The answer comes down to traffic patterns. There's four basic timeframes to look at:
The question was never quite about the capacity of the Moffat Tunnel, because it was never quite at capacity. Looking at the question another way, had the D&RGW always had the Kansas Pacific line (it never had it) or some other line from Denver direct to the Kansas City gateway, Tennessee Pass probably would have ceased to be a through route for overhead traffic the day the Dotsero Cutoff opened.
RWM
Were it not for the costs of blowing a bigger hole of a Moffat tunnel, would Tennessee pass have been past tense a long time ago?
zardoz So what is the actual cost to the UP to keep the rails (in whatever condition they are in) in place? I know that the line was very expensive to operate due to the grades, but with the huge increases in rail traffic (except during this recession), it would seem very short-sighted to give up a potentially usefull line. Over the years, I wonder how many railroads regretted their prior decisions to abandon lines that at the time seemed surplus, but recently could have been put to good use.
So what is the actual cost to the UP to keep the rails (in whatever condition they are in) in place?
I know that the line was very expensive to operate due to the grades, but with the huge increases in rail traffic (except during this recession), it would seem very short-sighted to give up a potentially usefull line.
Over the years, I wonder how many railroads regretted their prior decisions to abandon lines that at the time seemed surplus, but recently could have been put to good use.
Let me try to answer all three questions:
(1) The "cash" cost of keeping the railroad in place (that is, the money UP has to pay out from its treasury every year) is probably minimal, principally real estate taxes (and liquidation might not have a big effect on UP's tax bill because of the way railroad real estate taxes are apportioned) and some small amount for occasional inspections, weed control (maybe) and the like. The real "cost" is something called "opportunity costs" - the income UP is foregoing by not liquidating the property and reinvesting the proceeds elsewhere. For example, if the NLV of the property (ie., the amount UP would realize from disposition of the property less the costs it incurs in salvaging and disposing of the track and real estate) is, say $20 million (I made up this number), and UP could invest this money somewhere else and get a 6% annual return (a number I also made up), the "opportunity cost" of keeping the railroad in place is $1,200,000 per year. Railroad's certainly think about that kind of thing (and STB considers it in abandoment decisions) but it doesn't represent cash bleeding from the corporate treasury.
(2) Obviously, UP must have believed that the TP line had some potential future value as a transportation corridor, or they would not have left it in place as long as they did. But there's a real question of how valuable this line would be to handle future traffic increases. At this point in time, it would take a major capital investment to put it back in service. And what is it going to be used for? Certainly not the mixed traffic it was used for in SP days. SP didn't have an viable alternate Central Corridor route (the Moffat line couldn't handle stack trains, and SP didn't have an outlet to the east at Denver). UP does - its Wyoming main line. It makes far more sense for UP to invest in capacity on that line than on the TP line, for the reasons I discussed in an earlier post. About all TP would be good for now is an alternate route for some of the Colorado/Utah coal now on the Moffat line. How much is that traffic really going to increase in the future as the older power plants that use it are retired? And where does the traffic go once it hits Pueblo? The historic routing via the Hoisington line isn't available and it makes no sense to route it up the joint line to Denver (which has its own congetion problems). The only way the TP line could be of any real use is if a new railroad were built to tie the existing trackage east of Pueblo into the KP line (if you look at a map, the KP line dips to the south east of Denver), but that's a really big investment.
I don't know what's going on the the hallowed halls of UP in Omaha right now, but the recent transfer of dispatching for the Canon City-Parkdale segment to RGX tells me that UP has concluded that the TP line will not be useful in the future. UP wouldn't have done this if they felt that there was a reasonable prospect of reopening the line. Keep in mind that they have been dispatching the line and maintaining the signals since the line was sold to RGX over 10 years ago. Why? The only explanation is that they wanted to keep operational control of the RGX line in the event the TP route was restored to service. The transfer of dispatching and signals to RGX after all these years indicates this is no longer a concern.
