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..?
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/
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.]
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.
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
\
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.
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
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.
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)
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.
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.
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)
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 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.
"...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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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'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.
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.
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)
*(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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
(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.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.