Sawtooth500So I'm trying to wrap my head around this... In the feasibility study Amtrak released about restoring rail service between Chicago and Quad Cities IL, using one of their routes they'd have to build a connector track between the BNSF and IAIS near Wyanet, IL. The price: $5.6 Million! For a single connector track? Seriously! I know that you have to clear the land and grade it, but seriously, that number seems absolutely ridiculous! Take a look at a satellite photo of this junction. On the photo the likely route of the connector track is in yellow. As you can see, it would be just slightly over 0.6 miles long, no bridges needed. So why in the world $5.6 million?
It doesn't seem ridiculous to me.
RWM
Does Amtrak already own the .6 miles of land on which this line is to be built? Amtrak would also have to hire a contractor to provide crews and machinery for this little project. If it costs me $35/day to rent a small electric air compressor from Home Depot, think about the cost of renting all that equipment to grade the roadbed and lay the track. Now pay, house, and feed the guys that know how to operate it. $5.6 Million doesn't seem so ridicules anymore does it.
Sawtooth500I'm guessing that Amtrak wouldn't be doing the construction though - it will probably be BSNF or IAIS, and they already have all the equipment, and as far as land, illinois farmland in the middle of nowhere is pretty cheap. It still seems like too much to me...
You are doing a LOT of guessing, speculating and assuming. That is always dangerous. I could easily see the project costing $5.6Million or even more. Of course, having visited the site of the proposed connection via IAIS business/inspection train in July 2009 and being a railroad official with budget authority I may sometimes actually know what I'm talking about (as do some of the respondents above). If you had visited the site you would know that near the connection one line (BNSF) passes over the other (IAIS) at an overpass. The overpass is not shown in your innaccurate drawing nor is the significant grade that will be involved in the new connection. This grade separation adds significantly to the cost requiring a lot of heavy earthmoving and perhaps trucking in of needed fill to construct the subgrade which does not now exist.
A recent connecting track project which is considerably smaller than this one is projected to cost approximately $500 per track foot which equates to approximately $2.5Million per mile including the costs of environmental and planning studies. There is no grade separation involved. We also don't have to comply with PTC or any of the other passenger train requirements including signaling distant signals and electric locking track switches in our situation which also impact costs and the earthwork we need is minimal.
On a per track foot basis connecting track is more expensive than building a straight main track given that connecting tracks are often located at odd locations requiring specialized track work and/or grading and related grade separation work, crossings and/or bridges.
Before you assume, check some facts with those who can at least give you some sort of basis for conclusion. Oh, and using inaccurate maps and designs has gotten more than one railroad engineering employee fired...
LC
If I remember that study correctly, there was also the requirement for an additional crossover to the east on the existing BNSF trackage and the associated signaling.
A couple of thoughts: 1. Repeal the "Davis-Bacon Act". 2. Use 'convict' labor. A win-win situation! It works in Maricopa, AZ!
Hays
Indiana Railroad is spending 17.5 million for a 5 mile spur to a new coal mine!
I
BNSFwatcher A couple of thoughts: 1. Repeal the "Davis-Bacon Act". 2. Use 'convict' labor. A win-win situation! It works in Maricopa, AZ! Hays I'm sure you'll get first class track using 19th century construction techniques...it'll only take 3-4 times as long to complete....
I'm sure you'll get first class track using 19th century construction techniques...it'll only take 3-4 times as long to complete....
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
Look at the cost of highway construction...
My state DOT just spent $15 million to REPAIR and RESURFACE 5 miles of 4 lane highway...that's $3 million a mile.
Nick
Take a Ride on the Reading with the: Reading Company Technical & Historical Society http://www.readingrailroad.org/
Jock Ellis Cumming, GA US of A Georgia Association of Railroad Passengers
Six tenths of a mile equals about 1800 ties. I use a figure of $100 per tie for replacement projects - materiel and labor.
That's $180,000 for starters, or at least $90,000 if you figure $50 a tie. Still not chump change.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
Railroad construction cost money. If you have to ask the price you can't afford it.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
If you were to use convict labor that wouldn't decrease the cost of construction one cent. It would simply mean that BNSF employees (If they indeed are the ones who should rightly do the work) would put in time claims because the work they should have done was contracted out. There is absolutely no way the MoW employees would lose on that claim.