(3) I've been involved in a large number of western railroad abandonments. In the vast majority of cases, the railroads have no regrets about the decision to abandon. Keep in mind that, outside of bankruptcy or near bankruptcy scenarios (i.e., the railroad needs the cash from the salvage to meet the payroll, which was more common than you might think in the 70's), a railroad will not fully abandon a line unless it concludes that the line is absolutely hopeless. If it has any question that the line might be useful in the future, the railroad will simply get STB authority to discontinue service, and then leave the line in place. Also, most (but not all) abandonments involve lines that are only capable of handling local traffic (i.e., traffic that originates or terminates on the line), so they aren't even candidates for handling increased traffic flows. There have certainly been some abandoned lines which railroads would like to have back, but not many.
Zardoz -- I really wasn't referring to your prior post specifically. I was going to write this yesterday but was never anywhere close to where I could use the laptop. The point I'm trying to make is that saying "Tennessee Pass is costly to operate" really doesn't explain too much, because it's costly compared to Route X or Route Y, and we have to dig into the details to find out how much more costly it really is -- if any! It's not very easy to do this even with inside information, and from the outside, it would require me expending around 10-20 hours per route to come up with some naive numbers that compared two routes.
Returning to general principles, if you have two routes with common endpionts, enough traffic to fully utilize the capacity of only one, and neither has any appreciable local traffic, then it's usually sensible to put all the trains on one route and cease service on the other. Which route you choose is the question. I think anyone can stand on the outside, look at the coal origins and destinations, and see which route is more plausible of the Moffat and Tennessee Pass alternatives. But that has much more to do with crew costs, equipment turn times, and total mileage of the line haul, and much less to do with the relative costs of maintenance costs of the two routes, operating cost differences between the two routes, and locomotive requirements of the two routes. For most of the traffic, the Moffat will have one less crew district, for starters.
Railway ManI think this "high cost of operation" statement can be overstated for Tennessee Pass.
The "high costs" I was refering to were, 1) the number of locomotives needed to move X amount of freight over a 3+% grade vs. a 2.2% grade, 2) the fuel to run said locomotives, and 3) the cost of owning and maintaining an entirely seperate right of way.
Additional factors would be the destination of said freight. If it was heading due east from Denver towards North Platte, then going over TP would seem to be silly, although this doesn't count the extended route miles north to go thru the Moffat (I do not know the actual mileage differences between the two routes); if the freight was to head south towards Texas, then TP would seem to be a better choice.
As Muddy pointed out, keeping the line seems to be woth it for the reasons he stated, but then I do not have the benefit of seeing the 'big picture' (hence my question).
I think this "high cost of operation" statement can be overstated for Tennessee Pass. Any mountain summit entails higher cost of operation than the equivalent miles of tableland, but some summits are relatively worse than others. Fuel cost is very closely proportional to the amount of elevation that has to be gained, thus if you have two alternative routes with common end points, one with 1,000 feet of altitude gain and another with 2,000 feet of altitude gain, fuel burn for the second that is related to the climb will be twice that of the first. Locomotive cost might be a wash between two alternative routes. Crew cost is idiosyncratic depending upon how the agreements are written. Track maintenance costs are idiosyncratic based upon terrain, climate, curvature, and geotechnical. For example, Tennessee Pass is a fairly dry summit with fairly benign geotechnical aspects relative to some other mountain summits. Its total degrees of curvature is significantly less than the Moffat.
Point of all this is that it can obscure more than illuminate to announce that Tennessee Pass has high cost of operation. So does the Moffat. So does Donner Pass. So does Marias Pass. Question is, how much higher than alternative routes, and for what traffic types, and for what traffic level. Without some level of detailed analysis it's really hard to say whether this higher operating cost has a large influence on the decision to reopen or close a line, or not much of an influence.
