BNSF vs. The Pacific N.W., Yet Another Round?

[tormadel]

Yes connecting with MRL would be the best idea taking for granted you could make a friendly connection with them. It would save alot of money. MRL would prolly say a few prayers of thanks being saved from isolation. But if you think BN would put up a fight just to maintain they're monopoly <and of course they would> it would probably double trying to keep MRL in it's pocket.

Of course the only way this would happen is if you got the Dakota's and Montana (the populace and the state governments) on you're side as well as the feds. They would be twisting BNSF"s arm untill it breaks.

[samfp1943]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Paul,

Why do you think eminent domain could not be utilized in a revival of the PCE (or a close approximation of an alternative)?

This was exactly my thought, eminent domain would be a tool used to reclaim ROW for reconstruction of the line.
What about some combination of the MRL plus DM&E, a pairing that would create a number of service options to the operators?
What about an electric railway operation, PRB coal for power?
As to the finances, I am sure there would be cost overruns, but to an organization that is already geared to fight issues thrown up to impede their PRB line, and already veted in a long political and economic battle, they would seem to have the knowledge to go forward to the Pacific coast. And success would help to increase access to needed investment funds.
Sam

[Anonymous]

Paul,

Why do you think eminent domain could not be utilized in a revival of the PCE (or a close approximation of an alternative)?

[solzrules]

QUOTE: Originally posted by bobwilcox

QUOTE: Originally posted by solzrules

I don't know. I am still skeptical. The DME proposed the PRB project in 98 (?) I think, and it hasn't even turned over any soil yet because of all these d****** tree-lovin hippies. If anything, they should embrace the railroad because it reduces the amount of traffic on freeways and diesel fuel emissions to the atmosphere. That may be thinking a bit big for them though. I think it is safe to say that the battle the DME would face trying to build a new PCE would be a billion times worse than the 8 year court battle they are just finishing up. And that was with 90 percent of the affected communities supporting it.

Yes, but think of all the lawyers we would keep off the unemployment line!

Yeah, that's very true. Very true. I am hoping that maybe they can waste their time trying to sue McDonald's and stuff like that instead of going after pirvate industry like the DME.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

QUOTE: Originally posted by solzrules

I don't know. I am still skeptical. The DME proposed the PRB project in 98 (?) I think, and it hasn't even turned over any soil yet because of all these d****** tree-lovin hippies. If anything, they should embrace the railroad because it reduces the amount of traffic on freeways and diesel fuel emissions to the atmosphere. That may be thinking a bit big for them though. I think it is safe to say that the battle the DME would face trying to build a new PCE would be a billion times worse than the 8 year court battle they are just finishing up. And that was with 90 percent of the affected communities supporting it.

What is holding up DM&E is money.

There trying to get Federal Dollars to do this project I'm surprise the Government haesn't sprung up considering problems UP/BNSF are having.

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by solzrules

I don't know. I am still skeptical. The DME proposed the PRB project in 98 (?) I think, and it hasn't even turned over any soil yet because of all these d****** tree-lovin hippies. If anything, they should embrace the railroad because it reduces the amount of traffic on freeways and diesel fuel emissions to the atmosphere. That may be thinking a bit big for them though. I think it is safe to say that the battle the DME would face trying to build a new PCE would be a billion times worse than the 8 year court battle they are just finishing up. And that was with 90 percent of the affected communities supporting it.

What is holding up DM&E is money.

[bobwilcox]

QUOTE: Originally posted by solzrules

I don't know. I am still skeptical. The DME proposed the PRB project in 98 (?) I think, and it hasn't even turned over any soil yet because of all these d****** tree-lovin hippies. If anything, they should embrace the railroad because it reduces the amount of traffic on freeways and diesel fuel emissions to the atmosphere. That may be thinking a bit big for them though. I think it is safe to say that the battle the DME would face trying to build a new PCE would be a billion times worse than the 8 year court battle they are just finishing up. And that was with 90 percent of the affected communities supporting it.

Yes, but think of all the lawyers we would keep off the unemployment line!

[solzrules]

I don't know. I am still skeptical. The DME proposed the PRB project in 98 (?) I think, and it hasn't even turned over any soil yet because of all these d****** tree-lovin hippies. If anything, they should embrace the railroad because it reduces the amount of traffic on freeways and diesel fuel emissions to the atmosphere. That may be thinking a bit big for them though. I think it is safe to say that the battle the DME would face trying to build a new PCE would be a billion times worse than the 8 year court battle they are just finishing up. And that was with 90 percent of the affected communities supporting it.