In all likelyhood the grade work would all be contracted out because Amtrak or BNSF or whomever is not capable of doing that work. It could be that all the grade and track work will be contracted out. I would imagine that if the track work were to be contracted out that time claim by MoW would occur. This isn't my employer so I can't predict how the work will be done, but I can assure you that convict labor would fly like a lead balloon.
tree68 Six tenths of a mile equals about 1800 ties. I use a figure of $100 per tie for replacement projects - materiel and labor. That's $180,000 for starters, or at least $90,000 if you figure $50 a tie. Still not chump change.
$100 to $110 as the installed cost per new, preservative-treated, wooden tie sounds about right.
And (assuming double main tracks) let's figure that the installation will include C.T.C. controlled signals (probably five) and dual-control switches (a minimum of three) on the BNSF side. At the very least IAIS will require least three controlled signals and one dual control switch on their side. Next figure in the modifications that would have to be made to both the BNSF's and IAIS's existing signal systems to accomodate this connecting track, and the signaling costs alone could account for nearly half the cost of the project.
jockellisSix tenths of a mile would mean an actual 1.2 miles of steel rail which would be 2112 yards at, say, 141 pounds per yard. That's 149 or so tons at $900? a ton as quoted in a Trains mag last year. That would be $134,000 or so for rail. I wish I could remember how much ties are. But $5.6 million does seem like a lot of money to refresh a ROW that is already there. Especially when the work is being done in a tanking economy and people with such equipment are really needing to put it to work. Didn't I read in the electrification issue of Trains recently, the Pennsylvania RR got its work done at a pittance during the Depression?
Sawtooth500Now when you take in the cost of signaling I can wrap my head around $5.6 million... that's why I started this thread in the first place, because I never thought of signaling and just the actual physical construction of the connector and $5.6 mil seemed ridiculous for just a bit of physical construction...
Just a bit?? How do you know? What expertise do you have to make this allegation that the price is ridiculous?
Railway ManSawtooth500Now when you take in the cost of signaling I can wrap my head around $5.6 million... that's why I started this thread in the first place, because I never thought of signaling and just the actual physical construction of the connector and $5.6 mil seemed ridiculous for just a bit of physical construction... Just a bit?? How do you know? What expertise do you have to make this allegation that the price is ridiculous? RWM
Will there be any RR crossings in this new section of track? South of town they added arms and flashing lights at an existing crossing. It cost about $450,000.
Modeling the "Fargo Area Rapid Transit" in O scale 3 rail.
Sawtooth500Railway Man Sawtooth500Now when you take in the cost of signaling I can wrap my head around $5.6 million... that's why I started this thread in the first place, because I never thought of signaling and just the actual physical construction of the connector and $5.6 mil seemed ridiculous for just a bit of physical construction... Just a bit?? How do you know? What expertise do you have to make this allegation that the price is ridiculous? RWM To be honest with you I have absolutely no expertise! I'm just a railfan that had no clue and I wanted some facts, that's why I posted my question!
Railway Man Sawtooth500Now when you take in the cost of signaling I can wrap my head around $5.6 million... that's why I started this thread in the first place, because I never thought of signaling and just the actual physical construction of the connector and $5.6 mil seemed ridiculous for just a bit of physical construction... Just a bit?? How do you know? What expertise do you have to make this allegation that the price is ridiculous? RWM
Since you don't know and obviously are too lazy to perform the basic research on the location or the cost numbers, you make ridiculous allegations against railroads without basis in an attempt to have someone else do the work for you, and when they give you information you ridicule them. BRILLIANT!!
Just the sort of thing that makes those of us in the industry wonder why we ever associate with railfans...
Two other possible factors:
1. Wetlands/ poor subgrade soils ? The aerial photo linked in the Original Post shows that the vegetation at the site is in an irregular pattern - more swirled or clumped than neat lines or rows. That likely means it isn't currently being cultivated or otherwise put to a productive use. Why not ? Aside from any possible permitting hassles, this may necessitate expensive geotechnical work to improve the quality/ strengthen the subgrade for railroad loadings. Also, the permit process may require mitigation of some type for any lost wetlands, such as the purchase and creation of replacement wetlands elsewhere, etc.
2. Utility relocations. Although this site looks to be pretty rural and hence this item may not appear to be likely or extensive, how dow e know there's not a fiber-optic line running along either track - esp. the BNSF line - that will need to be relocated ? Also, I've seen pipelines of various kinds either parallel to or crossing one of the tracks often enough. Sometimes they're inactive - though not yet abandoned - and the vegetation isn't kept cut, so they're not evident from either an on-the-ground inspection or aerial photos - but the owner will still want it relocated, or to paid for that, etc.
