https://impossiblerailroad.wordpress.com/2018/02/24/today-from-the-san-diego-union/
Baja Rail’s plan would seem to depend on no major disruption to NAFTA, which has not been settled yet.
Chuck Geiger (2-25):
Thanks for the info and link.
It was mentioned in the “Sunset Route Two-Tracking Updates” thread with a credit to you.
K.P.
Realistically, NAFTA isn’t going to go away, despite what Cadet Bone Spurs may say. At any rate, this route has enough legal issues involved to keep a lot of attorneys on retainer for a very long time.
[(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D]
I don’t think NAFTA will go away, but it will be under verbal threat as long as Pres. Trump is in office. Its hard to get financing for a project that has uncertainties.
Here’s the link to the San Diego Union-Tribune article:
http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/transportation/sd-me-desert-line-20171221-story.html
One sentence that stands out is “His team isn’t stacked with railroad experts, though. It’s composed mostly of former owners and operators of Tijuana factories known as maquiladoras.” HUGE RED FLAG!!
Another one is “Officials with the company have said they’re now ready to spend upwards of another $60 million to repair the desert line and resume freight operations.” Looks like a very low-ball estimate to me.
$60 million won’t go very far to repair that line, based on the photos I’ve seen. I would opine that at least a 10-figure amount would be required.
IF- - -IF the railway did get rebuilt, a great source of income would be the tourist dollar, railroad buffs would kill to ride this railroaders nightmare, just a thought, BTW this whole railroad from inception to present is quite a dream and accomplishment in itself.
While I too run to skepticism about such projects, this one could work.
Is $60 million rehab cost reasonable? Yes, maybe, assuming that only the 44 miles now out of service is to be rehabbed.
Start with the ties. The line has been out of service for decades. Most track men would tell you average tie life is about 30 years, but that is in wetter cliamates and wet brings rot, and under traffic. There has been no traffic, hence no traffic related wear. Sight unseen I would figure 1,000 ties per mile at $200 each installed or $200,000 per mile plus $100,000 per mile for 2" lift and surfacing including an occassional grade crossing. Say 300K on 44 miles, $13,200,000.
What about rail? SP was famous for having heavy rail on its branch lines. It could be that immediate rail needs are quite modest. If it is the original rail from 1915 +/- would need to be relaid BUT that can be done under traffic so could open and operate at 10 MPH almost regardless of rail, given good tie support.
The big issue, and unknown to us, is the trestles. Again you are generaly looking at 30-50 year life for each piece, though caps go faster than other members. Again they have sat unmaintained for decades. Here is where the big money is, and is work that must be done to run that first train. Is the rock competent enough to support frame construction as opposed to driven piles? From the one photo it looks like it might, so say yes. Modern construction would be concrete or steel bases, steel I beam posts, probably with precast concrete deck with trough for ballast. Long ago I was told by someone who would know to figure $1,000 per running foot for modest trestle of say 20 feet hight. Lets double that and say $2,000 per foot. We still have in excess of $45,000,000 to spend which will buy us about 22,500 lineal feet of trestle. At $3,000 per foot we can do 15,000 feet of modern trestle. That is almost three miles, which seems sufficient, again without benefit of track chart and on the ground inspection, both o
I dunno, but the potential for freight loadings seems a bit questionable, at best. Consider that now one can reach Niland from Tijuana in about 300 rail miles using BNSF/UP routings, whereas using the implausible railroad gets you there in about 150 not-so-good miles.
I suppose the question is how much freight traffic is already using the route that exists already? More importantly, how much freight is going in that direction by truck at this point? Since I don’t get out on the “back country” sections of I-8 a lot these days, I can’t really make a guess but I can observe that there is not a huge amount of truck traffic on that route when I do hit that road, certainly not by comparison to the I-15 corridor going north.
Just my [2c] worth of questions that seem relevant.
According to Hanft’s book, th eruling grade eastbound is 1.47%. Westbound is 2.2% but in two segments, first a stretch about 10 miles between Coyote Wells and Dos Cabezas, and the second being 7-8 miles between Jacumba and Hipass. FWIW, Coyote Wells to Hipass is about 35 miles.
