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?
According to the Hemphill article it's now hauled in 100 ton covered hoppers. In older photos I only remember boxcars. In the really older days concentrate was shipped in sacks. I'm not sure what was in the boxcars in the picture. Drums maybe?
blue streak 1 Although it appears not available at present: If BNSF could get trackage rights on TP would TN Pass be a "time shortcut" from the DFW area to Keddie ? UP might be able to get some haulage or track rights from Pubelo - to one of their routes to balance this kind of transaction?
Although it appears not available at present: If BNSF could get trackage rights on TP would TN Pass be a "time shortcut" from the DFW area to Keddie ? UP might be able to get some haulage or track rights from Pubelo - to one of their routes to balance this kind of transaction?
There's no hard and fast "100 car rule" that railroads have to "follow". It's simply a rule of thumb that ASLRRA uses as a quick meaure of the long term viability of a short line proposal. There could cetainly be cases where a line generating something less than100 cars per mile per year would be viable (if, for example, much of the traffic is high rated, or has costs which are much lower than average). But it's pretty useful to keep this rule of thumb in mind when someone is promoting a proposal with traffic volumes that are way below this figure (like the moly move).
If a whole lot of recurring local traffic suddenly developed on TP that would make reopening of all or part of the out-of-service part of the route viable, I'm sure UP would take a hard look at it. Also, while the lack of a suitable through route connection at Pueblo is a major impediment to reopening the TP route for through traffic, that might not be a serious issue with a reopening limited to local traffic. A traffic opportunity that developed near one of the current end points of the out of service segment would probably be more attractive than one which required a large segment of the line to be restored. The fact that the "moly" move would require nearly 100 miles of the out-of-service portion of the line to be restored makes it much less attractive than a traffic opportunity that developed near, say, Salida (44 miles from Parkdale), although it would still have to generate a lot more traffic than the moly move to justify even this less extensive reopening.
But one word of caution. I know from some of my prior dealings that, over the years, there have been a number of supposed new traffic opportunities presented to UP for reopening large segments of the TP line. As pitched to UP, these looked like they promised a lot more traffic than the moly move and, if they had been "real", would have justified reopening significant parts of the line (one example, widely publicized in the local press, was to move large volumes of the old mine tailings which litter the area to Mexico for extraction of the remaining ores using modern technology). I also know that UP gave them serious consideration. But, without exception, they were all smoke and mirrors - pipe dreams by people who either didn't know what they were doing, had no resources to do anything, or a combination of both. It's almost as if the railfan fame of the TP line is attracting crackpot schemes to "save" the line. So, I would expect that UP would be a little skeptical of any new schemes like this.
I think railroads have learned some painful mistakes from abandoning rail lines in the past. One thing is very clear,and that is railroad traffic is only going to increase in the future. Many lines are already running close to capacity as it is. Union pacific recently reported it's best year ever for the company. Coal exports to China are exploding. Grain exporting is growing by leaps and bounds and will only grow larger.
I live in Colorado and spend a lot of time around the Moffat line. I think anyone with common sense can see the Moffat route as a line that has lots of limits to both it's expansion and capacity. Probably 75% of that line is single track. Even if you were to add double tracking from big ten curve to the Moffat tunnel you will still have a bottleneck at the tunnel. Even if it was triple tracked to the tunnel you need around 20 minutes to clear the tunnel before a train can pass through it again. So even at it's best you are looking at two trains a hour and that is one going up and one going down. That's only 12 a day going in either direction.
You also have to consider building or expanding the Moffat route including the 30 tunnels through the mountains would be anything but impossible considering the environmental idiots and regulations.
At least with Tennessee pass (no matter who owns it) you have options and the more options you have the better. With solar powered track signals it no longer matters if the entire line is stripped of it's telegraph poles and wire.