Zardo:
The whole idea was (and I suppose still is) to route lower priority trains over Tennessee Pass to keep Moffat open (and the tunnel clear) for the passenger train and the higher priority trains. Uncle Pete was ready to start double and triple tracking the west side of the tunnel (Fraser to Winter Park) to queue-up trains going into the hole as soon as the thing vented (instead of holding them back at Tabernash) and was getting serious until the slump and the decline in coal trains off the North Fork Branch hit.
The lower priority trains would be thrown at low speed (TWC for a while) to the south until the signal system could be reset. (they could at least move and progress east). Very little merchandise and no TOFC/COFC traffic is out there now except for the UP Roper local and the BNSF rights trains.
I don't think UP would have spent the $$$ in the recent ugly court fights and last fall's resurfacing in spots if they were gonna walk away from the line entirely. (and the C&S line at Leadville may yet start shipping revenue material again)
zardozOver the years, I wonder how many railroads regretted their prior decisions to abandon lines that at the time seemed surplus, but recently could have been put to good use.
Perhaps BNSF now regrets putting the Stampede Pass line back in service, at a cost of $165 million.
MP173 Falcon:NEI (not enough information). Great report. I really appreciate it. So, do they run freights thru the Royal Gorge? Tomorrow I will google map the area and figure it out. I visited the Royal Gorge in 1964 as a kid...I can understand your comment about Burlington not going any further west. What is your opinion on "railbanking"? ed
Falcon:NEI (not enough information).
Great report. I really appreciate it. So, do they run freights thru the Royal Gorge? Tomorrow I will google map the area and figure it out. I visited the Royal Gorge in 1964 as a kid...I can understand your comment about Burlington not going any further west.
What is your opinion on "railbanking"?
ed
Actually, the Santa Fe not only wanted to go further west than Canon City - they did. It was the Santa Fe, not the DRGW, that built through the Royal Gorge. Their target was Leadville which, at the time, was an important mining center and the target of many rail construction projects of the era (including the Georgetown Loop). The story of why the Santa Fe surrendered its Royal Gorge alignment is told in considerable detail in George Hilton's book on narrow gauge railroads.
Yes, they do run freights (gravel trains) through Royal Gorge. They come from the Agile stone quarry near the west end of the active track at Parkdale. I'm not sure how often they are running right now with the recession and the downturn in construction activity.
With respect to "rail banking", it depends what you mean by this term. If it means leaving the tracks in place, the policy makes sense only if there is a reasonable possibility that the rail line will be reopened. With most abandoned lines, this really isn't the case. In this respect,Tennessee Pass is different than the typical abandonment because future use as a through route hasn't been completely off the table. Certainly, UP didn't think so, or they wouldn't have left it in the ground this long. Based on the recent transfer of dispatching, it appears that they have only recently determined that the line has no future. As a long term rail preservation strategy, however, it's a bust. A railroad that's been left in the ground for a long time without maintenance has to be almost compeltely replaced. Even the rail might have to be replaced if it was nearly worn out when the line was shut down (which is probably going to be the case with a line that's an abandonment candidate).
"Rail banking" is also used to refer to "trail use", which is a different animal. With "trail use", the track structure is removed and the right of way is groomed (and sometimes paved) for a trail. The theory is that this preserves the right of way for trail use. In theory it does. In practice, probably not. Most trails are on corridors a railroad would never even consider for reactivation. Also, the political fallout from trying to tear up a popular trail for a rail reactivation would be considerable. The "rails-tp-trails programs has been in effect for over 20 years, and only a miniscule amount of rail trails have been reconverted to rail use. Still, under the rails-to-trails law, a trail user must step aside for a rail reactivation, so the corridors are at least theoretically available for future rail use.
Bob-FrymlFalcon48 This note is probably a good example of what's known as TMI ("too much information"). Quite the contrary! You tell a very plausable story about the "Discontinuance of Service" process that actually happened with portions of the Tennessee Pass Subdivision. I found your entire narration very enlightening. In addition to the ideas discussed so far, consider this.... Possibly looming in the background, is a State of Colorado concern about the possible long term affects of losing that line. To me, it seems like it's been "rail banked," but nobody really is calling it that. I don't think the State has the money to buy the line from Union Pacific; and yet, U.P. apparently has no use for the line either. So could there be some kind of stalemate going on here?
