The line is out of service because of the high cost to operate it due to the steep grades combined with excess capacity in the Central Corridor. The UP has retained ownership and the track is still there, but they are not doing any maintenance on the line.
Perhaps six to eight years ago, this poster passed the out-of-service line by I-70, in the Eagle, CO area.
At that time, it was absolutely appalling how badly the single-track line had deteriorated, with uneven rails and washed out ballast in spot after spot. But such a sight makes for an incredible nostalgia trip that is not soon forgotten.
As far as the tracks over Tennessee Pass proper, I would imagine it has suffered a similar fate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- K.P.’s absolute “theorem” from early, early childhood that he has seen over and over and over again: Those that CAUSE a problem in the first place will act the most violently if questioned or exposed.
K. P. Harrier Perhaps six to eight years ago, this poster passed the out-of-service line by I-70, in the Eagle, CO area. At that time, it was absolutely appalling how badly the single-track line had deteriorated, with uneven rails and washed out ballast in spot after spot. But such a sight makes for an incredible nostalgia trip that is not soon forgotten. As far as the tracks over Tennessee Pass proper, I would imagine it has suffered a similar fate.
Sounds like a road trip to me.
I've never been near Tennessee Pass. I've just seen in old back issues little snippets about it. If it costs so much to operate it and they aren't sending trains over it, why not pull up rails?
Lone Geep
\
Because maybe someday - granted, perhaps 50 years from now, but - it might be either needed or more economical to restore service to run over Tennessee Pass, as opposed to adding another track to a parallel route to the north or south. See the little history of Stampede Pass under BN, and then BNSF; also, the increasing importance of Montana Rail Link's ex-NP/ BN lines.
A couple posters here - esp. Railway Man, also mudchicken, and perhaps some others - have made a convincing case in other threads here a couple years ago that even that will never happen. As I understand it, even if the TP route was workable, there are no direct connections at either end that are better than the existing routes [EDIT], or which would have to go considerably out of their way to tie back into the existing routes - so it wouldn't add any capability.
On the other hand, if something disastrous would ever happen to the Moffatt Tunnel route, then TP might be a good "fallback" route to get back in service in a couple of months, because there sure aren't any others within easy reach. Look at the big landslide in the Siskiyous a couple years ago, the flooding in the MidWest every few years, the Thistle, Utah landslide in the early 1980's, etc. - "Never say never".
I wouldn't advocate using TP's 3% grades for loaded trains, but much like Stampede Pass, it might be usable for empty return moves such as "baretable" intermodals, empty grain and coal trains, etc., which would leave the easier grades of the Moffatt Tunnel route for the loaded direction moves.
Restoring Tennesse Pass to service would be far easier and faster than getting even just the environmental permits to add another track to the Moffatt Tunnel route, through or next to all those high-falutin' Colorado ski areas, what with all the blasting, rock removal, fills, etc. that would be needed.
Finally, any experienced MOW person will tell you that it is far easier to restore a rail line to service when you have even just the skeletal remains of the former track to work with - 2 rails and the occasional good tie, even with washouts, etc. Off-track equipment can't be beat for certain tasks, such as filling washouts and clearing slides - but to bring new CWR, ties, and ballast in to such remote areas, even if only to ultimately rebuild the track 100% - is far easier with the old track as a 'base' than with no track at all.
- Paul North.
P.S. - I was under the impression that a couple of short segments of the Tennessee Pass route were kept in operation, at least for a few years if not still running. One was a tourist/ scenic RR operation; the other was a quarry and/ or shortline operation of some kind. - PDN.
http://www.rockandrail.com/
"No soup for you!" - Yev Kassem (from Seinfeld)
My understanding is that a small portion of the east end of the line is in operation by the tourist railroad running trains to view the Royal Gorge and may even have freight service for a few remaining on-line customers. Somebody can answer if that track is still owned by the UP or by the shortline operator.
I agree with your position on using the Tenessee Pss for empty return trains, but what about loaded TOFC intermodals? They are light and with DPU you could get them over the pass without any major problems.
Good point. DPU practices have mostly developed after Tennessee Pass was taken out of service - and that may be a good example of how innovations in technology can reduce, negate, or overcome a physical condition that would seem to make TP uneconomic otherwise. Yet another good example of why it may have been wiser to just "mothball" it instead of ripping it up - the technology advances may make it usable again.
However, my understanding is that there would be several hundred miles of otherwise unnecessary and unproductive circuitry in using the Tennessee Pass route, in getting to and from it via other active lines. Since intermodal loads are usually valuable and time-sensitive, and hence distance-senstitive as well - and nothing else about the TP route would speed up or economize the trip, it would seem to be a loser on both counts.
See also this Wikipedia entray (usual disclaimers apply):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_Pass_(Colorado)
Three points of note:
See also: http://www.drgw.net/info/TennesseePass
And the overall maps and histories of each route at: http://ghostdepot.com/rg/index2.htm
(1) Line is intact, ready to go as 49MPH TWC dark territory right now....would be running now IF economy and carloadings had not tanked.
(2) Colorado buying the line? Not a chance (somebody's wishfull thinking, trail grab? UP has had to tell the trail people to "get real" several times.)....The Christo nonsense west of the Gorge made that abundantly clear.
(3) Climax mine (above Leadville) re-opened in July of this year and anticipates shipping at end 1st quarter of 2012 20-30,000 pounds of equivilent refined moly a year (that tonnage of raw ore isn't going out by truck) with that tonnage ratcheting up in stages. That stuff is headed many places and no longer exclusively to Pueblo. Rumor here is that the hematite ore at Monarch is also possibly making a comeback.
(4) Thanx to a 1905 deal between DNWP & CB&Q, BNSF today has the right to exercise ownership on part* (not all) of the Moffat line, it has no rights on the TP line west of Pueblo/Canon Junction anymore. (Quitclaimed from Canon Jcn to Canon City to RRRR/RGCX )
*(a result of the Gore Canyon War with UPRR ironically)
I ws not thinking of the priority of TOFC trains, only the ability to economicly get the trains over the 3 percent grade. The fact that TOFC's usually are high priority as stated and extra distance would probably eliminate the pass as a viable route.
Paul_D_North_Jr Good point. DPU practices have mostly developed after Tennessee Pass was taken out of service - and that may be a good example of how innovations in technology can reduce, negate, or overcome a physical condition that would seem to make TP uneconomic otherwise. Yet another good example of why it may have been wiser to just "mothball" it instead of ripping it up - the technology advances may make it usable again. - Paul North.
The 'physical condition' referred to is the main sticking point of this line. The 3% grade is quite demanding. A DPU setup might help somewhat, but mostly it is simply a matter of grade and the horsepower needed to overcome it. Whether that power is on the point or anywhere else, it is simply that it takes a huge amount of power (fuel, locomotives) to lift the tonnage over the 3% grade (or to hold it back when descending). I remember seeing coal trains on that line that had 18 units (all on line): 6 up front, 6 middle, 6 rear. The Moffat line seems to do ok with "only" 6 units for coal trains.
A point was brought up about the eastern outlet of the line (former MP to Kansas City.) being abandoned. There are still 2 other outlets at Pueblo. There is the former Santa Fe route east to K.C. (BNSF getting rights on former DRGW lines is not unprescedented, as they already have rights on the Moffat route); and there are the BNSF lines to Texas where UP already uses trackage rights for coal trains. A UP coal train from west of Glenwood could use the shorter Tennessee Pass route on it's way to Texas. While the same train over Moffat would face 2% instead of 3% grades, once it got down to Denver it would also face the climb up to the Palmer divide on the busy Joint Line. At any rate the return empty trip would only face 1.4% on the TP route.
Three weeks ago my wife and I drove over US 50 from Salida to Canon City, and I noticed the track and some signals were still in place. As we approached Parkdale, I believe, we noticed a whole string of hopper cars on the track. Part of the Tennessee Pass line between Canon City and Parkdale is used by the Royal Gorge Railroad which runs excursion trains through the Royal Gorge. I wonder who owns the hopper cars we saw near Parkdale?
http://www.coloradorailfan.com/gallery/gallery.asp?on=20110924&by=KM
RudyRockvilleMD Three weeks ago my wife and I drove over US 50 from Salida to Canon City, and I noticed the track and some signals were still in place. As we approached Parkdale, I believe, we noticed a whole string of hopper cars on the track. Part of the Tennessee Pass line between Canon City and Parkdale is used by the Royal Gorge Railroad which runs excursion trains through the Royal Gorge. I wonder who owns the hopper cars we saw near Parkdale?
This was the shortline referred to in a previous post. See
I am very familiar with the Tennessee Pass line and was involved in the discontinuance of service over it. A few points in response to the various posts on this thread, which I've made before in other threads:
(1) UP sold the segment between Canon City and Parkdale to Royal Gorge Express (RGX) in the late 1990's, after the UP/SP merger. RGX is a partnership comprised of the Canon City & Royal Gorge (the tourist road) and Rock & Rail (a short line railroad affiliated with the gravel quarry at Parkdale). UP retained overhead trackage rights over the RGX line segment, in the event it ever restored through operations over the TP line. UP also retained the signal sytem and dispatching authority over the line for the same reason. Within the last 5 years, UP has transferred both the signal system and dispatching control to RGX, which suggests that UP no longer regards restoration of through service as a likely possibility.
(2) BNSF has no trackage rights (latent on otherwise) on the TP route. They also pretty obviously have no interest in ever using the TP line for anything. They used to have trackage rights over the segment between Pueblo and Canon City (which they obtained when ATSF abandoned its own line between these points). They sold these rights to Rock & Rail at least 10 years ago. They wouldn't have done this had they had any interest in themselves using the TP line.
(3) As noted in other posts in this thread, a major impediment to a restoration of service over the TP line is the lack of an outlet east of Pueblo. Historically, the TP line interchanged most of its traffic with the MP at Pueblo. As a result of the UP-MP merger, DRGW gained trackage rights over the MP line east of Pueblo. However, as a result of the UP-SP merger and later trackage changes, the MP line is no longer available as a through route. Routing TP traffic through Denver makes no sense. This makes any restoration of service over TP highly unlikely. The only scenario that would make any sense is if a new connecting were built between the remaining segment of the MP line and the KP line east of Denver, a very expensive proposition for a very inferior route.
(4) During the UP/SP merger, many parties argued that abandonment of the TP line was inadvisable because the Moffat route could not handle the traffic being handled on the TP route. The parties making this argument uniformly failed to appreciate the fact that the Moffat route wasn't the alternative for the TP trafficc). Rather, in the context of a UP-SP merger, the alternative for most of the TP traffic was the UP route through Wyoming, which is what, in fact, happened.
(5) As a result of the UP/SP merger, the TP line was originally discontinued (but not abandoned) between Gypsum and Parkdale. About 5 years ago (my timing may be off by a year or so), UP resumed some very limited services to the Minturn (west Belden) area.
My personal prediction is that the TP route between Parkdale and Minturn (West Belden) will be fully abandoned within the next 5 years.
While I don't dispute Falcon48's historical facts, I don't think you can always use what happened even 5 years ago to predict what will happen 5 years from now in today's evolving rail world. Someone described the Rio Grande mainline as two coal roads joined in the middle. If you want to make dire predictions, you might guess that after TP goes, that UP will stop maintaining the Green River bridge and sever the mainline, or at least insist that Amtrak maintain the middle part of the route. Colorado spent significant public monies building the Moffat tunnel to ensure a viable route, and has a legitimate interest in it's survival. It's too bad that the Rio Grande was not partly spun off something like BN>MRL. While both those routes thrive, the Rio Grande has the look of something on borrowed time. I would think it would be in a larger railroads best interest to have a weak competitor, than to be a monopoly in a region and a target for re-regulation.
