Maybe tax....

[Imisswc]

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?