[samfp1943]

Well, Folks:
There's your answers. We will just empower the DM&E, once they get to the PRB to keep looking West. After all, a railroad that just completed a brand New line from the MIssissippi River to Wyoming, should not be scared of the hurddles to build [or recreate a new "MILW' PCE from Wyoming to the PNW. The ROW apparently exists in more places, than it does not. The environmental hoops should be a cake walk to an outfit that built new line through the Bad Lands in South Dakota [ Federal Parks lands and all that, not to mention in, through, or around Rochester,Mn]. Even the price tag would not be so great to the Company that just spent 1.5 to ? Billions to haul coal Eastward.
Yes, I think that is the answer for a competiter for the BNSF and their cavalier treatment of the Farmers and ranchers in Montana and any place else their "Atilla the Hun" public relations efforts have failed to win friends and helped to create enemies.
Sam

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

Much of the land may still be in place, but the parts that have been sold off will cost dearly and a new railroad expecting to reinstate the Pacific Coast Extension should expect to be gouged badly. In today's political climate, eminent domain is not an option.

Infrastructure won't be cheap, either. Bridges have to be inspected and probably rebuilt or replaced. There is only one rail rolling mill left in the United States, so a project of this scope would drive up the price of rail, unless FM is amenable to imports.

Also consider that Environmental Impact Statements will need to be prepared, reviewed, revised and possibly (probably?) rejected. Don't forget the NIMBY factor, either. This is an awfully large expense so that Montana wheat farmers can get a better single car rate.

[tormadel]

DM&E's extension costs so much because it's all brand new. And they also intend to use part of that money to further upgrade 600 miles of they're existing road (they upping it to class 3 or 4 track?). The $1.5 billion to rebuild the PCE is estimated from Terry, MT west and cost savings is realized on not having to survey new routes and alot of grading, tunneling, doing cuts etc etc.

[Anonymous]

Interasting that the Land Part of the Milwaukee Road is still in operations, I feel that if the PCE was kept open it would enhance competetion, give shippers more options etc. At one time there was talk about a Japansee Company taking the MILW over.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by samfp1943

QUOTE: Originally posted by tormadel

QUOTE: Originally posted by solzrules

After reading all of this, I just can't help but wonder what would happen if the Milwaukee would have survived? Perhaps Olglivie was wrong about the Pacific Coast Extension? HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM.

He always was. The loss of the PCE was more about politics and back room back stabbing then the truth about weather or not it was profitable for Milwaukee.

[?]How much of the MILW PCE still exists? is the ROW able to be rebuilt? As upset as this thread has seemed to show about the feelings of the populace in the PNW at the BNSF, they might be mad enough to intertain something like that. What would it take 5-6 million a mile to reconstruct it?
Sam

My engineering consultant associates did a replacement cost analysis of the Milwaukee Road PCE in 1979 and estimated then that it would cost $500 million to replace. In today's dollars that would be $1,415,859,827. That's $1.5 Billion.

It would have taken a piddling $51 million to fully restore the exsting line to Class IV operation in 1978.

However, things have built up over the decades, in key instances property value increases have exceeded the rate of inflation in the PNW, and rail infrastructure needs are higher than they were for a Class IV installation then.

Best regards, Michael Sol

Hey, $1.5 billion is at least a start. What I want to know is how much of the original (and mostly intact) ROW is in "easily transferable" ownership, i.e. owned by public entities, or corporation's and individuals that would favor a new railroad; how much of the ROW is owned by those who would be hostile to a new railroad development; and how much of the ROW is simply "gone" e.g. built over, bulldozed flat, etc.?

I believe most of the original ROW in Washington State is owned by the state, although I have heard that BNSF owns much of it still. It is part of that John Wayne trail, thus relatively undeveloped from it's RR days. There are a few places where bridges would have to be replaced, and I have no idea how urban development around Seattle has possibly eradicated any of the ROW into the key terminal's of Seattle and Tacoma.

In Idaho, most of the ROW west of St. Maries is still in rails, being used by the St. Maries River Railroad. There is some new housing in Plummer that is right on top of the old ROW. East of St. Maries, the ROW is mostly intact to Marble Creek, where the Forest Service highway was built over the ROW to Avery. From Avery to Haugen MT the ROW is mostly intact, parts used as gravel Forest Service roads, and part as the Hiawatha bike trail.

In Montana, the last time a drove through that way there was new housing and a golf course built over the old ROW around St. Regis. It seems there are all sorts of new homes between St. Regis and Missoula that have taken out the ROW. I assume most of the ROW through Missoula is built over. Beyond Missoula I have no idea what kind of shape the old ROW is in.

Part of the option would of course be to incorporate the current MRL tracks with a new PCE which would save alot in new trackage, but if BNSF can pull the rug on MRL in a few more decades, that would put the kibosh on that option.