Falcon48 This note is probably a good example of what's known as TMI ("too much information").
This note is probably a good example of what's known as TMI ("too much information").
Quite the contrary! You tell a very plausable story about the "Discontinuance of Service" process that actually happened with portions of the Tennessee Pass Subdivision. I found your entire narration very enlightening.
In addition to the ideas discussed so far, consider this.... Possibly looming in the background, is a State of Colorado concern about the possible long term affects of losing that line. To me, it seems like it's been "rail banked," but nobody really is calling it that. I don't think the State has the money to buy the line from Union Pacific; and yet, U.P. apparently has no use for the line either. So could there be some kind of stalemate going on here?
Since I'm familiar with the terms of the agreement with the state, suffice it to say that it wouldn't cost the state a whole lot to purchase and "rail bank" the right of way. The track structrue would be a differenct story, but I'm not sure why the state would want that.
MP173 What is Rock and Rail? Is that a shortline operator?Ed
What is Rock and Rail? Is that a shortline operator?Ed
Yes - it operates between Pueblo and Parkdale. Let me give some history (probably more than you want to know).
Once upon a time, a long time ago (1995), UP and SP decided to merge. One of the things that became obvious to them was that a merged company wouldn't need all of the rail lines the two companies were operating. And, one of the lines identified as potentially surplus was the Tennessee Pass line. The feeling was that the traffic on this line could be rerouted to other lines, primarily the UP Wyoming line.
And so it came to pass that UP and SP filed to abandon the Tennessee Pass line as part of their merger. But one of the things that concerned UP that the large abandonment mileage being proposed in Colorado would turn the state against the merger. So, UP made a deal with the state to preserve some the lines for either short line or recreational use. The way it worked as to the Tennessee Pass line was that UP would sell the line, or any part of it, for continued rail service at "net liquidation value" (essentially, salvage value less removal costs) to an operator or operators approved by the state. Portions of the line not sold in this fashion would be made available for trail use, at terms specified in the agreement.
What ultimately happened as a result of this agreement is that an operator was found for the line segment between Canon City and Parkdale, which passes through Royal Gorge, and UP sold the line to it. The entity was called "Royal Gorge Express" ("RGX"), which was a partnership comprised of Canon City & Royal Gorge, a tourist railroad, and Rock & Rail, a short line freight railroad. Rock & Rail, in turn, was affiliated with a gravel company called Agile Stone, which was developing a large stone quarry at Parkdale (hence the name "Rock & Rail").
Initially, Rock & Rail only operated between Parkdale and Canon City. The way Rock & Rail got to Pueblo was by a transaction with BNSF. The Santa Fe used to have its own line between Pueblo and Canon City (the reason it ended at Canon City is another story). However, most of that line had been abandoned over the years in favor of trackage rights over DRGW. A few years after R&R began operating, it made an agreement with BNSF to acquire the BNSF trackage rights and the surviving BNSF trackage. This is how R&R now gets to Pueblo.
In practice, R&R often runs solid rock trains to destinations along the Front Range. When they involve UP, they are often operated as run through trains with UP power. That's why you will sometimes see UP power (with R&R crews) operating through Royal Gorge. UP itself operates no further west than a power plant on the west side of Canon City.
