 |
Re: UP and ACE inspection train?
Author: Dr Zarkoff
Date: 07-03-2015 - 20:20
To clarify and shed more light on a few things:
>Made sense for UP to keep the better line back when things were being rationalized.
The SP, not the UP, abandoned the line in mid-1984/1985. At the time, the UP had only one line through the area: the former WP.
>But if they and/or ACE take it back, is there any reason why some cuts couldn't be enlarged and fills redone to straighten things out enough for, say, 40-50 mph operation?
Well, both ACE and the UP have very large capacity ATM machines.
>UP would have to put money into it anyway to bring the track and signals up to reasonable standards for a running track.
Either one would tear out the PLA installation and put in their own.
>In any case, it's pretty clear that if UP recovers the line it will no longer be available for an apparently at-will museum tenant on the county's property.
Correct. If I were PLA, I wouldn't like the liability implications of operating on the same track with UP trains. The UP is self-insured, and there's no way PLA can afford that type nor level of liability insurance [coverage]. I believe the county would lose it's custodianship of the R/W. To re-iterate: ever since the SP abandoned the line, the R/W hasn't been the County's "property". It's the right of way bank, with the county as custodian, and that custodian has granted PLA use for it's railroad on a piece of it.
>That's still, of course, an "if" not a "when," and a lot depends on the money supply and politics.
Famous quote from a W DC lobbyist: "Never say never". I for one hope it doesn't come to pass, but you never know . . .
>Made sense for UP to keep the better line back when things were being rationalized.
The SP, not the UP, abandoned the line in mid-1984/1985. At the time, the UP had only one line through the area: the former WP.
>But if they and/or ACE take it back, is there any reason why some cuts couldn't be enlarged and fills redone to straighten things out enough for, say, 40-50 mph operation?
Well, both ACE and the UP have very large capacity ATM machines.
>UP would have to put money into it anyway to bring the track and signals up to reasonable standards for a running track.
Either one would tear out the PLA installation and put in their own.
>In any case, it's pretty clear that if UP recovers the line it will no longer be available for an apparently at-will museum tenant on the county's property.
Correct. If I were PLA, I wouldn't like the liability implications of operating on the same track with UP trains. The UP is self-insured, and there's no way PLA can afford that type nor level of liability insurance [coverage]. I believe the county would lose it's custodianship of the R/W. To re-iterate: ever since the SP abandoned the line, the R/W hasn't been the County's "property". It's the right of way bank, with the county as custodian, and that custodian has granted PLA use for it's railroad on a piece of it.
>That's still, of course, an "if" not a "when," and a lot depends on the money supply and politics.
Famous quote from a W DC lobbyist: "Never say never". I for one hope it doesn't come to pass, but you never know . . .