A couple of the posts above attempted to approach this from the prices of the component materials. And the ballast stone hasn't been mentioned yet, I believe. But it's really the labor costs that dominate most railroad construction projects, esp. a smaller one like this.
One aspect of this small project which hasn't been mentioned so far is the added or 'lost productivity' costs of scheduling and coordinating all of the specialized crews and equipment. An easy example - the rail train for the Continuous Welded Rails that will most likely be used. At 0.6 mile long, this project might use only 4 or 5 of the 48 'strings' typically on such a train. So if there is no other rail replacement or similar construction project nearby at the time, it has to make a special trip to drop a mere 10 % of its capacity. Likewise for the ballast train - although at around 3,000 tons, this might use closer to half of that train's capacity. And then there's the track tamper and lining equipment, ballast regulator, etc. - 0.6 mile is ony a couple hours' worth of work for them. Finally, don't forget scheduling and coordinating the 'cut-in' of the turnouts in each main line, which takes its own set of specialized equipment.
And as new construction, special techniques must be used as compared to replacement of an existing track. Unless the track is constructed temporarily with jointed 'stick' rail or some other expedient measure, the CWR will likely have to be pulled off the rail train and dragged down the subgrade by bulldozers or similar, because there's no track for the rail train to run on to drop it directly. Just as bad are the ties - while wood ties are often enough delivered by tractor-trailer flats, concrete ties are not. It's been done, but it takes about 4 times as many truck loads. And each tie has to be handled and set precisely in place by at least a small crane or cherry-picker or Pettibone-type machine - there's no moving those by just a couple of trackmen with tie tongs - all of which is slow and expensive.
Perhaps a better way to view this kind of project is by using a starting 'base cost' of like $3 to $5 million [or even more] for the turnouts and ancillary work at both ends and most the 'one-time' or one-of' items, and then add for the lineal feet of track and 'normal' earthwork [only] between them, at a rate of around $1,000 per LF or $5 million per mile. Figuring it that way, the 'base' for this project would be about $2.6 million, and the 0.6 mile at $5 million per mile would be $3 million, for the $5.6 million total estimate.
- Paul North.
LimitedclearSawtooth500Railway Man Sawtooth500Now when you take in the cost of signaling I can wrap my head around $5.6 million... that's why I started this thread in the first place, because I never thought of signaling and just the actual physical construction of the connector and $5.6 mil seemed ridiculous for just a bit of physical construction... Just a bit?? How do you know? What expertise do you have to make this allegation that the price is ridiculous? RWM To be honest with you I have absolutely no expertise! I'm just a railfan that had no clue and I wanted some facts, that's why I posted my question! Since you don't know and obviously are too lazy to perform the basic research on the location or the cost numbers, you make ridiculous allegations against railroads without basis in an attempt to have someone else do the work for you, and when they give you information you ridicule them. BRILLIANT!! Just the sort of thing that makes those of us in the industry wonder why we ever associate with railfans... LC
Paul_D_North_Jr Two other possible factors: 1. Wetlands/ poor subgrade soils ? The aerial photo linked in the Original Post shows that the vegetation at the site is in an irregular pattern - more swirled or clumped than neat lines or rows. That likely means it isn't currently being cultivated or otherwise put to a productive use. Why not ? Aside from any possible permitting hassles, this may necessitate expensive geotechnical work to improve the quality/ strengthen the subgrade for railroad loadings. Also, the permit process may require mitigation of some type for any lost wetlands, such as the purchase and creation of replacement wetlands elsewhere, etc. [snip]
[snip]
Oh, yeah - that's probably what it is, but even more so. See that treeline adjoining the northern side of the IAIS track in the vicinity of the new connection ? Well, I looked at this location using Google Maps in the 'Map' view. Hidden in there is a snake of a stream - apparently unnamed - also closely parallel to that track, for about 1,800 ft. until it gradually veers away to the northwest. As a result, any crossing is going to be at a shallow angle, and hence will require either a very long bridge/ culvert, and/ or a lor of stream relocation and/ or mitigation, etc. It crosses under the IAIS track at about 700 ft. to the west of the BNSF overpass. Further, it appears to be a consolidation of 3 smaller streams that coalesce to the south of the IAIS track just to the west of the BNSF crossing - the tree areas in the linked aerial photo pretty much indicate where they are. I could see coping with that stream being a $1 to $2 million proposition right there. And to paraphrase the late U.S. Senator Everett Dirksen from Illinois - how appropriate - ''A million here, a million there - pretty soon you're talking about some real money''.