P.S. having “fun” posting due to the slow script…
First, based on BNSF practice on 2.2% grades of Stevens Pass power of 3 + 1 4400 HP 6 axle units is sufficient for 250 boxes. That eliminates need to adjust power at Plaster City, saving the cost of a yard. That gives 9:30 as expected time on duty between Yuma and Tecate, about 175 miles, at speeds not exceeding 25 MPH west of Niland and 10 MPH in the canyon.
As to CAPEX, flying it on google earth I got about 5,500 feet of trestle, which at $3,000 per foot average is $16.5 million.
The line also has 17 tunnels that almost certainly require the floor be lowered for double stack equipment. I do not have total length, so will guess an average of 1,000 feet for total of 17,000 feet of tunnel work. I do not know what this work would cost but at $1,000 per track foot it is $17,000,000.
In addition there is a 20 degree curve in bypass track around collapsed tunnel 7, and if I read correctly at least one 15 degree curve on a trestle. I doubt you can get a full size stack train around 20 degree curve, and perhaps not 15 degree. I would be looking to daylight tunnel 7 and return to original alignment. This will be expensive as evidenced by the fact that SP chose to bypass it. Another $2-3 million, perhaps more. I know 10 degree curves are OK, again based on Stevens Pass.
The route also needs sidings spaced no more than an hour’s running time apart. The three between Niland and Plaster City, including Plaster City would be relatively easy to locate on flat ground. They need to be at least 8,000 feet long, 10,000 would be better. Lets make the happy assumption that UP would put these in. That leaves four more that need to be added. Figure $4,000,000 each, or $16,000,000.
The items above have used up virtually all of the $60 million rehab budget, so it looks ballpark correct to me.
I did not find an obvious place for an intermodal terminal in the Tecate area. That is a problem.
Finally, I am certain the line is largely original rail. Most likely weight is 90
Your analysis looks reasonable.
There’s plenty of space to put a siding in the Jacumba area, Hipass isn’t out of the question and there’s room east of Campo as well. I did ride the line between Campo and Jacumba back in 1999, the track wasn’t looking great at that time, but wasn’t looking awful either. The cuts are pretty tight, so some work would have to be done to widen them.
The 15 and 20 degree curves are in Carrizo Gorge, which is part of the Anza-Borrego Desert State Park, so any work to ease the curves would be a royal pain to get the permits to do the work. On the other hand, the Gorge would make for a spectacular train trip.
Traffic and terminals.
After 20 degree curves, which I am squeamish about, the big issue is traffic.
Is 1,000 boxes per day each way reasonable? The only ‘sort of real data’ I could find was a San Diego Union Tribune item May 5, 2017 that said 6,000 trucks per day each way at the I 5 crossing. Would 1/6 of that volume be going to destinations that UP and eastern connections could serve? My sense is yes.
If that is true, then there is a lot of dray cost money on the table, which is what the proponents are looking to capture. I suspect they could impose a surcharge of $100-$150 per load and save themselves at least that much in drayage, after draying to Tecate. Happy, Happy, Happy!
UP would like it for two reasons. One, it precludes BNSF from the traffic. Two, it would effectively add capacity to their LA basin terminals.
The problem is space for, and cost of, a terminal. To get an idea of the scale of the terminal, UP’s ICTF does 600,000 lifts per year. Tecate would be a bit more. UP spent $400 million recently at Santa Teresa. Yes, that includes many millions for the fueling facility, but it is twenty times more than what the proponents are budgeting. Fuel may or may not be required at Tecate. Working tracks look to be 8,000 feet and the IM yard is 1500 feet wide, including container parking. Memphis BN is also 8,000 feet tracks which look like 6 working plus two working stubs. Do not see a separate departure yard which makes sense. Memphis is 800 feet wide excluding parking.
Tecate would probably be 8,000 feet working track length, so new ground would be 2 miles long and say 1/4 mile wide which is 1/2 square mile or 320 acres. It is a good thing there are big dray savings on the table because this yard will be far more expensive than the proponents admit to. Not impossible, but in the 100-200 million dollar range. They need to figure the terminal out first.
The state park will be a big pain in the posterior. Delay, delay, delay.
