"STB completes final environmental impact statement for Tongue River RailroadOctober 16, 2006
WASHINGTON - The Surface Transportation Board announced Friday that it has issued the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed construction of the Tongue River Railroad, Inc.
The Tongue River is the seemingly on-again, off-again coal-hauling railroad proposed for the rugged rangeland along the Montana-Wyoming border. First proposed in 1981, as originally conceived it would have headed south from Miles City to Ashland, Mont., 89 miles, to serve a single coal mine. In 1990-91 TRR went back to the drawing board and returned with a new proposal: building 134 miles of track from Miles City all the way to the Decker/Spring Creek mine area of Montana, just north of the Wyoming border. The additional track could serve up to four coal mines plus potential coal reserves. It would also serve as a shortcut for BNSF, offering that railroad a shorter route for coal trains heading east. The TRR route would give BNSF a straight shot north to Miles City, shaving 130 to 160 miles off shipments to utilities in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and other states.
Similar to the Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern and its plans to expand into Wyoming’s Powder River Basin, Tongue River has gone through an extensive regulatory permitting process; been forced to overcome opposition from a coalition of environmentalists, American Indians, rail labor, and land owners; prepared detailed environmental impact statements; and faced legal challenges all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. All of this has delayed the project for years.
The company received approval from the STB in 1996 to build its expanded line, i
Shesh, guys you never heard of the Tongue River Railroad? Basically it would as it says connect the BNSF Northern Coal Corridor to the Central Coal Corridor, This would cut off significant mileage for coal trains from the two Decker Mines, and the Spring Creek Mine, to powerplants in Minnesota and MERC in Superior, WI. It would eliminate one crew change and save alot of fuel. That is why the unions are fighting it. The big problem is that the economics are marginal unless some new coal mines are developed along the route, and it’s a question of which comes first. The additional coal mines or the route. That is why BNSF has been a little aloof about the project. They would like to see it built, but the don’t want to risk the money.
You’re young (and don’t have relatives living in Miles City). [:D]
First time I heard about it was in 1976 when visiting relatives in Miles City - one uncle mentioned that grading had started on the “North-South” RR back in the 20’s or 30’s, but didn’t progress past grading a few miles. Some of the grade was visible from the air in '76. I also mentioned this to a BN exec riding on the train when I was returning from Miles City to San Diego, he was of the opinion that the line needed to be built (big step between thinking something is needed and actually getting funds/approval).
The best line would be near the Tongue river - the river itself meanders way too much for a traditional line on a riverbank. Not all that bad immediately south of Miles City, but looks pretty bad when getting close to Ashland.
My understanding of this lines history is that it was originally a MILW operation and they elected to bail out back in the 1920’s. Then when Powder River coal became a viable thing, they tried to re-start the process and the bankruptcy and abandonment got in the way, so it went to a “new” private promoter.
I really wonder about this line. Its only real value is as a shortcut for the BN, and a more viable route for this exists further East along the Powder River itself to where the original NP main crosses the Powder where it empties into the Yellowstone at Terry. Would be shorter and easier to build and probably would eliminate still another crew district…
The original mine to be served by the TPR is not too far from the BN’s Colestrip mine and it would be a lot cheaper to build in from there than Miles City. The only loser would be the Decker mines, which are served now by the BN, but they would still get a better deal than now from a Powder River alignment.
Any new mines which may open along the route would have to deal with Montana’s taxes, which are apparently much higher than Wyoming’s. Perhaps arbfbe could answer these questions.
My understanding of this lines history is that it was originally a MILW operation and they elected to bail out back in the 1920’s. Then when Powder River coal became a viable thing, they tried to re-start the process and the bankruptcy and abandonment got in the way, so it went to a “new” private promoter.
I really wonder about this line. Its only real value is as a shortcut for the BN, and a more viable route for this exists further East along the Powder River itself to where the original NP main crosses the Powder where it empties into the Yellowstone at Terry. Would be shorter and easier to build and probably would eliminate still another crew district…
The original mine to be served by the TPR is not too far from the BN’s Colestrip mine and it would be a lot cheaper to build in from there than Miles City. The only loser would be the Decker mines, which are served now by the BN, but they would still get a better deal than now from a Powder River alig
The real key to whether this proposed line becomes anything more than an interesting proposal is finding somebody willing to lend the money to build this line. That being said, I would suggest that this proposal will remain just that, an interesting addition to the long list of lines proposed but never built.