I drove over Tennessee Pass at the end of September and I noticed a hi-rail truck and some other equipment near the site of Camp Hale. It looks like there may still be some maintainence on the line.
Thanks for the pics. I doesn't look like it's in bad shape. It almost looks as it's all ready to go if it gets reopened.
The DRGW Moffat route is a major coal route, and is likely to remain so as long as Colorado-Utah coal continues to move. It is also a BNSF trackage rights route, which BNSF obtained in the UP-SP merger. I don't think there's much chance of it going away in our lifetimes, unless the coal stops moving due to environmental issues. In my view, the route is more secure as a UP route than it would have been as a short line spinoff. UP regards the Colorado-Utah coal as an important part of its coal franchise
One little factoid, however, which many may not be aware of. I don't remember the year but, long before the UP/SP merger, UP looked at an extension from its Wyoming main line south to the Colorado coal fields served by DRGW in the Craig area - the line may have actually been surveyed. Obviously, with DRGW now being a part of UP, there's no reason for UP to do that today. However, if the Moffat route ever became unavailable because of a natural disaster or other reasons, this could conceivably end up being the "fix".
The Moffat rail tunnel (there's also a water tunnel) is owned by a Colorado agency (I think it's called the Moffat Tunnel Improvement District, but don't hold me to that). UP uses it under a long term (100 year) lease agreement originally made before the tunnel was opened.
Union Pacific must think there's a potential reuse for the line sometime in the next 10-20 years. Millions of dollars of welded rail that is in pristine condition with a lot of ton miles left in it has been left in place for 15 years now for just such an eventuality.
Falcon48 - You're right on the "Moffat Tunnel Improvement District", which was run by the Moffat Tunnel Commission, though apparently it was "sunsetted" circa 1996 - 1998. See (usual disclaimers apply to the Wikipedia articles):
http://www.colorado.gov/dpa/doit/archives/moffat/index.htm#access
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moffat_Tunnel
The line in the foreground of this old "bird's-eye view" drawing of the region - running west from Pueblo and labeled as "Denver and Rio Grande R.R." - is the Tennessee Pass line, though not labeled as such: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Moffat_Tunnel_Overview.JPG Since even back then it shows no lines east (or south) of Pueblo, it clearly illustrates the circuitry of the Tennesse Pass route as compared to the Moffat Tunnel route, let alone as compared to the Wyoming UP main line as mentioned by Falcon48 above.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moffat_Tunnel_Improvement_District
http://www.drgw.net/info/TennesseePass
I really dont know much about the line, having been to the Royal Gorge as a 9 year old many years ago. It is on the list of my "time travel" trips...the photos of TP line are outstanding. Nor do I know anything about the UP operations in that area.
Having said that...it seems like any railroad would have the reluctance to abandon a line these days. While the economy has certainly cooled off and loadings are down, any line that could possibly be used has to be considered as being retained.
Pretty sad looking at those photos of the line with the signals still in place, but perhaps the route will again see trains.
Ed
Paul, what started out as a conversation on the mothballed Tennessee Pass line, now has me even more worried for the Moffat route. According to you reference http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moffat_Tunnel_Improvement_District the tunnel was offered for sale by the state in 1998, but the railroad didn't bite, apparently figuring it had little value to anyone else. If you are wondering if it has value to anyone else, you don't have to look out the West Portal any further than the sprawling Winter Park ski resort. On I-70 west of Denver, the first ski area exit is for Winter Park. However, you have to first climb the switchbacks on US 40 over Berrthoud Pass, so most cars continue on I-70 thru the Eisenhower Tunnel to the 5 major ski areas on the other side. The state could extend route 72, obtain Federal money to widen the tunnel, and bypass a major headache on US 40. Or perhaps the parallel water supply tunnel becomes blocked, and if the state still owns both tunnels, they might appropriates their railroad tenant's tunnel if they had not bought it by then. The UP could simply redirect remaining business down a reopened Tenn. Pass, using any cost increases as a basis to raise rates. BNSF trackage rites trains could also utilize the TP, as they have an eastern connection at Pueblo. Amtrak could revert to UP's Wyoming route as they did in the '70s. As long as the Rio Grande remains a stepchild, the cards are stacked against it.
Is there any reason why UP would not just send the trains to Cheyenne then down to Denver if the Moffat route was unusable for some reason?
MidlandMike Paul, what started out as a conversation on the mothballed Tennessee Pass line, now has me even more worried for the Moffat route. According to you reference http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moffat_Tunnel_Improvement_District the tunnel was offered for sale by the state in 1998, but the railroad didn't bite, apparently figuring it had little value to anyone else. If you are wondering if it has value to anyone else, you don't have to look out the West Portal any further than the sprawling Winter Park ski resort. On I-70 west of Denver, the first ski area exit is for Winter Park. However, you have to first climb the switchbacks on US 40 over Berrthoud Pass, so most cars continue on I-70 thru the Eisenhower Tunnel to the 5 major ski areas on the other side. The state could extend route 72, obtain Federal money to widen the tunnel, and bypass a major headache on US 40. Or perhaps the parallel water supply tunnel becomes blocked, and if the state still owns both tunnels, they might appropriates their railroad tenant's tunnel if they had not bought it by then. The UP could simply redirect remaining business down a reopened Tenn. Pass, using any cost increases as a basis to raise rates. BNSF trackage rites trains could also utilize the TP, as they have an eastern connection at Pueblo. Amtrak could revert to UP's Wyoming route as they did in the '70s. As long as the Rio Grande remains a stepchild, the cards are stacked against it.
ericsp Is there any reason why UP would not just send the trains to Cheyenne then down to Denver if the Moffat route was unusable for some reason?
We'll see what happens in the future, not only the 3% grade on the west but the degrees of curvature are extreme as well. However the Moffat can't handle any more traffic than it's got now, BNSF crews west out of Denver only go to Kremmling, that's as far they can make it before going dead.My brother was a Rio Grande brakeman in the '70's he used to catch a W.B. hotshot out of North Yard take it Bond and hop on the E.B. hotshot and make it back to Denver in 8 hours!
In a way this post is sad to me. It confirms that Mark Hemphill is not on the forum under an alias.
Gabe:100% in agreement. We were spoiled 5 years ago with the knowledge from Mark and a number of members which have moved away.
Unfortunately this forum is a shadow of it's former platform.
Whats that mean, you guy's better than anyone else who makes comments? Foamers! LOL!
S TWO:
Several years ago there were very serious discussions about the industry which took place here. Many of the key knowledgeable folks are no longer here. We are still blessed with a considerable number of great railroaders that make great observations and go out of their way to answer questions.
It's just not quite the same.
MP173 S TWO: Several years ago there were very serious discussions about the industry which took place here. Many of the key knowledgeable folks are no longer here. We are still blessed with a considerable number of great railroaders that make great observations and go out of their way to answer questions. It's just not quite the same. Ed
Absolutely: What ED (mp173) Stated!
S 2: If you are wondering: Mark W. Hemphill is, a very respected individual around here.
If you 'Search' the name on Wiki you will find all the references you need. Between 2000 and 2004 Mark earned a lot of respect of Fourmists here and Subscribers of TRAINS magazne. As Editor of the magazine.
Probably one of the few Editors/Journalists who were or ,are actually railroaders. Not to mention his time spent in Iraq during the height of Operations there during 2005/2007 as a Consultant to Iraqi RR.
On a related note...I believe Mark Hemphill had an outstanding photo essay article on TennPass in TRP magazine sometime back in the 1990's. I have it downstairs in a box...somewhere. It was at his high level of content.
I recall seeing a small snippet in Trains a few years back where the UP operated a train over the TP route (it may have been nothing more than a couple of locomotives; can't recall). If I recall the article correctly they did this just to check things out.
Somewhere between Buna Vista and Granite there was a fairly decent rock slide that was blocking the ROW. There are pics of it online somehwere. I would imagine there are quite a few spots like that. The locals have also found new a creative ways to use the lineside poles. A bunch have been cut down to never be seen again.
I am up in the Granite area quite a bit and have noticed that a lot of the signals, defect detectors, etc have been vandalized or completely removed. With all that "scrap steel" I wonder how long it is going to be before someone starts going after the rail.
Thanks for your clarifacation, I'm aware of some of Mr. Hemphills deeds, it seemed to me that there were a couple of shots being taken at the current contributors. I personally started railroading in May, 1980 at 18 years old, I'm still R.R.ing, you do the math. I'm familiar with T.P. but didn't work it, my brother did, I've worked the Moffat and quite alot of other R.R. in the southwest mostly.
S TWO Thanks for your clarifacation, I'm aware of some of Mr. Hemphills deeds, it seemed to me that there were a couple of shots being taken at the current contributors. I personally started railroading in May, 1980 at 18 years old, I'm still R.R.ing, you do the math. I'm familiar with T.P. but didn't work it, my brother did, I've worked the Moffat and quite alot of other R.R. in the southwest mostly.
I don't know how you concluded that either post was a shot at current contributers. My shot was aimed entirely at you . . .
Actually, Ed just really nailed my point. Mark had a particular area of focus on the Tennessee Pass. His ability to relate it to some of the fundamental principles of railroading was a thing to behold. Plus, he usually had an opinion when the topic would come up. Thus, my point was if any post would usher Mark out of his abeyance, a post on the Tennesse Pass would do it.
But, on reflection, I think my post was aimed at . . .
Gabe
First, to S TWO - (Too bad you kind of got close to a hornet's nest right away . . . )
Perhaps gabe meant this entire "thread" - not just S TWO's "post" immediately above - in gabe's post above which might have offended S TWO. There was nothing wrong, missing, or against Mr. Hemphill's line of thinking on Tennessee Pass in that post by S TWO - but this thread would be of interest to him, if he had anything more to say on it.
I understand that he is extremely busy at work lately, and he got tired of people here who only wanted to "shout louder".
I suspect that the "sarcasm level" in gabe's post just above is rather high . . . perhaps he's just "yanking your chain", but I'll let him speak for himself, and won't put words in his mouth. Still, civility should be a prime goal here.
Paul,
At the time S TWO made his post, he had very few if any postings (2 or 3, if I remember). Then, he without much explanation somehow contorted my comment lamenting the fact that Mark truly was gone from the forum to be some sort of dig at the current forum members--a strange and unusually forward comment for someone who had three posts at the time he rendered that opinion.
In short, I smelled and smell a rat. Although the fact that I am suffering from Jetlag writing these posts from the UK currently might have produced a bit less of a measured respone than it otherwise might have, for the foregoing reasons, I maintain my position.
Plus, not to discredit current forum members but to lament the passing of members who are no longer on here, the forum isn't a remote shadow of what it once was. We seemed to do better with less "civility." Don't believe me? Simple math--count the average posts per day compared to four years ago.
Yeah, we had a few arguments, but that was some the best railroad reading I have ever had the honor to be a part of. As far as I am concerned, "civility" is a bad word, as it has robbed me of the reading that I once so enjoyed.
gabe Plus, not to discredit current forum members but to lament the passing of members who are no longer on here, the forum isn't a remote shadow of what it once was. We seemed to do better with less "civility." Don't believe me? Simple math--count the average posts per day compared to four years ago. Yeah, we had a few arguments, but that was some the best railroad reading I have ever had the honor to be a part of. As far as I am concerned, "civility" is a bad word, as it has robbed me of the reading that I once so enjoyed. Gabe
I dont want to step on anyone's toes here...that is not my purpose.
There was a very high level of railroad knowledge that was passed around on this forum a few years ago. One could ask a fairly basic question about the (fill in the blank) of the railroad industry and receive a wide response from railroad professionals. A number of these are still on board today and make valuable contributions.
