Bruce Butler Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> David
>
> Your comments about MRL interest in the P&L do
> make a lot of sense and are likely part of the
> reason that MRL lost interest in the P&L. Maybe
> they got nowhere with BN regarding trackage rights
> from Yardley to Marshall.
>
> I was part of a group that actually studied the
> package BNSF sent to perspective buyers of the
> CW/P&L lines when they wanted to sell them in the
> fall of 1996. We studied both lines, talked to
> shippers, walked much of the lines where they were
> not accessible by road, etc, etc. With the belief
> that re-opening the lower end of the P&L was very
> important, we met with Port of Lewiston officials
> to discuss the feasibility of a P&L grain shuttle
> to barge loading at the Port.
>
> At that meeting, they (Port officials) made it
> VERY CLEAR that they were NOT interested in seeing
> the railroad repaired or in a grain shuttle
> operation from the P&L!>
> Perhaps at one point they might have wanted
> "wanted the line left intact" as you put it, but
> that was not the impression I got from the meeting
> we had with them that fall of 1996.
>
> We actually did submit a bid on BNSF's CW/P&L
> lines package but WATCO was the successful
> bidder.
>
> All of that said, as you likely know the P&L
> suffered some flash flood damage between Troy and
> Kendrick, as well as in the Juliaetta area about
> 1984. BN then closed the line beyond Moscow and
> the flood damage was never repaired. At some
> point after BNSF announced the pending sale of the
> CW/P&L lines. somebody (IDOT ???) sponsored a
> fly-over of the line between Troy and Kendrick.
> They observed, from the air, what they assumed was
> a washed-out bridge! This likely also contributed
> to MRL's loss of interest in the line.
>
> To the best of my knowledge, nobody from this
> august fly-over group bothered to check out this
> "missing bridge" by actually walking to the wash
> out on the ground! Please forgive my sarcasm!
>
> Our group did walk the line from Troy to Kendrick.
> We found a section of track about 6 miles below
> Troy where the West Fork of Little Bear creek had
> washed out it's east bank and undercut perhaps 100
> yards of the railroad. Ties and rails were
> hanging in the air. No bridge was involved. The
> fix would have involved placement of rip-rap and
> getting the creek back into it's natural channel.
> All the bridges between Troy and Kendrick were in
> good shape. They are still in use today as parts
> of the "Latah Trail". You can check this out with
> google maps.
>
> And the rest, as they say, is history. Not the way
> we would have liked to seen it turn out!

I spoke with David Doeringsfield (sp?) face to face on the subject and he was adamant that the Port had wanted the line repaired and operational, but also that the Port didn't have the funds nor the authorization for such repairs, nor would the State of Idaho allow the Port taxing jurisdiction over anything outside of Nez Perce County. I don't doubt your story, but it certainly makes no sense on the face of it that the Port wouldn't want that line kept intact assuming someone else paid for the rehab. Just a hunch, but did that meeting include reps from IDOT and/or Ron whats-his-face (the erstwhile Idaho Rail Office guy at DOT) lurking in the meeting room? That might explain a lot.

Whatever the case, it is clear the Port of Lewiston has lost a lot of the Palouse grain shipping business to WATCO and the Port of Walla Walla per their grain shuttle arrangement. If the Lewiston group was shortsighted on the importance of the P&L line, that's on them no doubt. My interpretive guess is that both the State of Idaho and the feds/STB laid out a scenario in which the Port and it's Nez Perce County taxing district would have to foot the bill for any rehab, and that may be the reason they soured on your group's proposal(s).