Thomas 9011 Even if it was triple tracked to the tunnel you need around 20 minutes to clear the tunnel before a train can pass through it again. So even at it's best you are looking at two trains a hour and that is one going up and one going down. That's only 12 a day going in either direction. I know nothing about ventilation engineering. How difficult would it be to increase the ventilation capacity of Moffet? If so certainly less expensive ? Also I vaguely recall reading that a tunnel soomewhere had its capacity increased by sinking an airshaft to the middle of the tunnel and clearing the tunnel faster ? I know there is a very high mountain over Moffet but it may have low spots that could be used ? More traffic would require some mitigation of the predestrian traffic crossing the tracks during ski season at Winter Park. . Actually there is some even in summer ? At least with Tennessee pass (no matter who owns it) you have options and the more options you have the better. With solar powered track signals it no longer matters if the entire line is stripped of it's telegraph poles and wire. Good point about solar power and using Radio Control Line (RCL) for the CTC.
Even if it was triple tracked to the tunnel you need around 20 minutes to clear the tunnel before a train can pass through it again. So even at it's best you are looking at two trains a hour and that is one going up and one going down. That's only 12 a day going in either direction.
I know nothing about ventilation engineering. How difficult would it be to increase the ventilation capacity of Moffet? If so certainly less expensive ? Also I vaguely recall reading that a tunnel soomewhere had its capacity increased by sinking an airshaft to the middle of the tunnel and clearing the tunnel faster ? I know there is a very high mountain over Moffet but it may have low spots that could be used ? More traffic would require some mitigation of the predestrian traffic crossing the tracks during ski season at Winter Park. . Actually there is some even in summer ?
Good point about solar power and using Radio Control Line (RCL) for the CTC.
Thomas and others:What is the current traffic volume over the old Rio Grande Moffitt Tunnel line? I take it is mostly coal. BNSF has rights...do they run a daily train? or as needed?Ed
I assumed that more than a little traffic was moved off the Rio Grande since the UP takeover. I was pleasantly suprised to find out this was not necessarly so, according to a map on the Trains website.
http://trn.trains.com/Railroad%20Reference/Railroad%20Maps/2010/03/Railroad%20traffic%20over%20the%20Continental%20Divide.aspx
In DRGW days in the 80s, the Moffat and Tennessee Pass lines were carrying a combined total of 45 MGT. Under the UP in 2000 the total, all going over the Moffat, was 43 MGT. Thats only about a 5% loss, which might be within annual variation
A couple of posts suggest the limit thru the Moffat Tunnel to be between a train ever 30 min (48 trains/day) and one every 45 min (32 trains/day)
Another map on the website shows the actual number of trains using the line in 2003 to be 16 trains per day, or about half the most conserative capacity limit.
http://trn.trains.com/Railroad%20Reference/Railroad%20Maps/2010/03/Union%20Pacific%20trains%20per%20day.aspx
I would say current traffic is probably averaging one train a hour. Amtrak comes twice a day,there is always two empty UP coal trains going up,and two full ones coming back down daily. BNSF runs trains every few hours. UP runs mixed freight on a regular basis and also quite a bit of maintenance equipment with the related trains (such as ballast trains).
I think there is only two coal trains daily but I maybe wrong. One of the coal trains is all aluminum and I believe that goes to a power plant. The other coal train is all steel and it's cars are beat up relics with names like MOPAC and D&RGW. I believe that train ends up in Pueblo somewhere.
BNSF doesn't run on a regular schedule with regular trains but they use the line quite a bit. I have never seen a BNSF coal train or grain train. Most of the trains I have seen are typically tank cars,gondolas with scrap steel,boxcars,empty lumber cars,and flat cars with military vehicles. Sometimes you won't see a BNSF train all day long. Other times you will see three in a row.
The Moffat route puts on a good show going up the grade. Loaded freight trains usually have two or three locomotives in the front,two in the middle,and one pushing. UP typically runs all of it's helper power in the front when bringing back the empty coal trains and it is not unusual to see 7 or 8 locomotives pulling it (even though they only need 3).