There were extremely spirited conversations involving a couple of former members (both fired from the forum, if memory serves me) that while usually led to escalation in the discussion, did provide the platform for the exchange of ideas that were amazing. Futuremodal and Michael, I often disagreed, but sure found your discussions educational and entertaining....yes, I know many here will disagree with my statement.
Here is a current situation...a couple days ago I started a thread on CSX and NS to generate a little of the old time religion. That thread pretty much died without any discussion on the current situation at both railroads these days. I understand we have employees of both railroads on the forum and if I were an employee...would be reluctant to share much info. But still, arent there others out there with observations (from the field) as to how these two great carriers are operating?
Or, have the two railroads simply gathered so much profitable business that they are on cruise control, or perhaps reached "utility" status?
What is the future of this industry? How is capacity going to be addressed? What about "open access"? What about Montana wheat rates?
I enjoy railroading as a form of art and even went out this week and took a couple of photos of trains in the stunning fall foliage in NW Indiana and realized that great photographers and we have a few here are truly artists (and I am NOT). But, the nuts and bolts of railroading has been described and reported on quite well the past couple of issues of the mother magazine - the status of CSX and the Intermodal issue.
In this vein of thought...what is the future of Tenneesee Pass? Why is UP holding on to it? What role does it have 15 years down the road (if any)? We all understand it is an operational nightmare. We all know it is a spectacular stretch of eye candy for 99% of people on this forum.
But, something is in the works (or maybe not) for TP and Saluda. I just miss the intelligent discussions, pros and cons of topics like these.
Now, sorry for the rant and absolutely nothing against current members, but I really miss in depth intellegent discussions.
(1) As Mike states, the Tunnel Commission offered both the rail and water tunnels for sale in 1998 (one of the tunnel commissioners was asked by a newpaper reporter why they doing this, and his response was something to the effect that they were trying to reach those who missed out on the opportunity to buy the Brooklyn Bridge).
(2) The water tunnel was sold to the Denver Water Commission as part of this effort (I think I've got the name right) and, to my knowledge, is currently owned by them.
(3) UP and several others did bid on the rail tunnel, but the Commission rejected all of the bids, so the rail tunnel wasn't sold. I'm speculating a bit, but one of the issues was probably that the income stream that the tunnel would produce to a landlord was represented almost entirely by railroad rental payments under the original lease, which runs to 2025 (there are also some lease payments from a fiber optics line that goes through the tunnel). The lease was structured so that the payments were relatively high in the early years (to cover the tunnel district's funded debt), but then became relatively small in the later years (which is where they were in 1998). In other words, the present value of the future income stream to a non-railroad buyer in 1998 would have been small. Similarly, in 1998, the present value of the lease payment savings UP would realize by owning the tunnel, rather than continuing to pay rent, was also small. So the bids were probably a lot lower than the tunnel commission had expected.
(4) One interesting little factoid (although it's not really relevant to the current situation) is that the tunnel commision really screwed up when it made the original railroad lease in the 1920's. The railroad rental payments were calculated based the commission's estimate of what the cost of the rail tunnel would be. Trouble was that the rail tunnel wasn't finished, and it ended up costing a lot more than the estimate. The commission hadn't considered this possibility when it made the lease (which is truly amazing, given all of the things that can go wrong with a project like this). Once the true costs were known, the commission tried to get the lease reformed, but the courts turned them down. As a result, the tunnel improvement district (or, rather, the taxpayers in the improvement district) ended up eating the difference.
Thanks Falcon48. It sounds like the lease is safe for the next 14 years (however, that time will go fast; wasn't it 14 years ago that Tenn. Pass closed?) I'm not sure who maintains the Moffat Tunnel, and wonder what would happen if there was a major rock shift or other structural problem (I may be a railroad dilettante, however, I know something about rocks as I retired this year after 35 years as a geologist.) I haven't heard that this is a problem tunnel from the railfan press , and I hope it stays that way.
MP173 In this vein of thought...what is the future of Tenneesee Pass? Why is UP holding on to it? What role does it have 15 years down the road (if any)? We all understand it is an operational nightmare. We all know it is a spectacular stretch of eye candy for 99% of people on this forum. But, something is in the works (or maybe not) for TP and Saluda. I just miss the intelligent discussions, pros and cons of topics like these. Now, sorry for the rant and absolutely nothing against current members, but I really miss in depth intellegent discussions. Ed
This is the question I'd like to see answered, or rather discussed and there were a few hints but nothing concrete in this thread. UP is holding on to this and leaving the rails down.
I'm no expert, but this is still real property they have to pay money on to keep. Why?
My (just) speculation: Cheap insurance against major contingencies elsewhere (like that Oregon landslide about 3 years ago), and an uncertain future but likely one with much more rail traffic in it.
UP committed to hold on to it for a while after the post merger congestion melt-down. Perhaps they are waiting until the lack of need becomes obvious. In the meantime there is a natural constituency building to have it removed. Neighbors get annoyed at seeing weedy abandoned rails. Cyclist and snowmobilers agitate to have the rails pulled for a rec trail. Developers covet the Minturn yards real estate. I've skied Vail, but I never ventured down the out-of-bounds locals trail they dub the "Minturn Mile". The resort might like another base area. The mining town of Gilman above Belden siding is in the hands of a developer. Personally, I.m hoping for a miracle.
MidlandMike Thanks Falcon48. It sounds like the lease is safe for the next 14 years (however, that time will go fast; wasn't it 14 years ago that Tenn. Pass closed?) I'm not sure who maintains the Moffat Tunnel, and wonder what would happen if there was a major rock shift or other structural problem (I may be a railroad dilettante, however, I know something about rocks as I retired this year after 35 years as a geologist.) I haven't heard that this is a problem tunnel from the railfan press , and I hope it stays that way.
Paul_D_North_Jr My (just) speculation: Cheap insurance against major contingencies elsewhere (like that Oregon landslide about 3 years ago), and an uncertain future but likely one with much more rail traffic in it. - Paul North.
I am surprised more people have not paid more attention to Mudchicken's comments. I think his remark explains most of the questions asked of late, and is very intriguing.
mudchicken (1) Line is intact, ready to go as 49MPH TWC dark territory right now....would be running now IF economy and carloadings had not tanked. (2) Colorado buying the line? Not a chance (somebody's wishfull thinking, trail grab? UP has had to tell the trail people to "get real" several times.)....The Christo nonsense west of the Gorge made that abundantly clear. (3) Climax mine (above Leadville) re-opened in July of this year and anticipates shipping at end 1st quarter of 2012 20-30,000 pounds of equivilent refined moly a year (that tonnage of raw ore isn't going out by truck) with that tonnage ratcheting up in stages. That stuff is headed many places and no longer exclusively to Pueblo. Rumor here is that the hematite ore at Monarch is also possibly making a comeback. (4) Thanx to a 1905 deal between DNWP & CB&Q, BNSF today has the right to exercise ownership on part* (not all) of the Moffat line, it has no rights on the TP line west of Pueblo/Canon Junction anymore. (Quitclaimed from Canon Jcn to Canon City to RRRR/RGCX ) *(a result of the Gore Canyon War with UPRR ironically)
First, kudos to UP for telling the bicycle shorts to back off. I have some questions though.
Tennessee Pass had been closed 10 years before the economy tanked. Did your sources say where the new traffic would come from, or where it would go when it reached Pueblo?
The Henderson mine produced 40 million pounds of moly in 2010 acording to the companies annual report, page 22 at http://www.fcx.com/ir/AR/2010/FCX_AR_2010.pdf Henderson trucks out all its production. The Climax mine is only about 20 miles further to the Kremmling loadout.
Rumors about the Monarch mine reopening really have me excited. It's the ultimate mountain branch... double loops, switchbacks, 4.5% grades... now you're just toying with me. There they mined limestone (used to flux hematite iron ore in blast furnaces.) With the Pueblo blast furnaces gone, who will use the limestone?
While it would be great if they reopened the line to Malta and re-established the connection thru Leadville to the Climax line, it still does not get them over the hump (of the Pass itself.) I wish I was as self-assured as you are about the line reopening.
Just saw this last weekend, there is a crew removing poles along the ROW near Granite. Probably would have been a good time to grab insulators if someone wanted some.
A couple of years back, I was speaking with the son of the owners of the LC&S (tourist line out of Leadville), and he said that they would like to get into the freight business if the TP line were back in service and they could re-establish a connection with it. Sounds like it would be hauling moly primarily.
I've ridden the tourist line at Leadville. I can't imagine that anyone would invest a gazillion dolars to get the line up to the mine in shape suitable to haul ore out. More likely, is that it could be trucked to a connection with a rail line somewhere.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
From what I understand, it is in really bad shape from the end of the current ride to the mine itself.
I thought it was in pretty tuff shape on the tourist line as well. It's steep, cut into the side of a cliff, and the curves are so sharp that all the wheels squeal at 5 m.p.h. I'd have to believe that, if the line were rebuilt, it would be at a tremendous cost, and probably would have to shut down in the dead of winter.
According to the company's annual report (cited in an earlier post) on page 44 they anticipate spending $700 million, and have spent a quarter billion so far on the Climax restart. I suspect rehab'ing the old C&S line would be part of the cost of doing business if it saved money over trucking, assuming UP reopened the Tenn.Pass line. C&S operated in winter even in narrow gauge days.
Is there a spike in price for moly right now? Is there a long term increase in it's value due to current manufacturing?
If rail would prove more cost effective, then I have no doubt they'll repair the line.
That might be why UP held on to it.
It's not impossible that it could be an overflow route if traffic picks up in the future.
There are those that mourn the loss of the Milwaukee Road's transcon as prior to the economic downturn, it looked like it could have had value again. This may simply be UP hedging it's bets.
Don't know. But I'll say this, New Mine activity not withstanding, I think UP relays Donner track 1 before they reopen TP to through freight.
Hey Norris , Ed thanks for the comments. I understand why you've lost your base of R.R.'s. Know -it -all's in railroading are the guy's who damage equipment and get people hurt, and worse. Got no use for them. Thanks be safe.
"...I am surprised more people have not paid more attention to Mudchicken's comments. I think his remark explains most of the questions asked of late, and is very intriguing..."
[quote user="mudchicken"]
*(a result of the Gore Canyon War with UPRR ironically)"
[/quote]
I tend to agree with Gabe's point of view, and Mudchicken who is a knowledgeable professional based in the area . His point of view seemed to get lost in the shuffle of the Thread. So 'his take' on the whys and what's happenings on Tennessee Pass would tend to be much more of a valuable point of resource than just pure conjecture.
With all the capacity of the Moffat Route and the UP main line, UP doesn't need it. Going over the continental Divide at nearly 10,000 feet, it is an expensive route.
Bluelodge With all the capacity of the Moffat Route and the UP main line, UP doesn't need it. Going over the continental Divide at nearly 10,000 feet, it is an expensive route.
With the fans going full tilt (even with the new system almost completely in); the tunnel is the limiting factor on capacity on the line. It still takes 25-45 minutes to cycle air/ evacuate exhaust (local ambient air pressure dependent)
mudchicken???? With the fans going full tilt (even with the new system almost completely in); the tunnel is the limiting factor on capacity on the line. It still takes 25-45 minutes to cycle air/ evacuate exhaust (local ambient air pressure dependent)
Although, since you mentioned the fans, I have a question: in the "good old" days, how did the crews in the caboose deal with the exhaust fumes?
As I and others have mentioned before, the key thing that would have to be addressed in a "reopening" of the TP line is how it fits in with the rest of UP's rail network. The line isn't going to be reopened for the small amount of potential local traffic that is mentioned in this thread. If it's ever reopened, it will be reopened for through traffic. But it's not going to be reopened for through traffic if the traffic coming to/from the line has to move on the existing Denver-Pueblo route, which has its own congestion problems.