EDIT / P.S. - Going back to the aerial photo linked in the Original Post - see that white line with the kink in it where it crosses under the bridge of the ''BNSF RR'' label in red, and the paralleling green tree strip ? Well, according to another aerial photo source - http://www.pennpilot.psu.edu/ - that's the Hennepin Canal Parkway State Park. It just doesn't get much lower or wetter than a place like that !
- PDN.
Looking at the aerial photo (as opposed to the satellite image) on Acme Mapper (go to the site, enter "Wyanet, IL" then scroll SW to find the crossing. Click on DOQ for the aerial photo) the streams show up pretty well.
It would be my judgement that the connector will be on mostly cultivated land, the afore-mentioned stream(s) notwithstanding. The blotchy appearance in the linked photo contrasts with the appearance in the aerial photo. This of course means that poor subgrade may be less of an issue than acquisition cost. Figuring a 100' wide ROW, that means between 3 and 4 acres, not to mention access for heavy equipment and the possibility of the relocation of the stream.
Sawtooth500Ya know, give me a break, I really meant absolutely no harm in my question, for a railfan who's never worked in the railroad industry and doesn't know anyone who works for a railroad I thought that was the purpose of these forums - to ask what you didn't know. It was never my intention to offend anyone, I just wanted to know, so if I have offended you, sorry.
Hello, Sawtooth500. I happen to think that the comment to which you responded above was well over the top.... a lot of protesting too much. Be that as it may, I think some of the 'ire' expressed in his and earlier posts can in fairness be attributed to your choice of adjectives in the title to this thread. The word root was the noun 'ridicule', which means to heap scorn on a preposterous thing, or to make fun of something. I'm afraid such reactions are more often borne out of ignorance, and that was relayed back to you in due course.
It might be a learning/teaching point for those looking on to consider using less judgemental language, or to avoid couching one's questions in terms that bespeak a conclusive state of mind and opinion. Said another way, don't situate the question or observation in absolute and predefined terms unless you want some vociferous argument. Invite instruction, knowledge, and dialogue. Don't force it into a corner and expect a cheering section to build a platform for you.
Lighten up, folks.
-Crandell
tree68 Looking at the aerial photo (as opposed to the satellite image) on Acme Mapper (go to the site, enter "Wyanet, IL" then scroll SW to find the crossing. Click on DOQ for the aerial photo) the streams show up pretty well. It would be my judgement that the connector will be on mostly cultivated land, the afore-mentioned stream(s) notwithstanding. The blotchy appearance in the linked photo contrasts with the appearance in the aerial photo. This of course means that poor subgrade may be less of an issue than acquisition cost. Figuring a 100' wide ROW, that means between 3 and 4 acres, not to mention access for heavy equipment and the possibility of the relocation of the stream.
Ahh - very resourceful you are, Larry.
Here's the link to a close-up of the area: [I hope ]
http://mapper.acme.com/?ll=41.35658,-89.60677&z=16&t=O&marker0=41.35343%2C-72.39064%2Cessex%5C%2C%20ct&marker1=29.42412%2C-98.49363%2Csan%20antonio%5C%2C%20tx&marker2=41.36531%2C-89.58398%2Cwyanet%5C%2C%20illinois
The 'good news' is that Larry's right - most of the blotchy area does now appear to have been somehow converted to cultivation - depending on the dates of each photo, of course - hence might not be too boggy.
The 'bad news' is that the green 'blob' just to the northeast of the BNSF connection in the linked photo in the Original Post appears to be some kind of pond in the DOQ view - or a swamp, per the USGS Topo map view. Either way, there's likely a high water table there.
From those insights and views, I'd also now be suspicious of limestone/ karst geology underneath - you know, sinkholes and stuff like that, which can also cause geotechnical complications and costs. A quick look at a geological map and soils maps would set those aspects to rest - or not.
And there's still that stream to be crossed or relocated . . .
Several Minnesota Newspapers are reporting that the pricetag for the Minneapolis to Duluth (via Hinckley,Mn) Northern Lights Express, NLX is approaching $650. million to $990 million dollars, up from last year's estimates of $360 million..
They are hoping that the Federal contribution will be 80%. TRAINS Newswire is carrying a similar story on the monday 'Wire.
Distance is approx. 155 miles. So do the math, and it looks pretty expensive for a line that is supposed to occupy the current BNSF Hinckley sub.
Ridiculous? Worthwhile? You make the call..
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.