blue streak 1 Thomas 9011: Even if it was triple tracked to the tunnel you need around 20 minutes to clear the tunnel before a train can pass through it again. So even at it's best you are looking at two trains a hour and that is one going up and one going down. That's only 12 a day going in either direction. I know nothing about ventilation engineering. How difficult would it be to increase the ventilation capacity of Moffet? If so certainly less expensive ? Also I vaguely recall reading that a tunnel soomewhere had its capacity increased by sinking an airshaft to the middle of the tunnel and clearing the tunnel faster ? I know there is a very high mountain over Moffet but it may have low spots that could be used ? More traffic would require some mitigation of the predestrian traffic crossing the tracks during ski season at Winter Park. . Actually there is some even in summer ? At least with Tennessee pass (no matter who owns it) you have options and the more options you have the better. With solar powered track signals it no longer matters if the entire line is stripped of it's telegraph poles and wire. Good point about solar power and using Radio Control Line (RCL) for the CTC.
Thomas 9011: Even if it was triple tracked to the tunnel you need around 20 minutes to clear the tunnel before a train can pass through it again. So even at it's best you are looking at two trains a hour and that is one going up and one going down. That's only 12 a day going in either direction. I know nothing about ventilation engineering. How difficult would it be to increase the ventilation capacity of Moffet? If so certainly less expensive ? Also I vaguely recall reading that a tunnel soomewhere had its capacity increased by sinking an airshaft to the middle of the tunnel and clearing the tunnel faster ? I know there is a very high mountain over Moffet but it may have low spots that could be used ? More traffic would require some mitigation of the predestrian traffic crossing the tracks during ski season at Winter Park. . Actually there is some even in summer ? At least with Tennessee pass (no matter who owns it) you have options and the more options you have the better. With solar powered track signals it no longer matters if the entire line is stripped of it's telegraph poles and wire. Good point about solar power and using Radio Control Line (RCL) for the CTC.
With respect to "telegraph poles" and solar power, if TP were ever reopened, the existing signal system (or what's left of it) which operated from lineside wires would almost certainly be replaced by a modern "electrocode" system, which uses the rails. I believe that was already done on the active Canon City - Parkdale segment (used by the short line and the tourist road) after an ice storm severely damaged the lineside wires. Solar power + battery power could potentially be used for signals but, since there are already power drops for the old signal system, they would more likely be used. CTC with a radio control line is pretty common these days. However, one problem with a radio control on the TP line could be poor radio reception on parts of the line, although that's something that could probably be dealt with.
Thomas 9011 I think railroads have learned some painful mistakes from abandoning rail lines in the past. One thing is very clear,and that is railroad traffic is only going to increase in the future. Many lines are already running close to capacity as it is. Union pacific recently reported it's best year ever for the company. Coal exports to China are exploding. Grain exporting is growing by leaps and bounds and will only grow larger. I live in Colorado and spend a lot of time around the Moffat line. I think anyone with common sense can see the Moffat route as a line that has lots of limits to both it's expansion and capacity. Probably 75% of that line is single track. Even if you were to add double tracking from big ten curve to the Moffat tunnel you will still have a bottleneck at the tunnel. Even if it was triple tracked to the tunnel you need around 20 minutes to clear the tunnel before a train can pass through it again. So even at it's best you are looking at two trains a hour and that is one going up and one going down. That's only 12 a day going in either direction. You also have to consider building or expanding the Moffat route including the 30 tunnels through the mountains would be anything but impossible considering the environmental idiots and regulations. At least with Tennessee pass (no matter who owns it) you have options and the more options you have the better. With solar powered track signals it no longer matters if the entire line is stripped of it's telegraph poles and wire.
Realistically, if TP is ever reactivated, it would likely be for Colorado-Utah coal or for some new traffic source local to the line. The big question with Colorado-Utah coal, however, is whether it will even be moving a decade or two from now, or whether it will be killed off by environmental issues.