When the TP line was handling through traffic , most of it went via the MP line east of Pueblo. That line is no longer available as a through route. The thing to watch is if UP were to start showing interest in creating a connection between what remains of the MP line east of Pueblo and the KP line east of Denver (there used to be one in the 19th century, but it's long gone). That would make the TP line, for all of its problems, usable as a through route. I recall that the state of Colorado in the 1990's was interested in a rail restructuring plan that may have created such a connection, but it hasn't gone anywhere.
Personally, I wouldn't hold my breath. I don't know what UP's gurus may be thinking about TP (if they are thinking about it at all, which they may not be), but the actions they have taken over the last few years indicate diminishing interest in this line as a potential through route. That's particularly true of the transfer of dispatching on the Canon City-Parkdale segment to RGX (UP originally retained dispatching of this line segment when it sold the line to RGX because of the possibility that through service would resume, and only transferred it in the last 3 years or so). Ditto the signal system on the line, which UP also originally retained, but has now transferred. Even if UP retained rights to take back control of the line, it's still something they wouldn't have done in the first place had they thought reopening was likely. My guess is that the main reason UP hasn't done anything to finalize full abandonment is simply that there's no pressing reason to do so, and also that abandonment/salvage could potentially result in other costs (rail lines that once hauled large amounts of mine products can have unpleasant and expensive surprises buried in them).
BNSF's actions similarly show a lack of interest in this line, particularly the transfer of their Pueblo-Canon City trackage rights to Rock & Rail.
By the way, in the UP/SP merger, UP made a number of commitments to the state of Colorado to donate or sell at a bargain price most of the TP right-of-way for trail use when the line was abandoned. Presumeably, those commitments are still good.
Transferring those rights within the last 3 years dovetails rather nicely with the economic downturn though does it not? Which suggests that their plans prior to 2008-2009 need not be reflected in those actions.
UP is familiar with abandoning rail lines in mining areas. Their Coeur d'Alenes line between Plummer and Mullan, Idaho had both ore spillage and mine waste ballast. The rail trail was part of the environmental solution, and was paved to form a barrier against contact with contaminated soil. The trail map gives the history, and has an ominous set of rules to protect you against incidental contamination.
http://parksandrecreation.idaho.gov/assets/content/docs/Recreation/TrailCDAWeb.pdf
Mark Hemphill (Trains Aug 2004, p.33) wrote that the Rio Grande used slag from lead-silver smelters as ballast for many years. One was at Eilers (near Leadville)
Whoa, unrelated to anything, but I had no idea there was a location on any rail line anywhere in the US that was my last name.
Eilers. Or in bad German, Egg farmer.
In response to MidlandMike's post of 10/18, I agree that UP should be familiar with abandoning lines in mining areas. It's that familiarity which would likely lead to caution. For example, there was an abandonment in Idaho (probably the Coer d'Alenes line Mike mentioned) that ended up costing UP many millions in environmental remediation.
YoHo1975 Whoa, unrelated to anything, but I had no idea there was a location on any rail line anywhere in the US that was my last name. Eilers. Or in bad German, Egg farmer.
It's on the Leadville branch. See:
http://www.drgw.net/gallery/ETTSystem7/drgw_ett_4_may_1986_p14_663x1400
quoted from Falcon48's Thread:
"...By the way, in the UP/SP merger, UP made a number of commitments to the state of Colorado to donate or sell at a bargain price most of the TP right-of-way for trail use when the line was abandoned. Presumably, those commitments are still good.."
Might this be the rationale for UP RR avoiding a full (possibly,untimely(?) abandonment of the Tennessee Pass route?
Where I live is on the former MoPac (nee: Denver,Memphis & Gulf) line that ran from (through), Clearwater,Ks. to Winfield,Ks. This line was abandoned when cut in the 1960's when a flood on the Arkansas River took out the bridge at Oxford, Ks. [ it is still used from Kellogg (unincorp) through Winfield to Cherryvale,Ks as a part of the SK&O RR.]
Falcon48 As I and others have mentioned before, the key thing that would have to be addressed in a "reopening" of the TP line is how it fits in with the rest of UP's rail network. The line isn't going to be reopened for the small amount of potential local traffic that is mentioned in this thread. If it's ever reopened, it will be reopened for through traffic.
As I and others have mentioned before, the key thing that would have to be addressed in a "reopening" of the TP line is how it fits in with the rest of UP's rail network. The line isn't going to be reopened for the small amount of potential local traffic that is mentioned in this thread. If it's ever reopened, it will be reopened for through traffic.
For local traffic, couldn't they simply reopen part of the line instead the whole thing? Would that work if mining picks up again?
samfp1943 quoted from Falcon48's Thread: "...By the way, in the UP/SP merger, UP made a number of commitments to the state of Colorado to donate or sell at a bargain price most of the TP right-of-way for trail use when the line was abandoned. Presumably, those commitments are still good.." Might this be the rationale for UP RR avoiding a full (possibly,untimely(?) abandonment of the Tennessee Pass route? Where I live is on the former MoPac (nee: Denver,Memphis & Gulf) line that ran from (through), Clearwater,Ks. to Winfield,Ks. This line was abandoned when cut in the 1960's when a flood on the Arkansas River took out the bridge at Oxford, Ks. [ it is still used from Kellogg (unincorp) through Winfield to Cherryvale,Ks as a part of the SK&O RR.]
If UP thinks that there is any prospect of reopening this line, they will not abandon it. The UP/SP merger filings reveal that reveal that the majority of the ROW is reversionary. As such, the continuity of the ROW would be quickly lost as a result of a full abandonment, merger commitments or no. In fact, the "trail" transactions contemplated by the merger commitments would actually preserve the continuity of the ROW, if they were made under the National Trails Systems Act (which prevents reversions from taking effect, and preserves the ROW for future rail use).
On the other hand, a UP decision to fully abandon the line would represent a decision to give up any prospect of reopening the line. As such, the merger commitments wouldn't be a negative factor in that decision. If anything, the prospect of liquidating the line's assets, even if UP would realize less than their present value (because of the merger commitments) would cut in favor of abandonment. After all, by holding on to the line, UP isn't realizing any value from these assets. If they abandoned the line and followed through on the merger commitments, they would at least get some value from them (particularly the rail and the portion of the ROW they committed to sell to the state).
I should make clear that I'm not privy to any discussions UP's gurus may have had on this line in the last few years. However, in my view, the reason for UP's current activity (or, rather, lack of activity) on the line is that they simply aren't paying much attention to it. Why should they? Even if they've concluded the line is likely to have no strategic value in the future, there's no particularly pressing reason to go forward with an abandonment now. Further, UP would probably have to devote much more management and professional resources to an abandonment of this line than they devote to run-of-the mill abandonments, given the attention (and opposition) an attempt to fully abandon this line would likely generate. That's a factor in a decision, since those resources could otherwise be devoted to more productive endeavors that have more impact on UP's ongoing business. Add to that the potential risks from what might be in the ROW (something UP would likely want to investigate in detail before pressing forward with a full abandonment) and you don't have a very attractive abandonment candidate, at least not one that's likely to rise to the top of the heap very quickly.
zardoz mudchicken: ???? With the fans going full tilt (even with the new system almost completely in); the tunnel is the limiting factor on capacity on the line. It still takes 25-45 minutes to cycle air/ evacuate exhaust (local ambient air pressure dependent) Will you please stop clogging up these speculative hypothetical discussions with facts--they keep bogging down the pace of the exchanges. Although, since you mentioned the fans, I have a question: in the "good old" days, how did the crews in the caboose deal with the exhaust fumes?
mudchicken: ???? With the fans going full tilt (even with the new system almost completely in); the tunnel is the limiting factor on capacity on the line. It still takes 25-45 minutes to cycle air/ evacuate exhaust (local ambient air pressure dependent)
Will you please stop clogging up these speculative hypothetical discussions with facts--they keep bogging down the pace of the exchanges.
I'd like to know this myself.
What would the average time..if you could call that average time be in a tunnel in the first place..?
Any argument carried far enough will end up in Semantics--Hartz's law of rhetoric Emerald. Leemer and Southern The route of the Sceptre Express Barry
I just started my blog site...more stuff to come...
http://modeltrainswithmusic.blogspot.ca/
blownout cylinder zardoz: mudchicken: ???? With the fans going full tilt (even with the new system almost completely in); the tunnel is the limiting factor on capacity on the line. It still takes 25-45 minutes to cycle air/ evacuate exhaust (local ambient air pressure dependent) Will you please stop clogging up these speculative hypothetical discussions with facts--they keep bogging down the pace of the exchanges. Although, since you mentioned the fans, I have a question: in the "good old" days, how did the crews in the caboose deal with the exhaust fumes? I'd like to know this myself. What would the average time..if you could call that average time be in a tunnel in the first place..?
zardoz: mudchicken: ???? With the fans going full tilt (even with the new system almost completely in); the tunnel is the limiting factor on capacity on the line. It still takes 25-45 minutes to cycle air/ evacuate exhaust (local ambient air pressure dependent) Will you please stop clogging up these speculative hypothetical discussions with facts--they keep bogging down the pace of the exchanges. Although, since you mentioned the fans, I have a question: in the "good old" days, how did the crews in the caboose deal with the exhaust fumes?
lone geep Falcon48: As I and others have mentioned before, the key thing that would have to be addressed in a "reopening" of the TP line is how it fits in with the rest of UP's rail network. The line isn't going to be reopened for the small amount of potential local traffic that is mentioned in this thread. If it's ever reopened, it will be reopened for through traffic. For local traffic, couldn't they simply reopen part of the line instead the whole thing? Would that work if mining picks up again?
Falcon48: As I and others have mentioned before, the key thing that would have to be addressed in a "reopening" of the TP line is how it fits in with the rest of UP's rail network. The line isn't going to be reopened for the small amount of potential local traffic that is mentioned in this thread. If it's ever reopened, it will be reopened for through traffic.
But let's assume, for the sake of argument, that 30,000 pounds was a typo, and the writer actually meant 30,000 tons. At 100 tons per car, that's 300 carloads. It's just under 100 miles from Malta to the current end of active track at Parkdate, so we are talking about 3 cars per mile per year. There's no way a rail line can be operated on so little traffic. The ICC once used 35 cars per mile per year as a threshold for a presumptively abandonable line. ASLRRA uses 100 cars per mile per year as a rule of thumb for viable short line freight operations. 3 cars per mile per year is a non-starter.
One other little factoid. The "moly" minesite is at Climax which (from the perspective of the TP line) is beyond Leadville. The only rail line serving Climax is the Colorado, Leadville & Southern, a tourist road. At one time, this line (when owned by the Colorado & Southern, a Burlington affiliate) connected with the TP line and interchanged traffic with it. But there's no longer any physical connection with the TP line or, for that matter, with any other rail line. UP abandoned its connecting Leadville-Eilers line some years ago. The track was removed and the ROW was turned into a trail. While it might be physically possible to rebuild the connecting line (and rebuild CL&S for freight operations), it wouldn't make any sense to do so for the small amounts of traffic it would generate.
So, in summary:
1. TP could be used in case of growth in thru rail traffic, although it would be a less than desireable route due to circular route and steep grades.
2. TP could be used for future on line originating business.
3. TP is a ace in the hole (more like a queen or jack) in future negotiations for Moffit Tunnel.
4. TP could place UP in a tough situation environmental situation if abandonment came up.
5. It probably doesnt cost that much to own the line as is and it makes a great insurance policy.
Please continue on with this conversation, as it is fascinating, but I am just wanting to summarize the points. Let me know if there is more to add or changes.