I have not seen any maps for a route on the Tongue River RR, is there an available map on the net? Will this thing intersect with the DM&E? Will it be good or bad[long range] for theDM&E? The article seemed not to make a point of financing, is it already set up?
I recall reading about this recently, probably in an old issue of Trains Magazine. I’ll see if I can find it again. It’s not close to DM&E at all. The only railroad outlet would be BNSF. 'Makes you wonder why BNSF doesn’t build or finance it?[:-,]
Thanks, the map was very interesting, but I guess you have to understand the terraine and the area to have a grasp of what is going on in Montana. It seems to open up more questions than it answers.
First, Why is the BNSF there? It would seem that they have 'rationalized away their through lines, toMRL and others.
Second, Are there developed mines in the area, that they[TRR] wants to operate in? Are mines being preped to open along its’ route.
Third, If there is going to be a high level of mining, why doesn’t BNSF build the line? The BNSF will get all the traffic flow anyway?
I thought the map would make some sense of the situation in Montana, but it seems that MRL has the best route and makes the most sense as to what is happening in Montana. Sure would appreciate some help trying to sort it out.
Do you see the short BNSF branchline running through Decker, MT? The three largest coal mines in the State of Montana are located at the north end of that branchline. Somewhere between 80 and 90 percent of the coal from those three mines goes to powerplants in Minnesota or Wisconsin, or the MERC facility in Superior, WI. All of those trains first have to go south to Sheridan, WY , most then turn west to Moran Jct. before finally heading east to Minnesota or Wisconsin. The Tongue River Railroad would avoid the need to head west before heading east for these trains.
There are three proposed mines along the route, one of which is on an Indian Reservation. There are three operating mines at the south end.
The Tongue River Railroad would not earn a high enough return on investment for BNSF, unless the proposed mines are built. Whether the three proposed is unknown hence BNSF is unwilling to gamble.
The Tongue River Railroad would have no effect on the MRL, it
Thanks for the clarification. As Professor Harold Hill said,“…You have to know the territory…” I am beginning to understand a little better, “the what and the why” of a rationale for building a new railroad seemingly, ‘out in the middle of nowhere’.
The abandonment of the Milwaukee Road’s properties in Montana is probably still effecting railroading in that state, even years after the fact. Had they known then, what we know now, would they have been able to hold on, and participate in the growth of Powder River traffic, as well as the import traffic from the NW Ports? Would abandonment have been the route they chose?
Most of the coal out of Montana goes east to markets in the upper midwest. That is the way the Tongue River railroad would also funnel traffic. Any coal to move west towards the MRL would use the current routing via Sheridan and Laurel.
Here are two items I wish poster on this forum would get straight. 1) MRL will NEVER, as in NEVER build any tracks parallel to the BNSF for any purpose. If the MRL needs to service an industry they will obtain trackage rights from the BNSF as they are now doing out of Mossmain (Laurel) and Spokane. 2) the MILW mainlines will NEVER be restored. You can bet the farm on both of these facts. Take them out of your list of options in Montana.
There are proven reserves along the route of the TRRR some of which are being considered for development towards conversion to liquid fuels. The ability to haul additional coal to coal fired generation stations might improve the finances for the projects.
If the line is built expect the financers to lease or sell it to the BNSF. MRL might conceivably sign on as an operator of the line but MRL’s cost structure may not be so much different than the BNSF. Since BNSF already hauls all the Decker coal any which would shift to the TRRR would reduce tonnage on the Sheridan line which is far from reaching capacity. The push is from plant operators who seek to reduce costs by reducing distances. Montana’s coal severence tax is higher than Wyoming’s taxes but where there is a distance advantage to Montana things get more competitive. Any distance advantage the TRRR would give to southern PRB mines would be matched by the shorter distance from the Montana Decker mines.
The Wyoming - Montana North South Line was planned to run from Miles City, Montana with MILW and NP connections through the Midwest/Kaycee, WY area and on to a UP connection near Green River or Rock Springs. Originally conceived as a pipeline it was upgraded to railroad status later on.&nb