There is one more thing to complete this picture. When the deal was made with the state, everyone presumed that UP would abandon the TP line, and salvage the parts not sold for continued rail service. That, however, didn't happen (or, more acccurately, hasn't happened yet). When STB approved the merger, it did not approve full abandonment of the TP, because of concerns raised by a number of parties that UP would not be able to successfully reroute TP traffic to other lines. Instead, STB approved only "discontinuance" of service, which meant the line remained in place. While the expectation was that UP would wait a year or two and then file for abandonment, that didn't happen. Instead, UP made a filing with the STB indicating that it was removing the line as an abandonment candidate and holding on to it in "discontinued" status for possible future use. This is the reason why, when the RGX deal was made, that UP retained trackage rights over the RGX line, retained ownership of the signal system on the line and retained dispatching control over the line (if you've ever ridden the tourist road and listened to their radio communications, you may have noticed that they were communicating with the UP Harriman dispatching center in Omaha). The fact that UP has very recently transferred dispatching control and ownership of the signal system to RGX would seem to suggest that UP no longer sees a reopening as a likely prospect.
In response to "mudchicken", the TP reopening that UP "warned" several communities about was the reopening of the Gypsum-West Belden segment for local traffic, as disclosed in the FRA signal application attached to one of my earleir posts. This line segment passes through Eagle, Avon and Minturn, so it makes sense that UP would tell them about it. I'm not aware of any plans to reopen the line through Leadville and Salida. In fact, Leadville wasn't even on the TP line - it was on a branch line that diverged from the main line at Malta and has been torn up for over a decade.
If UP had lans to reopen the TP line as a through route, there's no way it would have surrendered dispatching of the Canon City - Parkdale to RGX. It would have retained dispatching.
First of all, since I have some dealings with UP, I want to make clear that I have no inside information as to what UP may or may not be planning for this route -- I'm speculating just like everyone else.
That said, I doubt very much that a reopening of Tennessee Pass as a through route is in the cards:
(1) The route has been closed for over 12 years. It was originally kept because of concerns as to whether UP would be able to reroute the line's traffic to other UP routes. If UP hasn't needed the line for the past 12 years, they have obviously decided they can live without the line. Now, it's true that traffic could increase in the future. But, if so, the question for UP will be whether it makes more sense to reopen the TP line (which, at this point in time will require a thorough rebuilding of the infrastructure) or put the capital into expanding capacity on UP's existing routes. As a general matter, unless there are serious physical constraints, it's usually better to expand capacity on existing routes rather than to open new routes. You get more bang for the buck. For example, adding a track to an existing CTC line gives you more capacity that building a track on a geographically separate line. Now, you may say that the Moffat line is geographically constrained, and there is no good way to add significant capacity to that route. That may be true as to the Moffat route, but it's not true of the UP's line across Wyoming, which is the real alternative to the TP line and a far superior route.
(2) The Tennessee Pass route didn't exist in isolation. It was historically part of a longer interline routing that included the MoPac line across eastern Colorado and Kansas (the "Hoisington" line). In fact, I recall seeing that the MoPac at Pueblo was historically DRGW's largest interchange partner. It was so important to DRGW that, when UP acquired the MoPac, DRGW got the ICC to give it trackage rights across the Hoisington line to replace the loss of MoPac as an interchange partner. The vast majority of the traffic using the TP line in SP-DRGW days was traffic that also used the Hoisington line. That routing is no longer available, While parts of the Hoisington line still exist, it no longer exists as a through route. Parts of it have been abandoned and other parts have been short lined. Without a good outlet to the east at Pueblo, the Tennessee Pass line doesn't buy you anything.
(3) The fact that UP has recently surrendered dispatching on the Canon City-Parkdale segment to RGX and allowed the signal system to be downgraded tells me that UP has lost interest in the TP line as a possible through route.
(4) I know that there has been occasional speculation that BNSF may be interested in acquiring and operating the TP line as a through route. I would simply point out that BNSF used to have trackage rights from Pueblo to Canon City, which would have been utilized in any BNSF TP acquisition. BNSF trasnferred these rights to Rock & Rail several years ago, which seems to show they have no interest in operating over the route.
(5) The one thing that tempers this line of speculation is that UP, to my knowledge, has not yet taken any steps to secure final abandonment authority for the portion of the TP line that's out of service. That could mean that they still see some reason to retain it. Or it could simply mean that they've got other things on their plate and aren't in a big hurry to tilt at this windmill. We shall see.