I still think that the DM&E would have to fit into a new PCE, with a new coal line through SE Montana between Colony WY and Billings (or Forsyth) serving Montana's relatively untapped portion of the PRB as the impetus. With the State of South Dakota's capitulation to BNSF for the Miles City - Aberdeen main, one might have to look south for a less hostile interconnection siutation.

That being said, it is quite remarkable that so much of the original PCE is pre-engineered for a 21st century railroad. Perhaps that's why the replacement cost figure Michael cites is so relatively low compared to the new DM&E PRB extension price tag.

[solzrules]

QUOTE:
[?]How much of the MILW PCE still exists? is the ROW able to be rebuilt? As upset as this thread has seemed to show about the feelings of the populace in the PNW at the BNSF, they might be mad enough to intertain something like that. What would it take 5-6 million a mile to reconstruct it?
Sam

I can't speak for the price, but after following the right of way from Terry, MT through Idaho there isn't much left. Much of the land is in private ownership. There are bridges here and there, some even have remnants of the cantery on them, but I think the biggest obstacle to rebuilding would be trying to buy back the right of way. There are even signals standing yet out by Forsyth in the back forty of Montanna. They make great pictures! Be even greater if the railroad was still running..........

[solzrules]

Something doesn't sound right. If the DME is going to spend 2 billion to build 280 miles of track, how is it that the PCE could be completely rebuilt for only a billion and a half? It is over a thousand miles from Terry, MT (present day end) to the west coast. Not only that, wouldn't the BNSF have to sell it's recently acquired core lines from South Dakota? Otherwise you would have an almost transcontinental railroad that would get it's primary source of traffic from . . . . BNSF. I think it would cost a LOT more than 1.5 billion and a whole lot of politicians would have to be on board with it.
As for the EPA and DNR, I could create a diversion by pouring some mercury on my sidewalk outside. After a decade of litigation they might miss a new 1000 mile railroad......... or not

[tormadel]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by tormadel

Thank you Micheal. It's nice to hear more information for perspective. It does sound like Milw's problems are less intense. But, it also sounds like something is being done about it. Is the Milw still responsible for the cleanup (or CP rather)?

The successor company to the Milwaukee Road (CMStP&P) was not CP, but Chicago Milwaukee Corp. and its partnership successor, Heartland Partners, LLP. At Miles City and at Haugan, it is responsible for the cleanup. At Bozeman the city of Bozeman is the property owner and responsible, and at Deer Lodge, I believe it is CMC.

Indeed, the former Milwaukee Road is attempting to finally liquidate, but can't because of these liabilities.

Best regards, Michael Sol

Ah ok, so Soo line did not buy and merge the CMStP&P as a whole but just the rail "division" of it.

Long ago I had looked into something and found out that the Rock Island had still existed as a corperation, but had changed it's name and done other business (vaccum cleaners if I remember right.)

[tormadel]

Yes as a ray of sunshine to the PCE restoration hopefulls, that number Micheal has given for reconstruction is less then what it's costing DM&E to build they're entirely new powder river extension. Which I believe is something like $1.75 billion or close to that. And of course we would all collectively go into system shock if there were not cost overruns, there almost always are.

[samfp1943]

Michael:
Thanks for the information, as stated the replacement would be a dooable figure, even with ongoing remediation projects. Land values would also be a major problem. but I would suspect that it could be done as a reconstitution project with a reasonable financial cost, even with todays numbers..
Sam

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by tormadel

Thank you Micheal. It's nice to hear more information for perspective. It does sound like Milw's problems are less intense. But, it also sounds like something is being done about it. Is the Milw still responsible for the cleanup (or CP rather)?

The successor company to the Milwaukee Road (CMStP&P) was not CP, but Chicago Milwaukee Corp. and its partnership successor, Heartland Partners, LLP. At Miles City and at Haugan, it is responsible for the cleanup. At Bozeman the city of Bozeman is the property owner and responsible, and at Deer Lodge, I believe it is CMC.

Indeed, the former Milwaukee Road is attempting to finally liquidate, but can't because of these liabilities.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[tormadel]

Thank you Micheal. It's nice to hear more information for perspective. It does sound like Milw's problems are less intense. But, it also sounds like something is being done about it. Is the Milw still responsible for the cleanup (or CP rather)?

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by samfp1943

QUOTE: Originally posted by tormadel

QUOTE: Originally posted by solzrules

After reading all of this, I just can't help but wonder what would happen if the Milwaukee would have survived? Perhaps Olglivie was wrong about the Pacific Coast Extension? HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM.

He always was. The loss of the PCE was more about politics and back room back stabbing then the truth about weather or not it was profitable for Milwaukee.