Falcon48 blownout cylinder: zardoz: mudchicken: ???? With the fans going full tilt (even with the new system almost completely in); the tunnel is the limiting factor on capacity on the line. It still takes 25-45 minutes to cycle air/ evacuate exhaust (local ambient air pressure dependent) Will you please stop clogging up these speculative hypothetical discussions with facts--they keep bogging down the pace of the exchanges. Although, since you mentioned the fans, I have a question: in the "good old" days, how did the crews in the caboose deal with the exhaust fumes? I'd like to know this myself. What would the average time..if you could call that average time be in a tunnel in the first place..? Assuming these posts relate to the Moffat Tunnel, the average time a train spends IN the tunnel is not the relevant factor. The tunnel must be cleared of fumes after a train has exited the tunnel, and before another train can enter it. The times given represent the amount of time it takes to do that. Still, 45 minutes seems a little long, given the upgrades UP installed to the ventilation system after the UP-SP merger..
blownout cylinder: zardoz: mudchicken: ???? With the fans going full tilt (even with the new system almost completely in); the tunnel is the limiting factor on capacity on the line. It still takes 25-45 minutes to cycle air/ evacuate exhaust (local ambient air pressure dependent) Will you please stop clogging up these speculative hypothetical discussions with facts--they keep bogging down the pace of the exchanges. Although, since you mentioned the fans, I have a question: in the "good old" days, how did the crews in the caboose deal with the exhaust fumes? I'd like to know this myself. What would the average time..if you could call that average time be in a tunnel in the first place..?
Falcon48 Although, since you mentioned the fans, I have a question: in the "good old" days, how did the crews in the caboose deal with the exhaust fumes? I'd like to know this myself. What would the average time..if you could call that average time be in a tunnel in the first place..? Assuming these posts relate to the Moffat Tunnel, the average time a train spends IN the tunnel is not the relevant factor. The tunnel must be cleared of fumes after a train has exited the tunnel, and before another train can enter it. The times given represent the amount of time it takes to do that. Still, 45 minutes seems a little long, given the upgrades UP installed to the ventilation system after the UP-SP merger..
Although, since you mentioned the fans, I have a question: in the "good old" days, how did the crews in the caboose deal with the exhaust fumes? I'd like to know this myself. What would the average time..if you could call that average time be in a tunnel in the first place..?
I was wondering how the crew on the caboose dealt with the fumes from the locomotives of THEIR train.
Falcon48, according to the company's website, they anticipate an initial annual production of 30 million pounds of moly from a reopened Climax mine. They may be talking about an equivalent weight rather than the moly sulfide concentrate which will be shipped out. Nevertheless you probably came up with the right answer of 300 cars per year, which is what is shipped from the (approx. equivalent) Henderson mine reload according to Mark Hempill's 2004 article. Even when Climax was the largest moly mine in the world, the C&S branch was a rather quaint operation as may be seen in this photo from a half century ago:
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=277451&nseq=9
Falcon48, according to the companies website, they anticipate an initial annual production of 30 million pounds of moly from a reopened Climax mine. They may be talking about an equivalent weight rather than the moly sulfide concentrate which will be shipped out. Nevertheless you probably came up with the right answer of 300 cars per year, which is what is shipped from the (approx. equivalent) Henderson mine reload according to Mark Hempill's 2004 article. Even when Climax was the largest moly mine in the world, the C&S branch was a rather quaint operation as may be seen in this photo from a half century ago: http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=277451&nseq=9
Falcon48, according to the companies website, they anticipate an initial annual production of 30 million pounds of moly from a reopened Climax mine. They may be talking about an equivalent weight rather than the moly sulfide concentrate which will be shipped out. Nevertheless you probably came up with the right answer of 300 cars per year, which is what is shipped from the (approx. equivalent) Henderson mine reload according to Mark Hempill's 2004 article. Even when Climax was the largest moly mine in the world, the C&S branch was a rather quaint operation as may be seen in this photo from a half century ago:
Nice photo - thanks for sharing that link !
30 millions pounds is 15,000 tons (of 2,000 lbs. each), or about 150 cars of 100 tons cap'y., which is even less traffic thatn the 300 cars cited above - unless the stuff is so light that it fills the car's volume before the car reaches even half of its rated capacity ?
Unless, there's something else being "lost in the translation" here between the weight of raw ore with only a small percentage of molybdenum in it, and the ultimate refined weight ?
My web browser indicated that my last post had been lost, but apparently it was found after I resent it. Sorry for the double post.
While the main product of these mines is molybdenite, there may be other mineral forms of Mo mixed in, plus other minerals. Mining companies don't often make exact compositions available for general publication. Also some weight should be lost in the refining process which converts it from sulfide to oxide. Rather than try to calculate it, I based the 300 car (100 ton each) count on what is actually shipped from the comparable Henderson moly mine about 30 miles away. Additionally the numbers vary with the market.
daveklepper My understanding is that a small portion of the east end of the line is in operation by the tourist railroad running trains to view the Royal Gorge and may even have freight service for a few remaining on-line customers. Somebody can answer if that track is still owned by the UP or by the shortline operator.
I can answer Dave's question, since I'm pretty familiar with the underlying transactions. The short line owns the track. But let me give a more comprehensive answer.
First of all, the TP abandonment proposed in the UP-SP merger wasn't actually the entire TP line. The proposed abandonment was between Canon City and Sage (Gypsum) near Dotsero (where the TP and Moffat Tunnel lines join) ) The TP segments between Canon City and Pueblo on the east end of the line, and between Sage (Gypsum) and Dotsero on the west weren't proposed for abandonment.
The portion on the "east end" of the abandonment line that was preserved is between Canon City and Parkdale ( a little over 9 miles) and, as Dave notes, includes the Royal Gorge. UP made a commitment in the UP-SP merger to sell the TP line, or any part of it, to an operator that would continue to provide rail service. That commitment led to an effort by the State of Colorado, with UP's cooperation, to find someone who had a viable plan to operate part(s) of the line. The only viable plans that emerged were proposals to operate the Canon City -Parkdale segment either exclusively as a tourist road or as a combined tourist and freight railroad. A proposal that included freight service was preferable to the state. That led to a sale of this segment to "Royal Gorge Express" (RGX), a partnership comprised of a tourist railroad (Canon City & Royal Gorge) and a short line frieght railroad (Rock & Rail). Rock & Rail is affiliated with a gravel quarry which was developed at Parkdale after the sale was completed.
The only shipper served by Rock & Rail on the Canon City - Parkdale segment is the affiliated gravel pit at Parkdale. There aren't any other shippers on the segment. There's a small power plant at Canon City, but it is exclusively served by UP. However, subsequent to the RGX purchase, Rock & Rail acquired BNSF's trackage rights over the Pueblo-Canon City segment (DRGW had granted ATSF trackage rights over this segment in stages, as ATSF's own line was abandoned) and some short segments of ATSF track (remnants of the former ATSF line) in Canon City and Portland. The trackage rights permit R&R to access some industries on the Canon City - Pueblo segment, including a large shipper at Portland.
As part of the Canon City - Parkdale transaction, UP retained "overhead" trackage rights on the segment (in other words, UP could operate over the segment, but couldn't serve any shippers on it). This was done to preserve the possibility of reopening the TP line as a through route. UP also retained dispatching of the line and ownership of the signal system. Both of these measures were intended to allow UP to operate the Canon City -Parkdale segment and the rest of the TP line essentially as a single CTC controlled rail line, if it reopened TP as a through route. This arrangement continued until fairly recently, when UP relinquished both the signal system and dispatching control to RGX.
Finally, from time to time I've seen photos of what are billed as "UP" trains going throug the Royal Gorge on the Canon City-Parkdale line. While they may look like "UP" trains (they have UP power), they aren't. They're "run through" trains for the Parkdale gravel pit, so they are actually R&R trains and are handled by R&R crews while on RGX. As noted above, UP's trackage rights over the line don't permit UP to serve on-line shippers. To my knowledge, the only use UP has made of these rights are for very infrequent moves (primarily of surplus equipment) to/from the line immediately beyond Parkdale.
More than you probably wanted to know.
igoldberg I agree with your position on using the Tenessee Pss for empty return trains, but what about loaded TOFC intermodals? They are light and with DPU you could get them over the pass without any major problems.
What possible reason would UP ever have for running intermodal trains over the TP route? It would be grossly inferior from a service perspective to UP's other intermodal routes or the routes of its competitors. The only reason SP used it for intermodal was because they had no other Central Corridor intermodal route (the clearances on the Moffat route don't permit double stack traffic), and they had to discount their pricing because of the route's service deficiencies.
I've said this before, but I'll say it again. For through traffic, UP's alternative to the TP route isn't the Moffat route. It's UP's vastly superior main line through Wyoming. SP and DRGW didn't have this option. Also, when you're talking about rail routings, you can't look only at whether a route could physically handle certain traffic. You need to look at how the routings fit into the rail networks of which they are a part and how they futher (or undermine) the railroad's marketing strategies. For intermodal traffic, TP doesn't fit into UP's network at all. Further, using TP as an intermodal route would create an inferior service offering on traffic which is very service sensitive, and which is contrary to UP's marketing of this service.
I would think the only possible logical use of TP would be if the Transcon and Moffat were at capacity, time insensitive mixed manifest MIGHT shift to the line. The kind of traffic where routing from Denver to Pueblo isn't a service issue.
MP173 So, in summary: 1. TP could be used in case of growth in thru rail traffic, although it would be a less than desireable route due to circular route and steep grades. 2. TP could be used for future on line originating business. 3. TP is a ace in the hole (more like a queen or jack) in future negotiations for Moffit Tunnel. 4. TP could place UP in a tough situation environmental situation if abandonment came up. 5. It probably doesnt cost that much to own the line as is and it makes a great insurance policy. Please continue on with this conversation, as it is fascinating, but I am just wanting to summarize the points. Let me know if there is more to add or changes. Ed
I was intrigued by the theory that UP may be holding the Tennessee Pass line as leverage against any problems in renewing their lease of the Moffat Tunnel. In reflection though, it seems like it would have been a hard sell to their financial people to justify the carrying costs against the day (28 years in the future at the time) when they would have to renegotiate a lease. Since the tunnel is owned by the state, it is subject to the political process. Large corporations have governmental affairs staff to manage these efforts. Another player with skin in the game is the Denver area power company who enjoys close access to western Colorado coal, as almost 90% of their coal fired capacity comes off the home road. A hiccup at the Moffat Tunnel that would send their coal around the horn on the TP would hardly be in their interest.
You also mentioned that the TP might not cost that much to retain. While maintenance may be deferred, there may be other costs involved. Speaking of insurance policy, they're probably paying liability insurance on the abandoned line to protect against suits from injury lawyers concerning what they may refer to as an "attractive nuisance". There may be property taxes, both real and for the iron. Also UP may need to spend some of their personnel's time to monitor and secure their property.
Here are my comments on MP173's summary and MidlandMike's response to it:
1. "TP could be used in case of growth in thru rail traffic, although it would be a less than desireable route due to circular route and steep grades."
TP could not be used as a viable through route if the traffic using the route had to move to/from Pueblo on the existing "front range" rail line between Denver-Colorado Springs-Pueblo. This line is already congested, so putting additional traffic on it as an alternative to UP's Wyoming main line is a non-starter. The route only makes sense if a new connection were built between the former MP tracktage east of Pueblo and the UP "Kansas Pacific" (KP) line, as this would allow the TP traffic to bypass the front range route.
2. "TP could be used for future on line originating business."
Yes. UP would certainly reopen part or all of the route is there were enough on line traffic to justify reopening. But it will not be reopened for small traffic moves (like the "moly" traffic mentioned in earlier posts). ASLRRA uses a rule of thumb of 100 carloads per mile for viable short line operations. Nothing less than this is likely to support a full or partial reopening by UP.
3. "TP is a ace in the hole (more like a queen or jack) in future negotiations for Moffit Tunnel."