If the economy hadn't tanked last year, they would be running trains on it now. UP even warned several small cities (Minturn, Leadville, Salida and had to beat some sense into Eagle and Avon) what was coming. Eagle was stupidly trying to place public housing up against the R/W line. Avon was going to do something even dumber.
Enjoyed all the replies on this topic. But getting back to the original question, does anybody think there is much chance that UP would reopen the line for through traffic?
I will add that site to the list of nightime sleep aids. Thanks for the linkup.
And it's been "fun" being part of the RSAC process for Subpart H and I.
Railway Man It's all safety regulation, not operational dictates per se. Most of this authority dates to the ICC and various rail safety acts enacted by Congress. RWM
It's all safety regulation, not operational dictates per se. Most of this authority dates to the ICC and various rail safety acts enacted by Congress.
You're correct. Most of the FRA signal rules are actually old ICC signal rules which the FRA adopted as its own when it was created. The major exception to this are the "processor based" signal rules in Subpart H of Part 236, which are relatively new FRA rules. The PTC rules, when they are adopted (the scuttlebutt is sometime this month), will also be newly minted FRA creations.
If anyone is interested in the universe of things FRA regulates, see the following web address (it's also useful if you have insomnia):
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_08/49cfrv4_08.html
As can be seen from this site, FRA does regulate many "operational" aspects of railroads. Also, there is a separate body of haz mat rules applicable to all transport modes which are the responsiblity of another Department of Transportation agency called the "Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration" (affectionately know as "PHMSA"). However, while PHMSA makes these rules, FRA enforces them as to railroads.
Time to go to bed before I cause any more trouble.
That.....certainly explains it. Didnt realize FRA would extend that far into the operations, but upon further review....it makes sense.
thanks,
ED
MP173 Looking the signal application and communication from FRA over...is it safe to assume that any change in signal system must be approved by FRA? Or is it a "reduction" in the system from signals to another system?Nice track charts of the railroad in question. ed
Looking the signal application and communication from FRA over...is it safe to assume that any change in signal system must be approved by FRA? Or is it a "reduction" in the system from signals to another system?Nice track charts of the railroad in question.
Uhh ... short question, long answer:
[Code of Federal Regulations][Title 49, Volume 4][Revised as of October 1, 2003]From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access[CITE: 49CFR235.5][Page 495] TITLE 49--TRANSPORTATION CHAPTER II--FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIONPART 235--INSTRUCTIONS GOVERNING APPLICATIONS FOR APPROVAL OF A DISCONTINUANCE OR MATERIAL MODIFICATION OF A SIGNAL SYSTEM OR RELIEF FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF PART 236--Table of ContentsSec. 235.5 Changes requiring filing of application. (a) Except as provided in Sec. 235.7, applications shall be filed to cover the following: (1) The discontinuance of a block signal system, interlocking, traffic control system, automatic train stop, train control, or cab signal system or other similar appliance or device; (2) The decrease of the limits of a block signal system, interlocking, traffic control system, automatic train stop, train control, or cab signal system; or (3) The modification of a block signal system, interlocking, traffic control system, automatic train stop, train control, or cab signal system. (b) [Reserved](Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 2130-0042)
[Code of Federal Regulations][Title 49, Volume 4][Revised as of October 1, 2003]From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access[CITE: 49CFR235.7][Page 495-497] TITLE 49--TRANSPORTATION CHAPTER II--FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIONPART 235--INSTRUCTIONS GOVERNING APPLICATIONS FOR APPROVAL OF A DISCONTINUANCE OR MATERIAL MODIFICATION OF A SIGNAL SYSTEM OR RELIEF FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF PART 236--Table of ContentsSec. 235.7 Changes not requiring filing of application. (a) It is not necessary to file an application for approval of the following discontinuances:[[Page 496]] (1) Removal of block signal system, interlocking, traffic control system, automatic train stop, train control, or cab signal system from track approved for abandonment by formal proceeding; (2) Removal of devices and associated signals used to provide protection against unusual contingencies such as landslide, burned bridge, high water, high and wide load, or tunnel protection when the unusual contingency no longer exists; (3) Removal of an interlocking where a drawbridge has been permanently closed by the formal approval of another government agency; or (4) Removal from service not to exceed six months of block signal system, interlocking, or traffic control system necessitated by catastrophic occurrence such as derailment, flood, fire, or hurricane. (b) When the resultant arrangement will comply with part 236 of this title, it is not necessary to file for approval to decrease the limits of a system as follows: (1) Decrease of the limits of an interlocking