Western Railroad Discussion > State backs bonds for Donner upgrade

Donner Summit improvements get transportation staff recommendation

By Sacramento Business Journal

Fourteen Northern California freight projects are recommended to receive $825 million in funding by the California Transportation Commission staff, including $43 million for track and tunnel improvements at Donner Summit in Placer County.

Union Pacific Railroad is seeking the funds to pay for half of the $86.8 million project that would raise tunnel clearances and construct a second main track over Donner Summit, making it easier to move goods across the Sierra.

Union Pacific (NYSE: UNP) has pledged to provide up to half of the cost.

Proposition 1B, approved by voters in 2006, includes $2 billion for infrastructure improvements along trade corridors with a high volume of freight movement.

The funding recommendations will be presented to the CTC at its meeting in Sacramento on Wednesday. The commission will adopt a final program at its April 9-10 meeting, also in Sacramento.

The Union Pacific project, in rural Placer County, would mainly consist of 9.3 miles of additional track and higher, better tunnel clearances. The upgrades would allow Union Pacific to move containers of goods from the Port of Oakland between Sacramento and Reno over a more efficient route than the current route through Feather River Canyon.

The route would be 75 miles shorter and reduce the run time to ship freight by about three hours, or 4 percent per run, according to Union Pacific.

Currently, container trains run at about 5,000 feet in length. The upgrades would enable trains to operate at 8,000 feet in length.

Let's see, didn't SP have the whole route double-tracked for a long time? Oh, well, you Californians have deep pockets. Do you think the CZ will make better time?

BLS

poffcapt Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Let's see, didn't SP have the whole route
> double-tracked for a long time? Oh, well, you
> Californians have deep pockets. Do you think the
> CZ will make better time?

That particular angle to the issue was discussed quite thoroughly a month ago:

http://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?1,1601461,1601461#msg-1601461

poffcapt Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Let's see, didn't SP have the whole route
> double-tracked for a long time? Oh, well, you
> Californians have deep pockets. Do you think the
> CZ will make better time?


Let's see, wasn't it "the late, great SP" that ripped up the double track to relay on the Sunset Route 'cause it couldn't pony up the capital to buy new steel?

Hi Everybody--
After reading these various posts including the UPGRADE thread in February, I have a couple of questions:

1. "Zephyrus" had stated that one scenario might be that after Donner is re-double-tracked, that the UP would not need the FRC route and 'might' sell the Stockton to Keddie portion outright to the BNSF...

2. Then Mr. "Z" goes on to say that in THAT case, the UPRR "might" donate the Keddie to Reno Junction segment to the "FRRS" as a tax donation...

Question: Was all of the track ripped up on the old WP Loyalton Branch ??

Question: What would happen to ex-WP mainline EAST of Reno Junction if donation to FRRS took place ???

Question: Is all of the rail removed already on Reno Branch ???

Question: Would it be possible for FRRS to obtain more trackage (somehow) EAST of Reno Junction if the original "donation" ever takes place in the future ???

Thank you for any answers you may have...

KRK

KeyRouteKen Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hi Everybody--
> After reading these various posts including the
> UPGRADE thread in February, I have a couple of
> questions:


Planning for the future, why would a company get rid of an important route? Doesn't seem likely.

Moving the intermodal traffic over to Donner will only serve to push more manifest traffic over to the Canyon. Reinstalling the short stretch of doubletrack between Switch 9 and Shed 10 isn't going to magically allow the route to handle twice as many trains.

Ken,

There's no rail removed on the Reno branch other than a portion
of the wye at the junction. The Loyalton is still in place and
waiting for some historical designation problems to be solved.
The portion east still serves Army Herlong and U S Gypsum. As
to FRRS, be nice ride from Portola to Martin but who knows.

> The Union Pacific project, in rural Placer County,
> would mainly consist of 9.3 miles of additional
> track and higher, better tunnel clearances.

