A point was brought up about the eastern outlet of the line (former MP to Kansas City.) being abandoned. There are still 2 other outlets at Pueblo. There is the former Santa Fe route east to K.C. (BNSF getting rights on former DRGW lines is not unprescedented, as they already have rights on the Moffat route); and there are the BNSF lines to Texas where UP already uses trackage rights for coal trains. A UP coal train from west of Glenwood could use the shorter Tennessee Pass route on it's way to Texas. While the same train over Moffat would face 2% instead of 3% grades, once it got down to Denver it would also face the climb up to the Palmer divide on the busy Joint Line. At any rate the return empty trip would only face 1.4% on the TP route.
Paul_D_North_Jr Good point. DPU practices have mostly developed after Tennessee Pass was taken out of service - and that may be a good example of how innovations in technology can reduce, negate, or overcome a physical condition that would seem to make TP uneconomic otherwise. Yet another good example of why it may have been wiser to just "mothball" it instead of ripping it up - the technology advances may make it usable again. - Paul North.
Good point. DPU practices have mostly developed after Tennessee Pass was taken out of service - and that may be a good example of how innovations in technology can reduce, negate, or overcome a physical condition that would seem to make TP uneconomic otherwise. Yet another good example of why it may have been wiser to just "mothball" it instead of ripping it up - the technology advances may make it usable again.
- Paul North.
The 'physical condition' referred to is the main sticking point of this line. The 3% grade is quite demanding. A DPU setup might help somewhat, but mostly it is simply a matter of grade and the horsepower needed to overcome it. Whether that power is on the point or anywhere else, it is simply that it takes a huge amount of power (fuel, locomotives) to lift the tonnage over the 3% grade (or to hold it back when descending). I remember seeing coal trains on that line that had 18 units (all on line): 6 up front, 6 middle, 6 rear. The Moffat line seems to do ok with "only" 6 units for coal trains.
I ws not thinking of the priority of TOFC trains, only the ability to economicly get the trains over the 3 percent grade. The fact that TOFC's usually are high priority as stated and extra distance would probably eliminate the pass as a viable route.
(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)
See also this Wikipedia entray (usual disclaimers apply):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_Pass_(Colorado)
Three points of note:
See also: http://www.drgw.net/info/TennesseePass
And the overall maps and histories of each route at: http://ghostdepot.com/rg/index2.htm
However, my understanding is that there would be several hundred miles of otherwise unnecessary and unproductive circuitry in using the Tennessee Pass route, in getting to and from it via other active lines. Since intermodal loads are usually valuable and time-sensitive, and hence distance-senstitive as well - and nothing else about the TP route would speed up or economize the trip, it would seem to be a loser on both counts.
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.
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.
http://www.rockandrail.com/
"No soup for you!" - Yev Kassem (from Seinfeld)
Because maybe someday - granted, perhaps 50 years from now, but - it might be either needed or more economical to restore service to run over Tennessee Pass, as opposed to adding another track to a parallel route to the north or south. See the little history of Stampede Pass under BN, and then BNSF; also, the increasing importance of Montana Rail Link's ex-NP/ BN lines.
A couple posters here - esp. Railway Man, also mudchicken, and perhaps some others - have made a convincing case in other threads here a couple years ago that even that will never happen. As I understand it, even if the TP route was workable, there are no direct connections at either end that are better than the existing routes [EDIT], or which would have to go considerably out of their way to tie back into the existing routes - so it wouldn't add any capability.
On the other hand, if something disastrous would ever happen to the Moffatt Tunnel route, then TP might be a good "fallback" route to get back in service in a couple of months, because there sure aren't any others within easy reach. Look at the big landslide in the Siskiyous a couple years ago, the flooding in the MidWest every few years, the Thistle, Utah landslide in the early 1980's, etc. - "Never say never".
I wouldn't advocate using TP's 3% grades for loaded trains, but much like Stampede Pass, it might be usable for empty return moves such as "baretable" intermodals, empty grain and coal trains, etc., which would leave the easier grades of the Moffatt Tunnel route for the loaded direction moves.
Restoring Tennesse Pass to service would be far easier and faster than getting even just the environmental permits to add another track to the Moffatt Tunnel route, through or next to all those high-falutin' Colorado ski areas, what with all the blasting, rock removal, fills, etc. that would be needed.
Finally, any experienced MOW person will tell you that it is far easier to restore a rail line to service when you have even just the skeletal remains of the former track to work with - 2 rails and the occasional good tie, even with washouts, etc. Off-track equipment can't be beat for certain tasks, such as filling washouts and clearing slides - but to bring new CWR, ties, and ballast in to such remote areas, even if only to ultimately rebuild the track 100% - is far easier with the old track as a 'base' than with no track at all.
P.S. - I was under the impression that a couple of short segments of the Tennessee Pass route were kept in operation, at least for a few years if not still running. One was a tourist/ scenic RR operation; the other was a quarry and/ or shortline operation of some kind. - PDN.
I've never been near Tennessee Pass. I've just seen in old back issues little snippets about it. If it costs so much to operate it and they aren't sending trains over it, why not pull up rails?
Lone Geep
\
K. P. Harrier Perhaps six to eight years ago, this poster passed the out-of-service line by I-70, in the Eagle, CO area. At that time, it was absolutely appalling how badly the single-track line had deteriorated, with uneven rails and washed out ballast in spot after spot. But such a sight makes for an incredible nostalgia trip that is not soon forgotten. As far as the tracks over Tennessee Pass proper, I would imagine it has suffered a similar fate.
Perhaps six to eight years ago, this poster passed the out-of-service line by I-70, in the Eagle, CO area.
At that time, it was absolutely appalling how badly the single-track line had deteriorated, with uneven rails and washed out ballast in spot after spot. But such a sight makes for an incredible nostalgia trip that is not soon forgotten.
As far as the tracks over Tennessee Pass proper, I would imagine it has suffered a similar fate.
Sounds like a road trip to me.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- K.P.’s absolute “theorem” from early, early childhood that he has seen over and over and over again: Those that CAUSE a problem in the first place will act the most violently if questioned or exposed.
The line is out of service because of the high cost to operate it due to the steep grades combined with excess capacity in the Central Corridor. The UP has retained ownership and the track is still there, but they are not doing any maintenance on the line.
I'm just wondering what happened to Tennessee Pass. I've read that the line is out of service but the UP is still maintaining it. Why is it not use and why is it still being maintained?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.