Probably not. Assuming environmental regulations don't kill Colorado-Utah coal by 2025, the State of Colorado (which owns the tunnel) would have a very strong interest in the continued movement of this traffic, and would be very unlikely to do anything to jeopardize it. I agree with MidlandMike's comments on this point.
4. "TP could place UP in a tough situation environmental situation if abandonment came up."
Maybe. Depending on what's in the ROW, the "environmental" costs could conceivably exceed the proceeds UP would realize from salvaging the line and selling the non-reversionary real estate..
5. "It probably doesnt cost that much to own the line as is and it makes a great insurance policy."
I'm not sure about the "great insurance policy" comment, but I agree that probably doesn't cost UP that much cash to keep the line as is, which is why they probably aren't paying much attention to it. The "costs"of keeping the line consist primarily the "opportunity costs" of not being able to liquidate the property and reinvest the proceeds in other endeavors. These aren't cash costs (and, if the environmental costs prove to be significant. the "opportunity costs" may be non-existent).
I don't agree with MidlandMike's comments on the "liabiltiy" and "tax" points. The liability exposure on a non-operating railroad like this in the middle of nowhere is minimal. There are certainly property taxes, but this property (since it is officially "discontinued" as an active railroad pursuant to STB authority ) is probably not considered rail operating property for purposes of Colorado real estate taxes. If this is the case, given the location of most of this line, the tax consequences would not be significant for a company like UP. This also has to be balanced against the potential (and unknown) environmental costs of disposing of the property.
As a further response to MidlandMike, the amount of labor UP is devoting to this line in its current status is likely not very significant and is much less than they would have to devote if they pursued a full abandonment. Further, the human resources UP would have to devote to an abandonment would be high level management and legal personnel rather than the local field personnel that may now occasionally be doing something with the line.
MP173: So, in summary: 1. TP could be used in case of growth in thru rail traffic, although it would be a less than desireable route due to circular route and steep grades. 2. TP could be used for future on line originating business. 3. TP is a ace in the hole (more like a queen or jack) in future negotiations for Moffit Tunnel. 4. TP could place UP in a tough situation environmental situation if abandonment came up. 5. It probably doesnt cost that much to own the line as is and it makes a great insurance policy. Please continue on with this conversation, as it is fascinating, but I am just wanting to summarize the points. Let me know if there is more to add or changes. Ed
Although it appears not available at present: If BNSF could get trackage rights on TP would TN Pass be a "time shortcut" from the DFW area to Keddie ? UP might be able to get some haulage or track rights from Pubelo - to one of their routes to balance this kind of transaction?
Thanks for making this a really good discussion. I do appreciate both sides of whether the line will be reopened or not. In some ways, I would like it to stay that way because it's almost like of museum. Give me a geep and a couple dozen cars and I would have a ball on that line. Could the line reopen if mining picks up big time and locals start complaining about the truck traffic and the state would want to lease the line from the UP? Or would that also need to follow the 100 car per mile rule? I know this is an off topic question but what would moly be hauled in? Judging from MidlandMike's pic, it's hauled in boxcars. Is that right?
lone geep Thanks for making this a really good discussion. I do appreciate both sides of whether the line will be reopened or not. In some ways, I would like it to stay that way because it's almost like of museum. Give me a geep and a couple dozen cars and I would have a ball on that line. Could the line reopen if mining picks up big time and locals start complaining about the truck traffic and the state would want to lease the line from the UP? Or would that also need to follow the 100 car per mile rule? I know this is an off topic question but what would moly be hauled in? Judging from MidlandMike's pic, it's hauled in boxcars. Is that right?
According to the Hemphill article it's now hauled in 100 ton covered hoppers. In older photos I only remember boxcars. In the really older days concentrate was shipped in sacks. I'm not sure what was in the boxcars in the picture. Drums maybe?
blue streak 1 Although it appears not available at present: If BNSF could get trackage rights on TP would TN Pass be a "time shortcut" from the DFW area to Keddie ? UP might be able to get some haulage or track rights from Pubelo - to one of their routes to balance this kind of transaction?
There's no hard and fast "100 car rule" that railroads have to "follow". It's simply a rule of thumb that ASLRRA uses as a quick meaure of the long term viability of a short line proposal. There could cetainly be cases where a line generating something less than100 cars per mile per year would be viable (if, for example, much of the traffic is high rated, or has costs which are much lower than average). But it's pretty useful to keep this rule of thumb in mind when someone is promoting a proposal with traffic volumes that are way below this figure (like the moly move).
If a whole lot of recurring local traffic suddenly developed on TP that would make reopening of all or part of the out-of-service part of the route viable, I'm sure UP would take a hard look at it. Also, while the lack of a suitable through route connection at Pueblo is a major impediment to reopening the TP route for through traffic, that might not be a serious issue with a reopening limited to local traffic. A traffic opportunity that developed near one of the current end points of the out of service segment would probably be more attractive than one which required a large segment of the line to be restored. The fact that the "moly" move would require nearly 100 miles of the out-of-service portion of the line to be restored makes it much less attractive than a traffic opportunity that developed near, say, Salida (44 miles from Parkdale), although it would still have to generate a lot more traffic than the moly move to justify even this less extensive reopening.
But one word of caution. I know from some of my prior dealings that, over the years, there have been a number of supposed new traffic opportunities presented to UP for reopening large segments of the TP line. As pitched to UP, these looked like they promised a lot more traffic than the moly move and, if they had been "real", would have justified reopening significant parts of the line (one example, widely publicized in the local press, was to move large volumes of the old mine tailings which litter the area to Mexico for extraction of the remaining ores using modern technology). I also know that UP gave them serious consideration. But, without exception, they were all smoke and mirrors - pipe dreams by people who either didn't know what they were doing, had no resources to do anything, or a combination of both. It's almost as if the railfan fame of the TP line is attracting crackpot schemes to "save" the line. So, I would expect that UP would be a little skeptical of any new schemes like this.
I think railroads have learned some painful mistakes from abandoning rail lines in the past. One thing is very clear,and that is railroad traffic is only going to increase in the future. Many lines are already running close to capacity as it is. Union pacific recently reported it's best year ever for the company. Coal exports to China are exploding. Grain exporting is growing by leaps and bounds and will only grow larger.
I live in Colorado and spend a lot of time around the Moffat line. I think anyone with common sense can see the Moffat route as a line that has lots of limits to both it's expansion and capacity. Probably 75% of that line is single track. Even if you were to add double tracking from big ten curve to the Moffat tunnel you will still have a bottleneck at the tunnel. Even if it was triple tracked to the tunnel you need around 20 minutes to clear the tunnel before a train can pass through it again. So even at it's best you are looking at two trains a hour and that is one going up and one going down. That's only 12 a day going in either direction.
You also have to consider building or expanding the Moffat route including the 30 tunnels through the mountains would be anything but impossible considering the environmental idiots and regulations.
At least with Tennessee pass (no matter who owns it) you have options and the more options you have the better. With solar powered track signals it no longer matters if the entire line is stripped of it's telegraph poles and wire.
Thomas 9011 Even if it was triple tracked to the tunnel you need around 20 minutes to clear the tunnel before a train can pass through it again. So even at it's best you are looking at two trains a hour and that is one going up and one going down. That's only 12 a day going in either direction. I know nothing about ventilation engineering. How difficult would it be to increase the ventilation capacity of Moffet? If so certainly less expensive ? Also I vaguely recall reading that a tunnel soomewhere had its capacity increased by sinking an airshaft to the middle of the tunnel and clearing the tunnel faster ? I know there is a very high mountain over Moffet but it may have low spots that could be used ? More traffic would require some mitigation of the predestrian traffic crossing the tracks during ski season at Winter Park. . Actually there is some even in summer ? At least with Tennessee pass (no matter who owns it) you have options and the more options you have the better. With solar powered track signals it no longer matters if the entire line is stripped of it's telegraph poles and wire. Good point about solar power and using Radio Control Line (RCL) for the CTC.
Even if it was triple tracked to the tunnel you need around 20 minutes to clear the tunnel before a train can pass through it again. So even at it's best you are looking at two trains a hour and that is one going up and one going down. That's only 12 a day going in either direction.
I know nothing about ventilation engineering. How difficult would it be to increase the ventilation capacity of Moffet? If so certainly less expensive ? Also I vaguely recall reading that a tunnel soomewhere had its capacity increased by sinking an airshaft to the middle of the tunnel and clearing the tunnel faster ? I know there is a very high mountain over Moffet but it may have low spots that could be used ? More traffic would require some mitigation of the predestrian traffic crossing the tracks during ski season at Winter Park. . Actually there is some even in summer ?
Good point about solar power and using Radio Control Line (RCL) for the CTC.
Thomas and others:What is the current traffic volume over the old Rio Grande Moffitt Tunnel line? I take it is mostly coal. BNSF has rights...do they run a daily train? or as needed?Ed
I assumed that more than a little traffic was moved off the Rio Grande since the UP takeover. I was pleasantly suprised to find out this was not necessarly so, according to a map on the Trains website.
http://trn.trains.com/Railroad%20Reference/Railroad%20Maps/2010/03/Railroad%20traffic%20over%20the%20Continental%20Divide.aspx
In DRGW days in the 80s, the Moffat and Tennessee Pass lines were carrying a combined total of 45 MGT. Under the UP in 2000 the total, all going over the Moffat, was 43 MGT. Thats only about a 5% loss, which might be within annual variation
A couple of posts suggest the limit thru the Moffat Tunnel to be between a train ever 30 min (48 trains/day) and one every 45 min (32 trains/day)
Another map on the website shows the actual number of trains using the line in 2003 to be 16 trains per day, or about half the most conserative capacity limit.
http://trn.trains.com/Railroad%20Reference/Railroad%20Maps/2010/03/Union%20Pacific%20trains%20per%20day.aspx
I would say current traffic is probably averaging one train a hour. Amtrak comes twice a day,there is always two empty UP coal trains going up,and two full ones coming back down daily. BNSF runs trains every few hours. UP runs mixed freight on a regular basis and also quite a bit of maintenance equipment with the related trains (such as ballast trains).
I think there is only two coal trains daily but I maybe wrong. One of the coal trains is all aluminum and I believe that goes to a power plant. The other coal train is all steel and it's cars are beat up relics with names like MOPAC and D&RGW. I believe that train ends up in Pueblo somewhere.
BNSF doesn't run on a regular schedule with regular trains but they use the line quite a bit. I have never seen a BNSF coal train or grain train. Most of the trains I have seen are typically tank cars,gondolas with scrap steel,boxcars,empty lumber cars,and flat cars with military vehicles. Sometimes you won't see a BNSF train all day long. Other times you will see three in a row.
The Moffat route puts on a good show going up the grade. Loaded freight trains usually have two or three locomotives in the front,two in the middle,and one pushing. UP typically runs all of it's helper power in the front when bringing back the empty coal trains and it is not unusual to see 7 or 8 locomotives pulling it (even though they only need 3).
blue streak 1 Thomas 9011: Even if it was triple tracked to the tunnel you need around 20 minutes to clear the tunnel before a train can pass through it again. So even at it's best you are looking at two trains a hour and that is one going up and one going down. That's only 12 a day going in either direction. I know nothing about ventilation engineering. How difficult would it be to increase the ventilation capacity of Moffet? If so certainly less expensive ? Also I vaguely recall reading that a tunnel soomewhere had its capacity increased by sinking an airshaft to the middle of the tunnel and clearing the tunnel faster ? I know there is a very high mountain over Moffet but it may have low spots that could be used ? More traffic would require some mitigation of the predestrian traffic crossing the tracks during ski season at Winter Park. . Actually there is some even in summer ? At least with Tennessee pass (no matter who owns it) you have options and the more options you have the better. With solar powered track signals it no longer matters if the entire line is stripped of it's telegraph poles and wire. Good point about solar power and using Radio Control Line (RCL) for the CTC.