MidlandMike I assumed that more than a little traffic was moved off the Rio Grande since the UP takeover. I was pleasantly suprised to find out this was not necessarly so, according to a map on the Trains website. http://trn.trains.com/Railroad%20Reference/Railroad%20Maps/2010/03/Railroad%20traffic%20over%20the%20Continental%20Divide.aspx In DRGW days in the 80s, the Moffat and Tennessee Pass lines were carrying a combined total of 45 MGT. Under the UP in 2000 the total, all going over the Moffat, was 43 MGT. Thats only about a 5% loss, which might be within annual variation A couple of posts suggest the limit thru the Moffat Tunnel to be between a train ever 30 min (48 trains/day) and one every 45 min (32 trains/day) Another map on the website shows the actual number of trains using the line in 2003 to be 16 trains per day, or about half the most conserative capacity limit. http://trn.trains.com/Railroad%20Reference/Railroad%20Maps/2010/03/Union%20Pacific%20trains%20per%20day.aspx
A possible reason for UP to reopen Tennesee Pass:
A huge increase in double-stack volume, and a desire to have an alternative route close at hand in case of some emergency on the main Sherman Hill - Green River corridor. The only alternate the UP has now for double stacks is via the Sunset into California. Or rerouting over BNSF. Tennesee Pass upgrading would also involve upgrading east of Pueblo.
I have my doubts this would happen. BNSF would have kept Raton Pass - Alberqueque for the same reason and has not done so.
If UP's policy is to keep routes it considers nonviable open for easy detours it would either have not closed part of the Phoenix line or would reopen it long before it reopens Tennessee Pass.
"No soup for you!" - Yev Kassem (from Seinfeld)
The following is from an EPA webpage concerning the remediation of the part of the Leadville branch that was dismantled and converted to a bike trail.
http://epa.gov/superfund/programs/recycle/pdf/cal_gulch.pdf
When, following a series of mergers, Union Pacific obtained the
Denver & Rio Grande Railroad’s former corridor section, Union
Pacific, which has multiple access corridors in the region,
recognized the opportunity to eliminate its liability by donating
the land to Lake County without jeopardizing its regional route
system. In a 1998 Memorandum of Understanding, Union
Pacific, Lake County, and EPA agreed that the fine slag along
the track would be capped and incorporated into the Mineral
Belt Trail. Lake County assumed responsibility for the track’s
long-term maintenance. Union Pacific agreed to donate land
and paid for gravel, culverts, and paving.
UP might not want to rebuild this connection to the Climax branch and risk reinvolvement in this superfund site. The connecting line might build it, but would assume liability for maintaining the cap over the old roadbed. I would imagine they would have to increase the present depth of 3" of asphalt to support the new roadbed. Re-establishing a bike tral along-side and within the ROW has been done in other areas.
According to Climax Mining's website, they plan to fully coordinate production with their existing Henderson Mine. A truck from Climax making the 60 mile trip to the existing Kremmling loadout would pass the turnoff for the Henderson mill about half way thru the trip. By having both mines use the same loadout, they could schedule all the railcars there to handle their commitments, and yet have the flexibility to utilize production from which ever mine meets their needs, all with a single fleet of trucks. A loaded car of moly is worth a few million dollars. It's hard to beleive they would perceive any real savings with a second rail loading point at Climax.
Falcon48 On the other hand, the through traffic SP used to move over DRGW (much of which went via TP) is virtually all gone (except for what BNSF is handling), rerouted to other UP lines. In other words, the increased coal volume since the merger has replaced the through traffic. That's actually good - the DRGW lines are doing what they do best.
On the other hand, the through traffic SP used to move over DRGW (much of which went via TP) is virtually all gone (except for what BNSF is handling), rerouted to other UP lines. In other words, the increased coal volume since the merger has replaced the through traffic. That's actually good - the DRGW lines are doing what they do best.
OK, dumb question, when did the MP line get abandoned?
How did SP route the Through traffic off of the TP line given that there was no longer a good connection at Pueblo? Also, I assume that at the time they were doing this, the UP lines were being relatively speaking underutilized? You mentioned that SP discounted this routing heavily, were they losing money on this?
Obviously, SP, even after the buyout wasn't known for it awesome financials, so I could see this.
Also, and I say this from a 10,000 foot railfan view, I have to assume that while the DRGW routes through Colorado could never equal the UP route through Wyoming, The Feather River route could at the same time not equal the mostly double track and shorter Donner. So coming into and out of NorCal bound for the midwest, neither railroad had a "perfect" route.
