Western Railroad Discussion > Solution for Surplus UP Mainlines

Though I doubt this would ever happen, I wanted to start a discussion about UP "surplus" mainlines in the Intermountain West. As many of us know, the UP-SP merger had a lot of duplicate lines in Nevada and Utah. And while Dennis Washington (of MRL fame) was clamoring to get trackage rights in the duplicate territory, UP inked a deal with BNSF for the latter to become the designated "competition" to the UP.
Now here we are more than a dozen years into the merger, and the dust has settled. What is apparent is that UP does have abundance of capacity in the territory, and BNSF has probably what can best be described as a waning interest in providing competition between Denver and Stockton. Unlike the Inside Gateway where BNSF provides vigorous competition to UP's I-5 corridor, the M-DENSTO/M-STODEN seems like a afterthought in BNSF's system.
I think UP should consider converting it's lightly used mainlines into a MRL style regional railroad. A long term lease with haulage rights and even emergency trackage rights. Give the new regional the right to connect with BNSF in lieu of BNSF running it's own train. Lines that I think should be included would be the ex-WP from Binney Jct to SLC with trackage rights to both Roseville and Stockton (The Binney-Keddie section may be sold to the BNSF with trackage rights going to both the new Regional and UP). The ex-DRGW from SLC to Pueblo (and associated branchlines), and trackage rights Dotsero-Denver, and Denver-Pueblo. The Butte, MT to SLC line. And the LA&SL line from Dagget to SLC with trackage rights to West Colton, and the port of LA.
The benefits to UP would be that they still get to use some underutilized mainlines, while not having to pay to maintain them. The regional railroad would find new traffic and UP would benefit from additional traffic. Online customers would be better served and complain less.
Just a Thought.

Ted Curphey
Ontario, OR

I agree about the MRL - they should have been sold not only the former WP Line in its entirety but the whole DRGW as well, with UP retaining trackage rights. BNSF's current 3 trackage rights trains a week (each way) west of Provo just doesn't cut it as far as competition goes! That being said, I have to wonder if the Utah Railway might be interested in coming in to run trains on the former WP Route from SLC to Binney Jct? Or possibly give the MRL another shot, if they are still interested. As far as the LA&SL, I don't think you'll get UP to give it up...too much still unresolved as far as what might happen with that line in the future.

I'll bet you UP is happy as things sit right now, essentially no competition.

Itwould be foolish for any railroad to take over these "surplus" lines. . ..there is plenty of capacity on the UP to begin with; and despite BNSF's good efforts--and they HAVE tried very hard to do so--there's only so much business you can shake from these lines to begin with.

Consider the two largest traffic sources on the former Rio Grande between SLC and Ogden--and extend that to Roseville, as well: the Utah and Colorado coal mines, and Geneva Steel. BNSF made good inroads into the Geneva business, but the collapse of the US basic steel industry took care of that possibility. And under the UP-SP merger agreement, very little of the coal business was available for BNSF's marketing. . .thus the BNSF-Utah marketing partnership.

There is barely enough overhead BNSF traffic between the Midwest and Central California to fill a half-dozen trains a week.

Ted, where do you expect the traffic to make a "regional" Utah/Nevada railroad to come from? Simple: there isn't much--certainly not enough to make it profitable.

Take away the Colorado and Utah coal, and kiss the former Rio Grande goodbye. As it is, there's really no need for two main tracks over Soldier Summit, and I'd guess much of what's there will stay in place because Utah Railway owns one of the two mainlines. There certainly isn't the traffic to justify it (and I'm sure the UTah DOT smacks its lips at the thought of usurping part of the right-of-way to widen the narrow US 6/50 through Price River and the Western slope of Soldier Summit). And without the coal, is there really a need for the railroad between Price and Grand Junction? Or, for that matter, Denver?

The UP mainline across Wyoming can handle all the traffic it currently does plus another couple Rio GRande's worth of business. The former WP from SLC to Wells is likely redundant as well--let's face it, the 6000' sidings out there are a huge strain on capacity. West of the end of the WP-SP paired trackage SP used to have a nice double-tracked railroad nearly to Reno, but Ed Moyers took care of that.

I really can't see where any more traffic would come from for the this line, but if Ted can enlighten me as to how this excess capacity could be filled up, I'd love to hear it. The glut of traffic across these lines that extended into the late 1990's has largely dried up. The historical traffic sources as well are gone: perishables, auto parts and finished automobiles, appliances, coal and steel and steel-making traffic--all that has vanished.

One last, overriding thought: What benefit would any of this gain to Union Pacific? Save the cost of maintenance? HA! Compared to having an interloper in its backyard angling for traffic (that isn't there)? The BNSF has a large marketing department and the strength and support of the merger agreement with the STB to back it up, and it's done diddly with growing the traffic. . .and UP has proven to be a continuing pain in the *ss to deal with. I would guess any upstart would prove far, far less successful.

Ted, see comments below:

funnelfan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lines that I think should
> be included would be the ex-WP from Binney Jct to
> SLC with trackage rights to both Roseville and
> Stockton (The Binney-Keddie section may be sold to
> the BNSF with trackage rights going to both the
> new Regional and UP).