Thomas 9011: Even if it was triple tracked to the tunnel you need around 20 minutes to clear the tunnel before a train can pass through it again. So even at it's best you are looking at two trains a hour and that is one going up and one going down. That's only 12 a day going in either direction. I know nothing about ventilation engineering. How difficult would it be to increase the ventilation capacity of Moffet? If so certainly less expensive ? Also I vaguely recall reading that a tunnel soomewhere had its capacity increased by sinking an airshaft to the middle of the tunnel and clearing the tunnel faster ? I know there is a very high mountain over Moffet but it may have low spots that could be used ? More traffic would require some mitigation of the predestrian traffic crossing the tracks during ski season at Winter Park. . Actually there is some even in summer ? At least with Tennessee pass (no matter who owns it) you have options and the more options you have the better. With solar powered track signals it no longer matters if the entire line is stripped of it's telegraph poles and wire. Good point about solar power and using Radio Control Line (RCL) for the CTC.
With respect to "telegraph poles" and solar power, if TP were ever reopened, the existing signal system (or what's left of it) which operated from lineside wires would almost certainly be replaced by a modern "electrocode" system, which uses the rails. I believe that was already done on the active Canon City - Parkdale segment (used by the short line and the tourist road) after an ice storm severely damaged the lineside wires. Solar power + battery power could potentially be used for signals but, since there are already power drops for the old signal system, they would more likely be used. CTC with a radio control line is pretty common these days. However, one problem with a radio control on the TP line could be poor radio reception on parts of the line, although that's something that could probably be dealt with.
Thomas 9011 I think railroads have learned some painful mistakes from abandoning rail lines in the past. One thing is very clear,and that is railroad traffic is only going to increase in the future. Many lines are already running close to capacity as it is. Union pacific recently reported it's best year ever for the company. Coal exports to China are exploding. Grain exporting is growing by leaps and bounds and will only grow larger. I live in Colorado and spend a lot of time around the Moffat line. I think anyone with common sense can see the Moffat route as a line that has lots of limits to both it's expansion and capacity. Probably 75% of that line is single track. Even if you were to add double tracking from big ten curve to the Moffat tunnel you will still have a bottleneck at the tunnel. Even if it was triple tracked to the tunnel you need around 20 minutes to clear the tunnel before a train can pass through it again. So even at it's best you are looking at two trains a hour and that is one going up and one going down. That's only 12 a day going in either direction. You also have to consider building or expanding the Moffat route including the 30 tunnels through the mountains would be anything but impossible considering the environmental idiots and regulations. At least with Tennessee pass (no matter who owns it) you have options and the more options you have the better. With solar powered track signals it no longer matters if the entire line is stripped of it's telegraph poles and wire.
Realistically, if TP is ever reactivated, it would likely be for Colorado-Utah coal or for some new traffic source local to the line. The big question with Colorado-Utah coal, however, is whether it will even be moving a decade or two from now, or whether it will be killed off by environmental issues.
MidlandMike I assumed that more than a little traffic was moved off the Rio Grande since the UP takeover. I was pleasantly suprised to find out this was not necessarly so, according to a map on the Trains website. http://trn.trains.com/Railroad%20Reference/Railroad%20Maps/2010/03/Railroad%20traffic%20over%20the%20Continental%20Divide.aspx In DRGW days in the 80s, the Moffat and Tennessee Pass lines were carrying a combined total of 45 MGT. Under the UP in 2000 the total, all going over the Moffat, was 43 MGT. Thats only about a 5% loss, which might be within annual variation A couple of posts suggest the limit thru the Moffat Tunnel to be between a train ever 30 min (48 trains/day) and one every 45 min (32 trains/day) Another map on the website shows the actual number of trains using the line in 2003 to be 16 trains per day, or about half the most conserative capacity limit. http://trn.trains.com/Railroad%20Reference/Railroad%20Maps/2010/03/Union%20Pacific%20trains%20per%20day.aspx
A possible reason for UP to reopen Tennesee Pass:
A huge increase in double-stack volume, and a desire to have an alternative route close at hand in case of some emergency on the main Sherman Hill - Green River corridor. The only alternate the UP has now for double stacks is via the Sunset into California. Or rerouting over BNSF. Tennesee Pass upgrading would also involve upgrading east of Pueblo.
I have my doubts this would happen. BNSF would have kept Raton Pass - Alberqueque for the same reason and has not done so.
If UP's policy is to keep routes it considers nonviable open for easy detours it would either have not closed part of the Phoenix line or would reopen it long before it reopens Tennessee Pass.
The following is from an EPA webpage concerning the remediation of the part of the Leadville branch that was dismantled and converted to a bike trail.
http://epa.gov/superfund/programs/recycle/pdf/cal_gulch.pdf
When, following a series of mergers, Union Pacific obtained the
Denver & Rio Grande Railroad’s former corridor section, Union
Pacific, which has multiple access corridors in the region,
recognized the opportunity to eliminate its liability by donating
the land to Lake County without jeopardizing its regional route
system. In a 1998 Memorandum of Understanding, Union
Pacific, Lake County, and EPA agreed that the fine slag along
the track would be capped and incorporated into the Mineral
Belt Trail. Lake County assumed responsibility for the track’s
long-term maintenance. Union Pacific agreed to donate land
and paid for gravel, culverts, and paving.
UP might not want to rebuild this connection to the Climax branch and risk reinvolvement in this superfund site. The connecting line might build it, but would assume liability for maintaining the cap over the old roadbed. I would imagine they would have to increase the present depth of 3" of asphalt to support the new roadbed. Re-establishing a bike tral along-side and within the ROW has been done in other areas.
According to Climax Mining's website, they plan to fully coordinate production with their existing Henderson Mine. A truck from Climax making the 60 mile trip to the existing Kremmling loadout would pass the turnoff for the Henderson mill about half way thru the trip. By having both mines use the same loadout, they could schedule all the railcars there to handle their commitments, and yet have the flexibility to utilize production from which ever mine meets their needs, all with a single fleet of trucks. A loaded car of moly is worth a few million dollars. It's hard to beleive they would perceive any real savings with a second rail loading point at Climax.
Falcon48 On the other hand, the through traffic SP used to move over DRGW (much of which went via TP) is virtually all gone (except for what BNSF is handling), rerouted to other UP lines. In other words, the increased coal volume since the merger has replaced the through traffic. That's actually good - the DRGW lines are doing what they do best.
On the other hand, the through traffic SP used to move over DRGW (much of which went via TP) is virtually all gone (except for what BNSF is handling), rerouted to other UP lines. In other words, the increased coal volume since the merger has replaced the through traffic. That's actually good - the DRGW lines are doing what they do best.
OK, dumb question, when did the MP line get abandoned?
How did SP route the Through traffic off of the TP line given that there was no longer a good connection at Pueblo? Also, I assume that at the time they were doing this, the UP lines were being relatively speaking underutilized? You mentioned that SP discounted this routing heavily, were they losing money on this?
Obviously, SP, even after the buyout wasn't known for it awesome financials, so I could see this.
Also, and I say this from a 10,000 foot railfan view, I have to assume that while the DRGW routes through Colorado could never equal the UP route through Wyoming, The Feather River route could at the same time not equal the mostly double track and shorter Donner. So coming into and out of NorCal bound for the midwest, neither railroad had a "perfect" route.
YoHo1975 Falcon48: On the other hand, the through traffic SP used to move over DRGW (much of which went via TP) is virtually all gone (except for what BNSF is handling), rerouted to other UP lines. In other words, the increased coal volume since the merger has replaced the through traffic. That's actually good - the DRGW lines are doing what they do best. OK, dumb question, when did the MP line get abandoned? How did SP route the Through traffic off of the TP line given that there was no longer a good connection at Pueblo? Also, I assume that at the time they were doing this, the UP lines were being relatively speaking underutilized? You mentioned that SP discounted this routing heavily, were they losing money on this? Obviously, SP, even after the buyout wasn't known for it awesome financials, so I could see this. Also, and I say this from a 10,000 foot railfan view, I have to assume that while the DRGW routes through Colorado could never equal the UP route through Wyoming, The Feather River route could at the same time not equal the mostly double track and shorter Donner. So coming into and out of NorCal bound for the midwest, neither railroad had a "perfect" route.
Falcon48: On the other hand, the through traffic SP used to move over DRGW (much of which went via TP) is virtually all gone (except for what BNSF is handling), rerouted to other UP lines. In other words, the increased coal volume since the merger has replaced the through traffic. That's actually good - the DRGW lines are doing what they do best.
The MP line east of Pueblo was never completely abandoned, but it was "severed" as a through route by several segment abandonments (which is typically what railroads do when they stop using a through route). One of thes was the NA-Towner line, running from about 12 miles east of Pueblo to the Kansas border. This abandonment was approved in the UP-SP merger, although the state of Colorado bought it. I'm not sure it's still there, as the state's contract operators failed, and the state may have salvaged it to recover its purchase price. In any event, there were a couple of abandonments in Kansas after the merger which severed the line as a through route. Keep in mind that this was not a through route for UP before the UP-SP merger. But SP had trackage rights over it (the rights were granted to DRGW in the UP-MP merger to protect it from the loss of an important and previously friendly connection at Pueblo), and used it and the TP line as part of its Central Corridor routing.
I think that the UP Feather River route + the UP Wyoming line beats SP Donner Pass + TP line as a through route hands down, particularly after UP rehabbed the Feather River route. The TP route wasn't only handicapped by its own physical features and location, but by the relatively poor condition (for through traffic) of much of the connecting MP line in Colorado and Kansas. From UP's standpoint, it was just a branch line, and that's how they maintained it (late in its life, SP got the ability to maintain much of the line, but they were never able to rebuild the bulk of it). But the best alternative is the Donner- Wyoming route, which is what you historically had, and what you now have again.
With respect to whether the TP line was "losing" money, that depends on what question is being asked (there are all kinds of measures of financial performance that can be used to evaluate individual rail lines). I think the proper question is whether the SP was, on the whole, financially better off using the line than it would have been they shut it down (essentially the test used to evaluate abandonment decisions). The issue then becomes not how expensive the line is to operate, or how poor the route is, but whether the traffic and revenue the railroad would lose by shutting the route down vs the costs saved would make the railroad better off or worse off. SP didn't have good rerouting alternatives for much of the traffic using its Central Corridor routing (unlike a combined UP-SP, it didn't have the alternative of shifting this traffic to the UP Wyoming line). That meant that shutting down TP would have meant losing lots of this trafffic. True, there might be some traffic they could reroute over Moffat and down the front range to Pueblo and vice-versa, but that routing would be worse from a service perspective than TP (not to mention that the Moffat route couldn't handle the double stack traffic then using TP). Now, since SP's people weren't stupid (I knew a lof of them and they really weren't), they necessarily concluded, at least up to the time of the merger, that SP was better off with the TP route than without it.
However, given the death spiral SP was in, this situation was not sustainable. If you can find it, there's a fascinating filing that was made by John Gray in the UP-SP merger (I think it may have been in one of the "oversight" proceedings following the merger). Mr. Gray was a SP executive in charge of strategic planning, went to UP after the merger, and is now an executive at AAR. The filing describes the "doomsday" plans SP had developed in the event the UP merger didn't go through. I don't have a copy of it, but I distinctly recall that it called for a shutdown of the TP line and the rest of the Central Corridor route. In other words, SP had reached the point where it was better off without the line (and its traffic) than with it.
Huh, I knew that SP was diverting resources to the Sunset indicating that their norcal connection really wasn't as important, but I had no idea it was that dire.