when interlocked switches, derails, or movable-point frogs are not involved; (2) Removal of electric or mechanical lock from hand-operated switch in automatic block signal or traffic control territory where train speed over switch does not excess 20 miles per hour; or (3) Removal of electric or mechanical lock from hand-operated switch in automatic block signal or traffic control territory where trains are not permitted to clear the main track at such switch. (c) When the resultant arrangement will comply with part 236 of this title, it is not necessary to file an application for approval of the following modifications: (1) A modification that is required to comply with an order of the Federal Railroad Administration or any section of part 236 of this title; (2) The installation of an automatic block signal or a traffic control system to replace manual block or non-signaled territory; (3) The installation of a traffic control system to replace a roadway automatic block signal system (discontinuance of an automatic train stop, train control, or cab signal system is not permitted without FRA approval); (4) The installation of an automatic train stop, train control, or cab signal system in an existing automatic block or traffic control system; (5) The installation of a continuous inductive automatic train stop system to replace an existing intermittent inductive automatic train stop system; (6) The installation of a continuous inductive automatic train stop system to supplement an existing automatic cab signal system; (7) The installation of an automatic train control system to replace an existing automatic train stop system or to supplement an existing automatic cab signal system; (8) The installation of an interlocking to replace existing stop signs, gates, or pipe-connected derails protecting a railroad crossing at grade; (9) The installation of all relay type locking to replace existing mechanical or electromechanical locking of an interlocking; (10) The installation of an additional controlled point in existing traffic control system; (11) The installation of an interlocking in an existing block signal system; (12) The conversion of a hand-operated switch, a hand-operated switch locked either electrically or mechanically, or a spring switch to a power-operated switch; (13) The conversion of a spring switch to a hand-operated switch, or to a hand-operated switch locked either electrically or mechanically; (14) The removal or relocation of signals associated with a spring switch converted to hand operation; (15) The installation, relocation, or removal of signals to specifically provide adequate stopping distance; (16) The change of aspects; (17) The relocation of a signal to improve preview of signal aspect visibility; (18) To replace a signal with a signal of another type; (19) To change an approach signal to operative or inoperative signal, or remove an approach signal not required by Sec. 236.310 of this title;[[Page 497]] (20) The change in location of a machine from which an interlocking or traffic control system is controlled; (21) The closing of a manual block station or the change in hours during which a manual block station is attended; (22) The change in hours during which a manual interlocking is attended provided the interlocking operates for all routes over which train movements are permitted; (23) The installation of devices used to provide protection against unusual contingencies such as landslide, burned bridges, high water, high and wide loads, or dragging equipment; (24) The installation, relocation, or removal of signals, interlocked switches, derails, movable-point frogs, or electric locks in an existing system directly associated with: (i) The installation of new track; (ii) The elimination of existing track other than a second main track; (iii) The extension or shortening of a passing siding; (iv) Elimination of second main track where signal system mn retained main track is arranged to provide both opposing and following protection for train movements provided second main track is physically removed; or (v) A line relocation; or (vi) The conversion of pole line circuits to electronic (coded) track circuits provided that the railroad gives notice and a profile plan of the change to the FRA regional office having jurisdiction over that territory at least 60 days in advance of the change. The railroad must also at the same time provide a copy of the notice and profile plan to representatives of employees responsible for maintenance, inspection and testing of the signal system under 49 CFR Part 236. The signal system modification will be deemed acceptable, unless within 60 days, the Regional Adminstrator stays action by written notice to the railroad and refers the issue to the Railroad Safety Board for decision. (25) The temporary or permanent arrangement of existing systems necessitated by highway rail separation construction. Temporary arrangements shall be removed within six months following completion of construction.[49 FR 3380, Jan. 26, 1984, as amended at 61 FR 33873, July 1, 1996]
Railway Man Correct on all points. Last time I was involved with it was a year ago, and I just plumb forgot that R&R had the BNSF rights. The FRA authority to discontinue the block signal system from Gypsum to West Belden is highly conditional, as you probably know; should revenue service resume, back goes the CTC. RWM
Correct on all points. Last time I was involved with it was a year ago, and I just plumb forgot that R&R had the BNSF rights.
