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.
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.
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.
"No soup for you!" - Yev Kassem (from Seinfeld)
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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
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.
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?
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?
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.
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?
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?
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?
Lone Geep
\
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
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 ?
- Paul North.
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:
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=277451&nseq=9
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:
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..?
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)
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.
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.
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?
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.
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..?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.