Was just checking out the CDOT website and I see that they have apparently completed the first phase in the seemingly never-ending “study” of relocating a vast majority of through freight traffic off of the current “Joint Line” mainline onto new trackage further east. Is this thing REALLY for real or is it just more hob-nobbing that neither BNSF or UP really want anything to do with? And WHY is it so hard for these brain wizards to see that the REAL problem lies in not having the 2nd track between Palmer Lake and Kelker/Crews?
There are only two questions and both are quite simple, regardless of the specifics of a project: who is going to pay for it, and what is the competition for those funds? Even in a 100% public funding scheme, a private business has to ask if the public is best served by putting the public funds into a specific project instead of other possible projects, especially if the private business’s market share, revenue stream, profitability, or long-term prospects are affected. Obviously a private business negatively affected by a project – either because it’s being forced to pay for a benefit it can’t realize, or because it benefits a competitor with public funds, probably will not like a project. But even a business positively affected has to consider if its acceptance of the project will set a precedent that can harm it elsewhere.
Federal and state funding capacity is vastly less than the demand, and if money is to be spent, there will be many interests in fierce competition. A railroad has to ask, "If the government is going to spend a billion dollars on a freight rail project, is this really the one we want the most?
Pawing through the report, I’m not seeing an apportionment scheme, but perhaps I didn’t read closely enough yet. If you see one, please post the page number(s). That “detail” might be nothing but devils.
Sorry to speak in parables, but this road map will take you to the bottom line that enables you to decide for yourself whether any project plan has any significant chance of turning into reality. Ask yourself not only who pays, but who benefits, and by how much, and you can quickly add up who will be for it and who will be against it, and how hard they will fight. When considering railroad strategy, think from the 100,000-foot level, where you can see the whole North American rail map. Nothing that plays a part in 1,000-mile rail moves is local only in its importance.
RWM
There are a couple of things working here. Someone in Denver wants the Joint Line for commuters but know it won’t work with the coal drags between Denver and Colorado Springs. Its not the single track south of Palmer Lake thats so much the problem, but the climb from Denver to Palmer Lake. If you can run fast you can almost keep up with them as its about a 2000 foot climb from Denver. South of the Springs the coal loads are running at a pretty good clip (60mph I think).
Of course BNSF is in favor if someone else pays for it. Not sure how UP gets to Texas south of Pueblo so they may be in favor or not. If I were the RRs and I wanted this to happen I would get the commuter group to buy the Joint Line and get the approval to build the new line and keep some type of trackage rights on the old line (for insurance). It seems to me that if govt pays for the new cut off there will be some strings attached.
The best bet for the commuter guys would be to extend the light rail line next to I-25 and if BNSF wants to build a cut off to use their own money.
I know this is all guessing but the way Washington is throwing out a billion here and a billion there whats one more?
John
" . . . pretty soon you’re talking about some real money !" [swg]
- Everett Dirksen, U.S. Senator from . . . Illinois.
John, step back and look at a higher level. Two railroads are almost never evenly matched in any market. They have different route lengths, different mountains to cross en route, different labor agreements, and so forth. Their costs are different but if the endpoints are the same for the same traffic moving for the same customers, why would a given railroad want to participate in a project that might shorten the mileage, reduce the grade, or reduce the costs for another railroad?
When there is more than one Class 1 involved, and a lucrative business involved, the competition for market share and profitability will blow al
I have some knowledge of the geography and background of the possible two relocation possibilities. The idea has been around since 1980 in Santa Fe management.
However, I have no current info about coal traffic contracts which UP and BNSF have. Also I do not know about trackage rights contracts (or other operating rights) which exist between UP and BNSF. Perhaps my friend MC, who resides in CO, can elaborate about them and how they may fit into the potential for this project(s).
UP orginates coal trains from WY and from the Craig-Phillipsburg area of CO. Some of it goes east on the old KP line from Denver through Limon, Oakley, KS and on toward Kansas City. I have seen UP coal trains on the BNSF Las Animas Jct.-Amarillo line but I do not know if this is a detour move or if ‘Rights’ permit these moves.
So depending upon the UP contracts for coal delivery and their ‘rights’, If UP’s WY coal is destined toward KC then the Wiggins cutoff to connect with the KP line could benefit them; and if they have 'rights and coal contracts to TX then they may benefit from the Aroya to Las Animas Jct. portion of the proposal. These concepts, while appearing to ‘make sense’ to we analyzers, still must pass the business plan test as described above in this thread.
BNSF has most of the coal train traffic which seems to be the concern of the Denver and CO constituents. This traffic to and from WY passes through Denver to Pueblo. The loads then turn east from Pueblo and south at Las Animas Jct to Amarillo. The empties go from Amarillo to Trinidad, to Pueblo and on to Denver on the Joint Line. In addition to the joint line which begins at south Denver both the southward loads and the northward empties must must pass through the City of Denver. Then it would appear that the Brush to Las Animas Jct. line would have some advantage to BNSF, but would certainly be of great benefit to t