YoHo1975 Falcon48: On the other hand, the through traffic SP used to move over DRGW (much of which went via TP) is virtually all gone (except for what BNSF is handling), rerouted to other UP lines. In other words, the increased coal volume since the merger has replaced the through traffic. That's actually good - the DRGW lines are doing what they do best. OK, dumb question, when did the MP line get abandoned? How did SP route the Through traffic off of the TP line given that there was no longer a good connection at Pueblo? Also, I assume that at the time they were doing this, the UP lines were being relatively speaking underutilized? You mentioned that SP discounted this routing heavily, were they losing money on this? Obviously, SP, even after the buyout wasn't known for it awesome financials, so I could see this. Also, and I say this from a 10,000 foot railfan view, I have to assume that while the DRGW routes through Colorado could never equal the UP route through Wyoming, The Feather River route could at the same time not equal the mostly double track and shorter Donner. So coming into and out of NorCal bound for the midwest, neither railroad had a "perfect" route.
Falcon48: On the other hand, the through traffic SP used to move over DRGW (much of which went via TP) is virtually all gone (except for what BNSF is handling), rerouted to other UP lines. In other words, the increased coal volume since the merger has replaced the through traffic. That's actually good - the DRGW lines are doing what they do best.
The MP line east of Pueblo was never completely abandoned, but it was "severed" as a through route by several segment abandonments (which is typically what railroads do when they stop using a through route). One of thes was the NA-Towner line, running from about 12 miles east of Pueblo to the Kansas border. This abandonment was approved in the UP-SP merger, although the state of Colorado bought it. I'm not sure it's still there, as the state's contract operators failed, and the state may have salvaged it to recover its purchase price. In any event, there were a couple of abandonments in Kansas after the merger which severed the line as a through route. Keep in mind that this was not a through route for UP before the UP-SP merger. But SP had trackage rights over it (the rights were granted to DRGW in the UP-MP merger to protect it from the loss of an important and previously friendly connection at Pueblo), and used it and the TP line as part of its Central Corridor routing.
I think that the UP Feather River route + the UP Wyoming line beats SP Donner Pass + TP line as a through route hands down, particularly after UP rehabbed the Feather River route. The TP route wasn't only handicapped by its own physical features and location, but by the relatively poor condition (for through traffic) of much of the connecting MP line in Colorado and Kansas. From UP's standpoint, it was just a branch line, and that's how they maintained it (late in its life, SP got the ability to maintain much of the line, but they were never able to rebuild the bulk of it). But the best alternative is the Donner- Wyoming route, which is what you historically had, and what you now have again.
With respect to whether the TP line was "losing" money, that depends on what question is being asked (there are all kinds of measures of financial performance that can be used to evaluate individual rail lines). I think the proper question is whether the SP was, on the whole, financially better off using the line than it would have been they shut it down (essentially the test used to evaluate abandonment decisions). The issue then becomes not how expensive the line is to operate, or how poor the route is, but whether the traffic and revenue the railroad would lose by shutting the route down vs the costs saved would make the railroad better off or worse off. SP didn't have good rerouting alternatives for much of the traffic using its Central Corridor routing (unlike a combined UP-SP, it didn't have the alternative of shifting this traffic to the UP Wyoming line). That meant that shutting down TP would have meant losing lots of this trafffic. True, there might be some traffic they could reroute over Moffat and down the front range to Pueblo and vice-versa, but that routing would be worse from a service perspective than TP (not to mention that the Moffat route couldn't handle the double stack traffic then using TP). Now, since SP's people weren't stupid (I knew a lof of them and they really weren't), they necessarily concluded, at least up to the time of the merger, that SP was better off with the TP route than without it.
However, given the death spiral SP was in, this situation was not sustainable. If you can find it, there's a fascinating filing that was made by John Gray in the UP-SP merger (I think it may have been in one of the "oversight" proceedings following the merger). Mr. Gray was a SP executive in charge of strategic planning, went to UP after the merger, and is now an executive at AAR. The filing describes the "doomsday" plans SP had developed in the event the UP merger didn't go through. I don't have a copy of it, but I distinctly recall that it called for a shutdown of the TP line and the rest of the Central Corridor route. In other words, SP had reached the point where it was better off without the line (and its traffic) than with it.
