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..."
Gabe
[quote user="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)"
[/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?
Lone Geep
\
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.
Ed
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 ?
- Paul North.
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.
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.
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?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.