It's an interesting view into the dominoes nature of really history in general. SP was ripe for acquisition by Rio Grande, because of the horrible financials coming out of the SFSP merger failure, but it sounds like what it would have needed to really make the TP/MP routing work was money to upgrade the system. The one thing it didn't have.
In a world where SP had the money to do the required maintenance to make the route viable, would it be a competitive route? Especially looking at the pre-2008 world levels of traffic.
Obviously, that's an alternate history question, not a question about the possibilities for TP moving forward, but interesting to me at least.
One more quick question.
What is BNSF moving on it's traffic rights trains on moffat? what are the endpoints in other words?
I assume they're moving east or northeast somewhere.
If there was a move BNSF wanted to make from that line down to the Transcon, couldn't BNSF try to get rights on TP and move trains to Pueblo and then on to La Junta or even south to Albequerque? I don't pretend to know what kinda of traffic those segments sees and if there's capacity, but that would avoid the joint line.
Assuming there were a train that needed to move that way.
Would it be faster to move that way out of Oakland vs. the ex-ATSF routing south to Barstow and then over the Transcon?
I've also wondered what traffic BNSF was moving on the Moffat trackage-rights. Chicago-Oakland via (using former names) CB&Q-DRGW-WP routes is 2521 miles. Via the all ATSF route is 2548 miles. So the Transcon is only about 1% longer, but has higher speeds and less helper districts. Does some of the trackage-rights traffic go north at Keddie, or south at Denver?
Why run across there to go up the inside gateway when you can just run over the Northern Transcon?
I could see that move being anticipated in 2007 when there looked to be big constraints across Stevens, stampede and the Gorge. But not right now.
With Abo Canyon double tracked, there really isn't a strong need to divert off the Transcon given those mileages. I would have thought they were more different than that.
Falcon:Great overview of the SP situation in the latter years. They were literally up against the wall at that time with that Central Corridor traffic. Who did they primarily hand off to at KC? Do you recall what kind of volume they ran on the line to KC?
I have great memories of riding the Colorado Eagle to Pueblo in 1964 on that line across Kansas. At Hoisington, Ks. I recall waking up and seeing two clocks on the depot wall, an hour apart. Looking at my OG, we were due to arrive at 233am and depart at 148am. I was confused at the time and asked my dad the next morning. He explained the concept of time zones. We made pretty good time across Kansas. The 622 miles from KC to Pueblo was covered in 11:20 for an average of just under 55mph.
Obviously in 1964 the track was in good condition and probably received considerable SP/RG/MoPac freight moving east/west.
Was that MoPac line CTC or train orders?Ed
The MP across Kansas to Pueblo was mostly time table & train orders.
I have an old issue (1978ish) of Rail Classics magazine that has an article about this MOP line. Most coverage in it was centered around Hoisington.
Jeff
YoHo1975 Why run across there to go up the inside gateway when you can just run over the Northern Transcon? I could see that move being anticipated in 2007 when there looked to be big constraints across Stevens, stampede and the Gorge. But not right now. With Abo Canyon double tracked, there really isn't a strong need to divert off the Transcon given those mileages. I would have thought they were more different than that.
North of Keddie, I was thinking more of potential traffic from the area Klamath Falls to Portland.
The mileage over the Moffat and WP shows the surprising circuity of those lines. The traditional CNW-UP-SP route to Oakland is 2258 miles, or better than 10% shorter. (The mileage figures are from the table in the TP article, Trains June 2003, p44.)
MP173 Falcon:Great overview of the SP situation in the latter years. They were literally up against the wall at that time with that Central Corridor traffic. Who did they primarily hand off to at KC? Do you recall what kind of volume they ran on the line to KC? I have great memories of riding the Colorado Eagle to Pueblo in 1964 on that line across Kansas. At Hoisington, Ks. I recall waking up and seeing two clocks on the depot wall, an hour apart. Looking at my OG, we were due to arrive at 233am and depart at 148am. I was confused at the time and asked my dad the next morning. He explained the concept of time zones. We made pretty good time across Kansas. The 622 miles from KC to Pueblo was covered in 11:20 for an average of just under 55mph. Obviously in 1964 the track was in good condition and probably received considerable SP/RG/MoPac freight moving east/west. Was that MoPac line CTC or train orders?Ed
I don't have ready access to volume figures for the former MP Kansas line (often referred to as the "Hoisington line"). However, the operating plan included with the UP-SP merger application should show this information, although it may not separate the SP from the UP traffic using the line.
Unquestionably, the Hoisington line was in much better shape in 1964 than it was in the early 1990's. And it undoubtedly handled a lot of DRGW/MP traffic (the Pueblo connection with MP was one of DRGW's most important interchanges, and the potential loss of the friendly MP connection was the reason ICC gave DRGW trackage rights over the Hoisington line in the UP/MP merger). However, I don't think it would have handled a lot of SP/DRGW/MP traffic. In 1964, DRGW's principal western connection would have been WP, not SP. And, in 1964, SP's major connection to the east over the Central Corridor was UP (the historic "Overland Route"), not DRGW.
YoHo1975 One more quick question. What is BNSF moving on it's traffic rights trains on moffat? what are the endpoints in other words? I assume they're moving east or northeast somewhere. If there was a move BNSF wanted to make from that line down to the Transcon, couldn't BNSF try to get rights on TP and move trains to Pueblo and then on to La Junta or even south to Albequerque? I don't pretend to know what kinda of traffic those segments sees and if there's capacity, but that would avoid the joint line. Assuming there were a train that needed to move that way. Would it be faster to move that way out of Oakland vs. the ex-ATSF routing south to Barstow and then over the Transcon?
BNSF's map shows trackage rights into the Bay Area over the former SP Sacramento Line, but not over the former WP.
http://www.bnsf.com/customers/pdf/maps/div_ca.pdf
You could be right as to the Bay Area itself. But I'm pretty sure that BNSF's rights to the east are over the WP Feather River route and not over the SP Donner route.
This is a followup to my earlier posts on the BNSF Central Corridor trackage rights.
EricSP is right - I'm wrong - about BNSF's rights between Ogden and Oakland. I checked the UP-SP merger decisions and some other sources. The primary BNSF trackage rights route is over the former SP Donner Pass line. Interestingly, BNSF also has rights over the Feather River route, but I couldn't readily determine how broad these may be (the trackage rights filings UP and BNSF made in the merger would show this, but they aren't available on-line). As an explanation (or an excuse), while I was pretty familiar with the TP line situation and with the BNSF trackage rights over the former DRGW, I never had any reason to be real familiar with BNSF's trackage rights on UP west of Ogden.
Large portions of the Western Pacific between Sacramento and Oakland are now gone aren't they and the Altamont pass is primarily commuter. So I don't think they have a choice there, but I know for a fact that their routing over the sierras is via Feather River. They had trackage rights from Bieber south already via BN ne GN and the inside Gateway. So the Feather River routing makes more sense.
Aren't the Western Pacific and former SP mains across Nevada operated in a single direction. I think WP is eastbound and SP is westbound an agreement that goes back before the mergers? I thought I remember reading that somewhere.
I have no doubt BNSF sees no value in a movement via TP and Pueblo today. Only that such a movement is possible and perhaps at this point is the only viable through move on TP.
And I guess then that BNSF is running oakland to Denver (or probably LA to Denver via those Moffat trackage rights, but probably not beyond that. I'd assume any move to a point further east would be better off either Transcon or moving Inside Gateway to the Gorge and then east.
YoHo1975 Aren't the Western Pacific and former SP mains across Nevada operated in a single direction. I think WP is eastbound and SP is westbound an agreement that goes back before the mergers? I thought I remember reading that somewhere.
The west junction is at Weso (SP mp 420.9/WP mp 535.8), and the east junction is at Alazon (WP mp 713.6/SP mp 603.6).
Johnny
I agree that the Denver-Oakland trackage rights are most critical to BNSF's Denver area operations, especially since they pulled back from Raton Pass. Denver is the largest city between the Missouri River and the Bay Area, and they need the trackage rights to fully serve this important market. On their system map, the line also fills in an otherwise large blank spot.
http://www.bnsf.com/customers/where-can-i-ship/
I noticed also that the map indicates they utilize both the Donner Pass and Feather River routes.
But note that they cannot run double-stacks over this route. They could if they could buy Tennessee Pass!
The Raton Pass line and the Tennessee Pass line are not, and will not be, in the plans of BNSF.
Trackage rights over UP take care of their northern CA needs and connection to the southern Transcon is achieved through the Las Animas Jct. to Amarillo line.
They know what their greatest traffic potential is and have planned to spend their money to maximize those areas (both geographic and traffic) while 'passing' on locations and traffic with insignificant potential. The BNSF definately has a PLAN.
As I posted before, the only hope for Tennesse Pass is if double stack traffic on either the UP or the BNSF or both together reach such a point that an emergency detour route makes economic sense. I agree it does not do so now, and may not for many years. But I would not be surprised if it did occur within the lifetime of people reading this.
daveklepper As I posted before, the only hope for Tennesse Pass is if double stack traffic on either the UP or the BNSF or both together reach such a point that an emergency detour route makes economic sense. I agree it does not do so now, and may not for many years. But I would not be surprised if it did occur within the lifetime of people reading this.
I agree with this general sentiment. no one knows what the future holds and I guarantee that were we all sitting around a table discussing 2011 30 years ago, we would never have guessed at all the things that have happened correctly.
Are there any special operating issues with stacks thru an area such as TP? Obviously...have great braking system. Anything else?
ed
No one may know what the future holds. But I think it's a pretty good bet that the TP line isn't going to be reopened for double-stack traffic. As I've mentioned in previous posts, the TP route would have to have an eastern outlet at Pueblo other than the front range route to Denver to even be useable as a through route (for intermodal or anything else). And why would UP (or BNSF) put money into reopening the TP route for double-stack traffic rather than spending the money to increase capacity on their primary intermodal routes, whch are far superior to the TP route? Mountain railroads may be photogenic, but they are operating nightmares.
So to sum it up, UP isn't taking up the rails because it would cost more than it would be worth. The mining wouldn't be enough to reopen it and it wouldn't make a good through route because there isn't a good outlet at Pueblo. Thanks for clearing this up.
Interesting topic:
As long as the UPRR is going to leave it alone. Seems like the best use for it would be to have NARCOA: http://www.narcoa.org/ to run some rail car excursions over it?
Just a thought!
I know this is an old thread, but I have one more question. Since there is quite a bit of steel sitting around in terms of rails, why isn't UP taking up the rails between the grade crossings since it doesn't appear that trains will be traversing it for a long time?
Dumb move and the roadmaster/MTM in that country has pitifully few people. Want steel? scrap a locomotive.
Those rails may be an old, obsolete, or incompatible section, and/ or worn too much to be worthwhile relaying anyplace else after the costs of removal and transportation to the new location are added in. Right now scrap steel is at a more nomal price - about $240/ net ton around here - so there's no great bonanza there.
But more likely is that if and when that line is ever restored to service, it is so much easier to get MOW equipment and work trains in and do their thing when there are 2 rails at about the right gage to start with. Even if the ties are almost all rotted, that's still enough to support some basic lightweight MOW equipment to first replace just a few ties at long intervals to allow the heavier and more capable MOW equipment in to replace the rest of the ties, add ballast and surface, repalce rail, etc. In other words, an existing track makes it a lot easier to 'bootstrap' your way back to a functioning rail line. But if the track is gone, then it has to be replaced either all by truck - very tough backing them up on a narrow ROW on the side of a mountain like that, or from the advancing end of a reconstructed track - which is doable but expensive and cumbersome, and depends on very specilaized equipment.
As with many things, restoration is just a lot easier to do if you have the existing, both to use as a guide and to physically support the work.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.