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?
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.
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.
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?
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 t
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.
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.
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.
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.
- Paul North.
See also this Wikipedia entray (usual disclaimers apply):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_Pass_(Colorado)
Three points of note:
- East side grade is said to be only 1.4%; the 3% grade is on the west side.
- May be latent BNSF trackage rights over it, though that is not documented or referenced. Also, that Colorado has said that it would buy the line (‘Devil’s advocate’ queries: For how much and with what money ???)
- The author also commented on using DPUs for loaded UP coal trains.
See also: http://www.drgw.net/info/TennesseePass
And the overall maps and histories of each route at: http://ghostdepot.com/rg/index2.htm [tup]
- Paul North.
(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)
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.
Paul (et.al)
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.
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.
Three weeks ago my wife and I drove over US 50 from Salida to Canon City, and I noticed the track and some signals were still in place. As we approached Parkdale, I believe, we noticed a whole string of hopper cars on the track. Part of the Tennessee Pass line between Canon City and Parkdale is used by the Royal Gorge Railroad which runs excursion trains through the Royal Gorge. I wonder who owns the hopper cars we saw near Parkdale?
This was the shortline referred to in a previous post. See
I am very familiar with the Tennessee Pass line and was involved in the discontinuance of service over it. A few points in response to the various posts on this thread, which I’ve made before in other threads:
(1) UP sold the segment between Canon City and Parkdale to Royal Gorge Express (RGX) in the late 1990’s, after the UP/SP merger. RGX is a partnership comprised of the Canon City & Royal Gorge (the tourist road) and Rock & Rail (a short line railroad affiliated with the gravel quarry at Parkdale). UP retained overhead trackage rights over the RGX line segment, in the event it ever restored through operations over the TP line. UP also retained the signal sytem and dispatching authority over the line for the same reason. Within the last 5 years, UP has transferred both the signal system and dispatching control to RGX, which suggests that UP no longer regards restoration of through service as a likely possibility.
(2) BNSF has no trackage rights (latent on otherwise) on the TP route. They also pretty obviously have no interest in ever using the TP line for anything. They used to have trackage rights over the segment between Pueblo and Canon City (which they obtained when ATSF abandoned its own line between these points). They sold these rights to Rock & Rail at least 10 years ago. They wouldn’t have done this had they had any interest in themselves using the TP line.
(3) As noted in other posts in this thread, a major impediment to a restoration of service over the TP line is the lack of an outlet east of Pueblo. Historically, the TP line interchanged most of its traffic with the MP at Pueblo. As a result of the UP-MP merger, DRGW gained trackage rights over the MP line east of Pueblo. However, as a result of the UP-SP merger and later trackage changes, the MP line is no longer available as a through route. Routing TP traffic through Denver makes no sense. This makes any
While I don’t dispute Falcon48’s historical facts, I don’t think you can always use what happened even 5 years ago to predict what will happen 5 years from now in today’s evolving rail world. Someone described the Rio Grande mainline as two coal roads joined in the middle. If you want to make dire predictions, you might guess that after TP goes, that UP will stop maintaining the Green River bridge and sever the mainline, or at least insist that Amtrak maintain the middle part of the route. Colorado spent significant public monies building the Moffat tunnel to ensure a viable route, and has a legitimate interest in it’s survival. It’s too bad that the Rio Grande was not partly spun off something like BN>MRL. While both those routes thrive, the Rio Grande has the look of something on borrowed time. I would think it would be in a larger railroads best interest to have a weak competitor, than to be a monopoly in a region and a target for re-regulation.