Let's see, Switch 9 to Shed 10 is 7.0 miles. West Norden to Shed 47 is 5.4 miles on Two Track, was further on One Track. Putting all the double track back should entail perhaps 13 miles. Putting only Switch 9 to Shed 10 back would entail 7 miles. The write-up says 9.3 miles of additional track.

Anyone know exactly what this proposal entails???

Regards,

Rob L.

MarinCommuter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Proposition 1B, approved by voters in 2006,
> includes $2 billion for infrastructure
> improvements

And what is a bond worth from a state that is currently $15 billion in debt?
—Mac

What, my day to the optimist? Sorry.

rob_l Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > The Union Pacific project, in rural Placer
> County,
> > would mainly consist of 9.3 miles of additional
> > track and higher, better tunnel clearances.
>
> Let's see, Switch 9 to Shed 10 is 7.0 miles. West
> Norden to Shed 47 is 5.4 miles on Two Track, was
> further on One Track. Putting all the double track
> back should entail perhaps 13 miles. Putting only
> Switch 9 to Shed 10 back would entail 7 miles. The
> write-up says 9.3 miles of additional track.
>
> Anyone know exactly what this proposal entails???

YEAH - LOTS OF MONEY$$$$$$$$$$
>
> Regards,
>
> Rob L.

KeyRouteKen Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hi Everybody--
> After reading these various posts including the
> UPGRADE thread in February, I have a couple of
> questions:
>
> 1. "Zephyrus" had stated that one scenario might
> be that after Donner is re-double-tracked, that
> the UP would not need the FRC route and 'might'
> sell the Stockton to Keddie portion outright to
> the BNSF...
>
> 2. Then Mr. "Z" goes on to say that in THAT
> case, the UPRR "might" donate the Keddie to Reno
> Junction segment to the "FRRS" as a tax
> donation...

Ah, as nice as that would be, I was speaking more "tongue firmly planted in cheek". I highly doubt that the UP would give up the FRC. And they would probably not want to share trackage with visitor laden museum trains.

Can't say I blame them, really.

Z

I have heard that Donner Pass and the FRC are both vulnerable to weather, but to different types of weather. Heavy snow will close off Donner but rarely FRC, heavy rain does the opposite. So the UP, if it is wise, will hold onto both routes to come closer to 100% availablity of at least one.
But if a hedge fund took over they would scrap one of them in a heartbeat and give the cash to the shareholders for a one-time dividend.

rob_l Wrote:
----------------------------------------------------
>
> Let's see, Switch 9 to Shed 10 is 7.0 miles. West
> Norden to Shed 47 is 5.4 miles on Two Track, was
> further on One Track. Putting all the double track
> back should entail perhaps 13 miles. Putting only
> Switch 9 to Shed 10 back would entail 7 miles. The
> write-up says 9.3 miles of additional track.
>

I don't have my Altamont Press timetable available but I would guess it's 2.3 miles from Shed 47 to East Norden along the #2 track via the Big Hole? I seem to recall reading the proposed plan (at the time I read it back in the late 90's) was to lay a 2nd track in the Big Hole along the #2 main (neccessating blasting large quantities of rock) vs. going through the original #1 alignment which has had constant (drainage) problems during the winter in the tunnels.

billio Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> poffcapt Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Let's see, didn't SP have the whole route
> > double-tracked for a long time? Oh, well, you
> > Californians have deep pockets. Do you think
> the
> > CZ will make better time?
>
>
> Let's see, wasn't it "the late, great SP" that
> ripped up the double track to relay on the Sunset
> Route 'cause it couldn't pony up the capital to
> buy new steel?


Yeah, thanks to Moyers!

Judging by the number of rail lines to the west coast, if I was in charge of military logistics, closing the feather would have to be reviewed.

Awful lot of money to be spent to save three hours per train, even with the increased length.

The UP would also incur a considerable investment in NV for the Sparks yard and single track to Winnemucca to handle the increase.

To be able to see the internal cost analysis and rate of return on this investment would be fascinating.

I assume California will get 1 or more passenger train slots out of this deal, right?

Ted, in Washington