Mac</
Erikem,
As to sidings they need to be located about an hour’s travel time apart, so existing sidings may or may not be usefull as a starting point.
Can you do a ‘timetable’
Station
miles (run time)
Station
miles (run time)
Station
Say Plaster City to Tecate. I have SP ETT beyond. For consistency with SP ETT start at Plaster City and work west.
Mac
As far as UP territory tracks, Plaster City to El Centro (El Centro Sub) and to Niland (Calexico Sub) to meet up with the Sunset Route (Yuma Sub), I would venture to say UP would play it safe, and request the new trains be fleeted. That would avoid new sidings having to be laid, at least on UP territory.
I don’t know what the specifications are, but the sharp more than 90 degrees curve that would be used in Niland …
May 4, 2014
… is comparable to the east end of West Colton Yard in the Colton (CA) area that I believe has a speed limit of 15 M.P.H., that curve RISES to go over the I-10 Freeway.
KP,
Fleeting is unlikely to work. It implies more control than I think UP has.
Two sidings, say $8,000,000 total is pocket change in comparison to the cost of terminal capacity in the LA basin. Given the advantages UP stands to gain, they can pay for it and I am a stockholder!
The top of the wye switch at Niland needs an electric motor ad DS control. I have no idea why a wye switch design would bother the UP. It may not be standard, but as long as they can get the frog why bother?
The wye at El Centro is very tight but could be eased if necessary without impacting structures.
Mac
I believe the proposal was…
-
Attempt renegotiation.
-
Slap on Tarifs.
-
Abrogate sections or all of the treaty.
So it was progressive escalation and it was never to walk away or dispose of any treaty. We have to reduce or trade deficits we have a half a trillion trade defiicit with China, we are at step 2 with China now. Not sure where we are with Mexico and NAFTA. However, Tariffs usually kill a trade agreement fast if the partners cannot agree to terms. Mexico has threatened to replace the United States with China if we apply tariffs…not a very realistic threat but one that China could subsidize for a while. Really the original promise behind NAFTA was to lift Mexico economically to a level where it would fix both our immigration issue on our Southern border as well as reduce the trade imbalance. What is really sad is Costa Rica did better than Mexico over the last 20 years and it is not even a member to the NAFTA treaty. So the concluision is Mexico is not really serious about fixing it’s internal problems and now it’s time for Mexico to face the music. I am tired of subsidizing that country not sure about the rest of you.
I believe this rail route has potential because LA to San Diego and LA itself are becomming choke points. So if they can get the frieght over the mountains to AZ relatively fast, then I think they have a viable route. Going to cost a lot of money to fix that route though and I don’t see any deep pockets yet. One of the biggest issues the route has is part of it is in Mexico and part the United States. A U.S.
[quote user=“CMStPnP”]
CSSHEGEWISCH
Realistically, NAFTA isn’t going to go away, despite what Cadet Bone Spurs may say. At any rate, this route has enough legal issues involved to keep a lot of attorneys on retainer for a very long time.
I believe the proposal was…
-
Attempt renegotiation.
-
Slap on Tarifs.
-
Abrogate sections or all of the treaty.
So it was progressive escalation and it was never to walk away or dispose of any treaty. We have to reduce or trade deficits we have a half a trillion trade defiicit with China, we are at step 2 with China now. Not sure where we are with Mexico and NAFTA. However, Tariffs usually kill a trade agreement fast if the partners cannot agree to terms. Mexico has threatened to replace the United States with China if we apply tariffs…not a very realistic threat but one that China could subsidize for a while. Really the original promise behind NAFTA was to lift Mexico economically to a level where it would fix both our immigration issue on our Southern border as well as reduce the trade imbalance. What is really sad is Costa Rica did better than Mexico over the last 20 years and it is not even a member to the NAFTA treaty. So the concluision is Mexico is not really serious about fixing it’s internal problems and now it’s time for Mexico to face the music. I am tired of subsidizing that country not sure about the rest of you.
I believe this rail route has potential because LA to San Diego and LA itself are becomming choke points. So if they can get the frieght over the mountains to AZ relatively fast, then I think they have a viable route. Going to cost a lot of money to fix that route though and I don’