Huh, I knew that SP was diverting resources to the Sunset indicating that their norcal connection really wasn't as important, but I had no idea it was that dire.
It's an interesting view into the dominoes nature of really history in general. SP was ripe for acquisition by Rio Grande, because of the horrible financials coming out of the SFSP merger failure, but it sounds like what it would have needed to really make the TP/MP routing work was money to upgrade the system. The one thing it didn't have.
In a world where SP had the money to do the required maintenance to make the route viable, would it be a competitive route? Especially looking at the pre-2008 world levels of traffic.
Obviously, that's an alternate history question, not a question about the possibilities for TP moving forward, but interesting to me at least.
One more quick question.
What is BNSF moving on it's traffic rights trains on moffat? what are the endpoints in other words?
I assume they're moving east or northeast somewhere.
If there was a move BNSF wanted to make from that line down to the Transcon, couldn't BNSF try to get rights on TP and move trains to Pueblo and then on to La Junta or even south to Albequerque? I don't pretend to know what kinda of traffic those segments sees and if there's capacity, but that would avoid the joint line.
Assuming there were a train that needed to move that way.
Would it be faster to move that way out of Oakland vs. the ex-ATSF routing south to Barstow and then over the Transcon?
I've also wondered what traffic BNSF was moving on the Moffat trackage-rights. Chicago-Oakland via (using former names) CB&Q-DRGW-WP routes is 2521 miles. Via the all ATSF route is 2548 miles. So the Transcon is only about 1% longer, but has higher speeds and less helper districts. Does some of the trackage-rights traffic go north at Keddie, or south at Denver?
Why run across there to go up the inside gateway when you can just run over the Northern Transcon?
I could see that move being anticipated in 2007 when there looked to be big constraints across Stevens, stampede and the Gorge. But not right now.
With Abo Canyon double tracked, there really isn't a strong need to divert off the Transcon given those mileages. I would have thought they were more different than that.
Falcon:Great overview of the SP situation in the latter years. They were literally up against the wall at that time with that Central Corridor traffic. Who did they primarily hand off to at KC? Do you recall what kind of volume they ran on the line to KC?
I have great memories of riding the Colorado Eagle to Pueblo in 1964 on that line across Kansas. At Hoisington, Ks. I recall waking up and seeing two clocks on the depot wall, an hour apart. Looking at my OG, we were due to arrive at 233am and depart at 148am. I was confused at the time and asked my dad the next morning. He explained the concept of time zones. We made pretty good time across Kansas. The 622 miles from KC to Pueblo was covered in 11:20 for an average of just under 55mph.
Obviously in 1964 the track was in good condition and probably received considerable SP/RG/MoPac freight moving east/west.
Was that MoPac line CTC or train orders?Ed
The MP across Kansas to Pueblo was mostly time table & train orders.
I have an old issue (1978ish) of Rail Classics magazine that has an article about this MOP line. Most coverage in it was centered around Hoisington.
Jeff
YoHo1975 Why run across there to go up the inside gateway when you can just run over the Northern Transcon? I could see that move being anticipated in 2007 when there looked to be big constraints across Stevens, stampede and the Gorge. But not right now. With Abo Canyon double tracked, there really isn't a strong need to divert off the Transcon given those mileages. I would have thought they were more different than that.
North of Keddie, I was thinking more of potential traffic from the area Klamath Falls to Portland.
The mileage over the Moffat and WP shows the surprising circuity of those lines. The traditional CNW-UP-SP route to Oakland is 2258 miles, or better than 10% shorter. (The mileage figures are from the table in the TP article, Trains June 2003, p44.)