[?]How much of the MILW PCE still exists? is the ROW able to be rebuilt? As upset as this thread has seemed to show about the feelings of the populace in the PNW at the BNSF, they might be mad enough to intertain something like that. What would it take 5-6 million a mile to reconstruct it?
Sam

My engineering consultant associates did a replacement cost analysis of the Milwaukee Road PCE in 1979 and estimated then that it would cost $500 million to replace. In today's dollars that would be $1,415,859,827. That's $1.5 Billion.

It would have taken a piddling $51 million to fully restore the exsting line to Class IV operation in 1978.

However, things have built up over the decades, in key instances property value increases have exceeded the rate of inflation in the PNW, and rail infrastructure needs are higher than they were for a Class IV installation then.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by tormadel

Well in all fairness would the EPA people also be having kittens with the Milwaukee too? Did they have any environmental problems at they're sites?

Being substantially electrified, there were far fewer problems. The Miles City railyard is the main one. A pile of asbestos in Bozeman near the depot from an insulation project, a leaky surface oil tank at Haugan, and a sump at the Deer Lodge Roundhouse are the remaining EPA superfund projects related to Milwaukee Road in Montana. All are in remediation.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[tormadel]

Well in all fairness would the EPA people also be having kittens with the Milwaukee too? Did they have any environmental problems at they're sites?

[samfp1943]

QUOTE: Originally posted by tormadel

QUOTE: Originally posted by solzrules

After reading all of this, I just can't help but wonder what would happen if the Milwaukee would have survived? Perhaps Olglivie was wrong about the Pacific Coast Extension? HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM.

He always was. The loss of the PCE was more about politics and back room back stabbing then the truth about weather or not it was profitable for Milwaukee.

[?]How much of the MILW PCE still exists? is the ROW able to be rebuilt? As upset as this thread has seemed to show about the feelings of the populace in the PNW at the BNSF, they might be mad enough to intertain something like that. What would it take 5-6 million a mile to reconstruct it?
Sam

[tormadel]

QUOTE: Originally posted by solzrules

After reading all of this, I just can't help but wonder what would happen if the Milwaukee would have survived? Perhaps Olglivie was wrong about the Pacific Coast Extension? HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM.

He always was. The loss of the PCE was more about politics and back room back stabbing then the truth about weather or not it was profitable for Milwaukee.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by solzrules

After reading all of this, I just can't help but wonder what would happen if the Milwaukee would have survived? Perhaps Olglivie was wrong about the Pacific Coast Extension? HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM.

Now more than ever!

[solzrules]

After reading all of this, I just can't help but wonder what would happen if the Milwaukee would have survived? Perhaps Olglivie was wrong about the Pacific Coast Extension? HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM.

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by kenneo

QUOTE: Originally posted by tormadel

MRL doesn't own that like from St Paul anymore, DM&E does. What's odd is even in the depths of the time when railroads were regulated to death this still happened. Of course 40 years ago nobody cared about the enviornment. We all just thought nature would take care of itself.

Is MRL lucky they aren't saddled with the LIvingston cleanup now? Because they own it now do they not?

I'd think the leaking would be horrible from all that fuel costs flushed down the toilet heh.

MRL has a long term lease - it's either 50 or 25 years, I don't remember. BN controls things just as if MRL did not exist. It's called cost shifting

MRL entered into a fifty year lease with BN in October, 1987, and Livingston Rebuild was created in 1988 by Randy Peterson, Denny Washington's brother-in-law. Talgo, Inc. now owns that business after foreclosure of LRC's interests in 2002. BNSF remains the landowner, and responsible for cleanup.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[kenneo]

QUOTE: Originally posted by tormadel

MRL doesn't own that like from St Paul anymore, DM&E does. What's odd is even in the depths of the time when railroads were regulated to death this still happened. Of course 40 years ago nobody cared about the enviornment. We all just thought nature would take care of itself.

Is MRL lucky they aren't saddled with the LIvingston cleanup now? Because they own it now do they not?

I'd think the leaking would be horrible from all that fuel costs flushed down the toilet heh.

MRL has a long term lease - it's either 50 or 25 years, I don't remember. BN controls things just as if MRL did not exist. It's called cost shifting

[tormadel]

MRL doesn't own that line from St Paul anymore, DM&E does. What's odd is even in the depths of the time when railroads were regulated to death this still happened. Of course 40 years ago nobody cared about the enviornment. We all just thought nature would take care of itself.

Is MRL lucky they aren't saddled with the LIvingston cleanup now? Because they own it now do they not?

I'd think the leaking would be horrible from all that fuel costs flushed down the toilet heh.