So, UP will voluntarily give up paired directional running across northern Nevada with no trackage rights to now have to pay for trackage rights on a line that could see decreased maintenance and slower speeds......yeah keep dreaming as that would never happen Ted. In addition, at the east end of the ex SP...the causeway has room for only 1 track with no sidings for 25-30 miles. The best I can figure, beyond the current 20 to 25 trains per day, the causeway can only handle around 35 to 40 trains per day MAX, which if traffic eventually returns to pre-2009 levels, at around 30 trains per day...doesn't give UP much if any growth potential if they also had to move traffic over to the Lakeside sub. In other words...not going to happen either. The only section I see this as being feasible is from Winnemucca to Binney Jct as Donner tunnel improvements may make this feasible.


> The ex-DRGW from SLC to
> Pueblo (and associated branchlines), and trackage
> rights Dotsero-Denver, and Denver-Pueblo.

I see your point on TN pass but the remaining DRGW...I don't think so. Do you believe UP is going to hand over the North Fork coal mines and UT coal mines to another carrier???? Those are big money makers...so I don't think so either.

> The
> Butte, MT to SLC line.

So you expect UP to simply hand over it's direct route off the OSL in eastern Idaho to Salt Lake City. Yah, I don't think so Ted.


> And the LA&SL line from
> Dagget to SLC with trackage rights to West Colton,
> and the port of LA.

Are you kidding Ted, the UP is going to give up it's only direct route to Vegas and Salt Lake City from southern CA or the Midwest to another carrier...especially when maintenance and track speeds could decrease??? In addition, you forget the Golden State route is still completely single tracked minus the Kansas sub between KC and Lawrence, so once you move the remaining Midwest-Southern CA trains off the LA&SL route to the Golden State route, leaves UP with little to no room for growth minus having to spend billions in double tracking the Golden State route.

> The benefits to UP would be that they still get to
> use some underutilized mainlines, while not having
> to pay to maintain them. The regional railroad
> would find new traffic and UP would benefit from
> additional traffic. Online customers would be
> better served and complain less.
> Just a Thought.

Outside of TP and the ex WP west of Winnemucca...I don't see UP selling any of the central corridor routes unless forced by some future merger condition.

Aaron

"(and I'm sure the UTah DOT smacks its lips at the thought of usurping part of the right-of-way to widen the narrow US 6/50 through Price River and the Western slope of Soldier Summit)"

US 6&50 are on the opposite side of the river from the UP (ex DRGW) line everywhere in the Price River Cyn. Hard to see how single tracking the line would be of benefit to UDOT here.

Dick
Roosevelt, Utah

Well, A regional railroad could haul Garbage from various points in California to a pit somewhere in Nevada or Utah. In fact I'm surprised that did not catch on in California like did in the Pacific Northwest. A regional railroad would more willing to run a short distance rock train from a Southern Nevada into California.A Regional railroad could also pick up a lot of short distance intermodal traffic that UP wouldn't bother with. Imagine what could be done just in a LA - Las Vegas or a Oakland - Reno lane. I could see a Regional railroad making a daily intermodal train out of LA with blocks for Las Vegas, SLC and Denver (kinda like the old WC Green Bay Chicago trains).
Granted, the regional is not going to survive solely on local traffic. Something would have to be worked out providing for some overhead traffic. And while I do agree BNSF tried very hard to make a go of it in the Denver - Stockton lane, their interest in seems to be on the wane as there are more urgent matters elsewhere on the network. Where UP and BNSF have far-flung networks with more serious problems elsewhere, a regional railroad could focus on the matters at hand and turn up all kinds of traffic that UP and BNSF would pass over.

Ted Curphey
Ontario, OR

funnelfan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well, A regional railroad could haul Garbage from
> various points in California to a pit somewhere in
> Nevada or Utah. In fact I'm surprised that did not
> catch on in California like did in the Pacific
> Northwest. A regional railroad would more willing
> to run a short distance rock train from a Southern
> Nevada into California.

UP does haul garbage in Utah, and there is the increase in the uranium waste as well.

A Regional railroad could
> also pick up a lot of short distance intermodal
> traffic that UP wouldn't bother with. Imagine what
> could be done just in a LA - Las Vegas or a
> Oakland - Reno lane. I could see a Regional
> railroad making a daily intermodal train out of LA
> with blocks for Las Vegas, SLC and Denver (kinda
> like the old WC Green Bay Chicago trains).

LA-Denver, SLC, and Vegas isn't truck competitive time wise, and
would be low margin anyway.

> Granted, the regional is not going to survive
> solely on local traffic. Something would have to
> be worked out providing for some overhead traffic.
> And while I do agree BNSF tried very hard to make
> a go of it in the Denver - Stockton lane, their
> interest in seems to be on the wane as there are
> more urgent matters elsewhere on the network.