MP173 Falcon:Great overview of the SP situation in the latter years. They were literally up against the wall at that time with that Central Corridor traffic. Who did they primarily hand off to at KC? Do you recall what kind of volume they ran on the line to KC? I have great memories of riding the Colorado Eagle to Pueblo in 1964 on that line across Kansas. At Hoisington, Ks. I recall waking up and seeing two clocks on the depot wall, an hour apart. Looking at my OG, we were due to arrive at 233am and depart at 148am. I was confused at the time and asked my dad the next morning. He explained the concept of time zones. We made pretty good time across Kansas. The 622 miles from KC to Pueblo was covered in 11:20 for an average of just under 55mph. Obviously in 1964 the track was in good condition and probably received considerable SP/RG/MoPac freight moving east/west. Was that MoPac line CTC or train orders?Ed
I don't have ready access to volume figures for the former MP Kansas line (often referred to as the "Hoisington line"). However, the operating plan included with the UP-SP merger application should show this information, although it may not separate the SP from the UP traffic using the line.
Unquestionably, the Hoisington line was in much better shape in 1964 than it was in the early 1990's. And it undoubtedly handled a lot of DRGW/MP traffic (the Pueblo connection with MP was one of DRGW's most important interchanges, and the potential loss of the friendly MP connection was the reason ICC gave DRGW trackage rights over the Hoisington line in the UP/MP merger). However, I don't think it would have handled a lot of SP/DRGW/MP traffic. In 1964, DRGW's principal western connection would have been WP, not SP. And, in 1964, SP's major connection to the east over the Central Corridor was UP (the historic "Overland Route"), not DRGW.
YoHo1975 One more quick question. What is BNSF moving on it's traffic rights trains on moffat? what are the endpoints in other words? I assume they're moving east or northeast somewhere. If there was a move BNSF wanted to make from that line down to the Transcon, couldn't BNSF try to get rights on TP and move trains to Pueblo and then on to La Junta or even south to Albequerque? I don't pretend to know what kinda of traffic those segments sees and if there's capacity, but that would avoid the joint line. Assuming there were a train that needed to move that way. Would it be faster to move that way out of Oakland vs. the ex-ATSF routing south to Barstow and then over the Transcon?
BNSF's map shows trackage rights into the Bay Area over the former SP Sacramento Line, but not over the former WP.
http://www.bnsf.com/customers/pdf/maps/div_ca.pdf
You could be right as to the Bay Area itself. But I'm pretty sure that BNSF's rights to the east are over the WP Feather River route and not over the SP Donner route.
This is a followup to my earlier posts on the BNSF Central Corridor trackage rights.
EricSP is right - I'm wrong - about BNSF's rights between Ogden and Oakland. I checked the UP-SP merger decisions and some other sources. The primary BNSF trackage rights route is over the former SP Donner Pass line. Interestingly, BNSF also has rights over the Feather River route, but I couldn't readily determine how broad these may be (the trackage rights filings UP and BNSF made in the merger would show this, but they aren't available on-line). As an explanation (or an excuse), while I was pretty familiar with the TP line situation and with the BNSF trackage rights over the former DRGW, I never had any reason to be real familiar with BNSF's trackage rights on UP west of Ogden.
Large portions of the Western Pacific between Sacramento and Oakland are now gone aren't they and the Altamont pass is primarily commuter. So I don't think they have a choice there, but I know for a fact that their routing over the sierras is via Feather River. They had trackage rights from Bieber south already via BN ne GN and the inside Gateway. So the Feather River routing makes more sense.
Aren't the Western Pacific and former SP mains across Nevada operated in a single direction. I think WP is eastbound and SP is westbound an agreement that goes back before the mergers? I thought I remember reading that somewhere.
I have no doubt BNSF sees no value in a movement via TP and Pueblo today. Only that such a movement is possible and perhaps at this point is the only viable through move on TP.
And I guess then that BNSF is running oakland to Denver (or probably LA to Denver via those Moffat trackage rights, but probably not beyond that. I'd assume any move to a point further east would be better off either Transcon or moving Inside Gateway to the Gorge and then east.
YoHo1975 Aren't the Western Pacific and former SP mains across Nevada operated in a single direction. I think WP is eastbound and SP is westbound an agreement that goes back before the mergers? I thought I remember reading that somewhere.
The west junction is at Weso (SP mp 420.9/WP mp 535.8), and the east junction is at Alazon (WP mp 713.6/SP mp 603.6).
Johnny
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.