The FRA authority to discontinue the block signal system from Gypsum to West Belden is highly conditional, as you probably know; should revenue service resume, back goes the CTC.
There's no "revenue service" condition on the West Belden signal discontinuance. There couldn't be, because the signal discontinuance authority extends from Dotsero to West Belden, which includes the active "revenue service" segment between Dotsero and Gypsum. UP also indicated in its application that it might serve some commercial traffic in the Minturn area.
What you may be thinking of is that, in its application, UP indicated that it would accept a condition requiring a Part 236 compliant signal system (not necessarily CTC) to be reinstalled if UP were to reopen the Tennessee Pass route for through service. In response, FRA imposed a condition stating that the agency reserved the right to require reinstallation of signal systems "...should rail traffic significantly increase in the future."
The UP signal application and the FRA decision letter can be viewed at the following website address:
http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#docketDetail?R=FRA-2006-25266
Railway Man Pueblo-Canon City: UP owned, BNSF trackage rights (date way back), Rock & Rail trackage rights, UP dispatching, in service. Canon City-Parkdale: Joint Rock & Rail/Royal Gorge Scenic ownership, UP trackage rights, UP dispatching, in service. Parkdale-Gypsum: UP owned, out of service, used to store cars. Gypsum-Dotsero: UP owned, in service, used to access American Gypsum at Gypsum. RWM
Pueblo-Canon City: UP owned, BNSF trackage rights (date way back), Rock & Rail trackage rights, UP dispatching, in service.
Canon City-Parkdale: Joint Rock & Rail/Royal Gorge Scenic ownership, UP trackage rights, UP dispatching, in service.
Parkdale-Gypsum: UP owned, out of service, used to store cars.
Gypsum-Dotsero: UP owned, in service, used to access American Gypsum at Gypsum.
A few minor additions and corrections.
1. Pueblo-Canon City - BNSF no longer has trackage rights on this segment. Rock & Rail's trackage rights are BNSF's former rights, which BNSF transferred to R&R some years ago
2. Canon City-Parkdale:
> The owner of this segment is technically an entity called "Royal Gorge Express" (RGX), which is a partnership comprised of Rock & Rail (the short line freight railroad) and Canon City & Royal Gorge (the tourist road). Effectively, however, this means that it is jointly owned by these two entites, as you stated.
> While UP has trackage rights over this segment, they are not being used for commercial service. It may appear that the rights are being used, because you will see UP power being used to haul trains on this segment. However, they are operated by Rock & Rail under a run through arrangement, not by UP.
> UP is no longer dispatching the segment. Dispatching was very recently (within the last couple of months) transferred to RGX, The dispatching is actually being performed by an off site contractor. I believe that, as part of this change, the CTC system on the segment was converted to ABS and the dispatching is now done by track warrants . FRA approved a signal application covering these changes over a year ago, but they were just implemented.
3. Gypsum-Minturn - I believe this segment is technically "in service" (perhaps as far as West Belden), but Im not sure how much it's being used. UP received FRA permission a couple of years ago to discontinue the signal system on this segment (which was beyond repair) so that the segment could be put back in limited service.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.