What would "something" be? The Bay area is not as big a source of traffic as LA or Seattle/Tacoma. As for BNSF, while they have operated some overhead traffic on the Central Corridor, much like the San Francisco Chief having a faster schedule than the California Zephyr, it has always been faster to run traffic to the Bay area through Barstow instead of on the trackage rights. So, the only BNSF traffic that moves Denver-Stockton is traffic that originates and terminates on line, and that is all traffic that BNSF has solicited and built up.

> Where UP and BNSF have far-flung networks with
> more serious problems elsewhere, a regional
> railroad could focus on the matters at hand and
> turn up all kinds of traffic that UP and BNSF
> would pass over.

In order for that to happen, they would have to have a railroad. While it may be somewhat accurate to say that UP and BNSF are protecting turf on this corridor, they own the railroad and trackage rights on same, and like any business, want to limit competition. So why would they want to allow a regional railroad to be created? While several posters here on TO carry on about the supposed redundancy of the WP west of Winnemucca, let's not forget that the ruling grade on the WP is 1%, vs. 2.2% on Donner. Even with tunnel enlargement for expedited stacks, UP is not going to power up grain trains to make Donner if they have FRC. That would be profit going right out the exhaust stack. In addition, having a parallel mainline is still an asset when one considers natural events like the Oregon mudslide, Mullan Tunnel cavein, Thistle lake, etc.

No, I don't think Omaha applies the word "surplus" to the Central Corridor. 35 miles of new rail, concrete ties, and five feet of ballast on the Moffat Sub is not a "surplus" line. Surplus was the Modoc, and surplus has turned into abandoned rail, or failing shortlines.

barriers to entry is what the 6 of north america have

<I really can't see where any more traffic would come from for the this line, but if Ted can enlighten me as to how this excess capacity could be filled up, I'd love to hear it. The glut of traffic across these lines that extended into the late 1990's has largely dried up. The historical traffic sources as well are gone: perishables, auto parts and finished automobiles, appliances, coal and steel and steel-making traffic--all that has vanished.>

Well, the perishables are still being grown in California, so that traffic still exists. But can the railroads hustle and deliver?
Finished autos will return when the economy heats up. Cars are wearing out every day = pent up demand.
We still build lots of appliances--but can the railroads hustle and deliver?
Coil steel still travels the rails, right to Pittsburgh, CA, right on the BNSF.

Granted, times are different, but there's still lots of freight out there to capture. Just in the last few years, wine distributors in California have put alot of business back on the rails--one distributor alone now is shipping almost 4x what they used to ship by rail--we're talking about 100 cars per week!

The railroads just have to be consistent, hustle the freight, and be pleasant (and easy) to deal with. It's not rocket science. My old trucking companies had it figured out--we had so much freight we could barely keep up...

One other consideration that may or may not be true, is the cost to BNSF to operate on the UP. When I was at BNSF I asked about the dwindling business between Denver and California and was told by people, that should be in the know, that a DENSTO was little more than a break even train after BNSF paid UP for the trackage use. DENPVO was a money maker because of the shorter distance. Running on the transcon to Stockton, even with the added congestion, provided a profit to BNSF that wound up going to UP as a trackage rights train.

Serious consideration was given back in the 90s to hauling LA's garbage out to the old Eagle Mountain iron mine. Don't remember any details, but it never happened.

Winston Hill

Coach Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Granted, times are different, but there's still
> lots of freight out there to capture. Just in the
> last few years, wine distributors in California
> have put alot of business back on the rails--one
> distributor alone now is shipping almost 4x what
> they used to ship by rail--we're talking about 100
> cars per week!
>
> The railroads just have to be consistent, hustle
> the freight, and be pleasant (and easy) to deal
> with. It's not rocket science. My old trucking
> companies had it figured out--we had so much
> freight we could barely keep up...

Your general thesis is absolutely right, in my opinion. But wine already accounts for a big percentage of domestic intermodal out of N. California, and I am going to quibble with some of your specifics below:

> >
> Well, the perishables are still being grown in
> California, so that traffic still exists. But can
> the railroads hustle and deliver?

Yes, but the infrastructure to load perishables into railcars in the Salinas Valley is gone. Much of the infrastructure in the Central Valley is gone too. So it will take more than just "hustle and deliver" to get the perishables traffic back, it will take investments and all the prerequisite legal and environmental approvals. Also, the basic knowledge about how to load reefer freight cars is pretty much gone from the agricultural community. A third party (like the guys at Delano) will have to do it, or else it will take a very major marketing/training campaign.

> Finished autos will return when the economy heats
> up. Cars are wearing out every day = pent up
> demand.

Yes, but cars are not going to be assembled in California any more so the parts traffic will not be there anymore.

> We still build lots of appliances--but can the
> railroads hustle and deliver?

No, most of the appliances are built in Asia now. The railroads already get the import appliance traffic to Salt Lake City and beyond.

> Coil steel still travels the rails, right to
> Pittsburgh, CA, right on the BNSF.
>

True. But it's spelled Pittsburg.

Coal to N. Cal. has really dropped off.

In general, non-intermodal traffic to/from N. Cal. is a shadow of its former itself, and intermodal is down because imports are down. But, as you say, there are always great opportunities out there for a road that can run a good service and be there for the customer.

Best regards,

Rob L.