 |
Re: rationale ?
Author: Jason Kuehn
Date: 03-22-2007 - 01:35
I think there are two answers to this:
It was like the suggestion of rebuilding the Modoc so UP would have it as a detour route. It is just not feasible to maintain lines for the less than a once a year need to detour trains over the line.
The second answer is, the real bottlenecks of the I-5 corridor are not the Valley lines, they are Tehachapi and the Siskiyous from Dunsmuir to Klamath Falls, and then the shared trackage with BNSF from Portland to Seattle. You can add all the capacity you want in the Valley, and if you cannot get a train north or south of there, it doesn't really help much. The I-5 corridor is probably not much of a priority for UP. It is a short haul truck (I-5) dominated corridor. The capital goes to the long haul east-west corridors (for UP, that is the Sunset Route, and the mainline out of the PRB).
I have a question for you: If congestion in the Valley is such a concern, why don't Arnold and the State of California buy the line from the CFNR, rehabilitate it and shift the Coast Starlates to that route? They could make trackage rights available to the UP if UP was interested. Then UP would not have to put up all the capital to rehabilitate and maintain the line. Because of the capacity issues north of Dunsmuir, it would be interesting to see if running Amtrak on that route actually improved it's on-time performance. That would tell you whether or not added capacity on the West Valley would help UP at all. But it's a pretty expensive test! As an added bonus UP would not have interference down the valley from Passenger trains that want to go 10-20 miles per hour faster than the freight trains, which really consumes track capacity. Maybe the State could upgrade the line to high speed standards (90+ mph) and the Starlate could make up some time. This would place the burden on the taxpayers of California, not the shareholders of the UP. But if it makes so much economic sense, perhaps the state could even make money on the line, because it would be so attractive to UP to route trains on the newly upgraded track.
Jason Kuehn
It was like the suggestion of rebuilding the Modoc so UP would have it as a detour route. It is just not feasible to maintain lines for the less than a once a year need to detour trains over the line.
The second answer is, the real bottlenecks of the I-5 corridor are not the Valley lines, they are Tehachapi and the Siskiyous from Dunsmuir to Klamath Falls, and then the shared trackage with BNSF from Portland to Seattle. You can add all the capacity you want in the Valley, and if you cannot get a train north or south of there, it doesn't really help much. The I-5 corridor is probably not much of a priority for UP. It is a short haul truck (I-5) dominated corridor. The capital goes to the long haul east-west corridors (for UP, that is the Sunset Route, and the mainline out of the PRB).
I have a question for you: If congestion in the Valley is such a concern, why don't Arnold and the State of California buy the line from the CFNR, rehabilitate it and shift the Coast Starlates to that route? They could make trackage rights available to the UP if UP was interested. Then UP would not have to put up all the capital to rehabilitate and maintain the line. Because of the capacity issues north of Dunsmuir, it would be interesting to see if running Amtrak on that route actually improved it's on-time performance. That would tell you whether or not added capacity on the West Valley would help UP at all. But it's a pretty expensive test! As an added bonus UP would not have interference down the valley from Passenger trains that want to go 10-20 miles per hour faster than the freight trains, which really consumes track capacity. Maybe the State could upgrade the line to high speed standards (90+ mph) and the Starlate could make up some time. This would place the burden on the taxpayers of California, not the shareholders of the UP. But if it makes so much economic sense, perhaps the state could even make money on the line, because it would be so attractive to UP to route trains on the newly upgraded track.
Jason Kuehn
| Subject | Written By | Date/Time (PST) |
|---|---|---|
 rationale ?
|
rotolock | 03-21-2007 - 08:23 |
|
Re: rationale ?
|
Sam Reeves | 03-21-2007 - 09:39 |
|
Re: rationale ?
|
David Epling | 03-21-2007 - 10:04 |
|
Re: rationale ?
|
Mike Swanson | 03-21-2007 - 10:33 |
|
Re: rationale ?
|
J | 03-21-2007 - 10:44 |
|
Re: rationale ?
|
Mike Swanson | 03-21-2007 - 10:58 |
|
Re: rationale ?
|
Josiah | 03-21-2007 - 13:52 |
|
Re: rationale ?
|
David Epling | 03-21-2007 - 14:03 |
|
Re: rationale ?
|
Coleman Randall | 03-21-2007 - 15:41 |
|
Re: rationale ?
|
Earl Pitts | 03-21-2007 - 17:52 |
|
Re: rationale ?
|
Coleman Randall | 03-21-2007 - 20:24 |
|
Re: rationale ?
|
Rich Hunn | 03-21-2007 - 21:17 |
|
Re: rationale ?
|
Earl Pitts | 03-21-2007 - 22:57 |
|
Re: rationale ?
|
Mike Swanson | 03-21-2007 - 23:17 |
|
Re: rationale ?
|
Gary Waddell | 03-23-2007 - 13:59 |
|
Re: rationale ? |
Jason Kuehn | 03-22-2007 - 01:35 |
|
Re: rationale ?
|
J | 03-22-2007 - 04:45 |
|
Re: rationale ?
|
Rich Hunn | 03-22-2007 - 09:15 |
|
Re: rationale ? CFNR?
|
David Epling | 03-22-2007 - 22:08 |
|
Re: rationale ? CFNR?
|
Rich Hunn | 03-23-2007 - 09:30 |