# BNSF Stuns RTD



## jis (Jun 5, 2012)

Here is one for y'all to chew on..... $535 million up front and then yearly fees for the Denver to Longmont section of BNSF for use by RTD!

See http://www.dailycamera.com/business/ci_20782125/rtd-stunned-by-bnsfs-charge-use-northwest-rail

I wonder what BNSF would ask if it owned the Sunset Line. Would it be less than $1.something billion?

What is your guess on what it will ask for a second train on the EB route?


----------



## stntylr (Jun 5, 2012)

It makes UP's demand of 750 million for the daily SL seem like a real good bargain.


----------



## Anderson (Jun 5, 2012)

So...$9.7 million per slot for the startup. On the one hand, yeah, it's steep...but it seems expensive-but-not-insane to me considering the freight situation these days. 55 slots per day is hourly service in each direction and then some (though how they came to an odd number of slots is beyond me). As much as I hate to concede a point here, this is _massively_ disruptive.

While I'm thinking about it, does anybody know what the VRE put up for access to CSX and NS tracks back in the early 90s? I know that the Quantico Bridge is somehow tied into that project (I think CSX let them in first with the understanding that the bridge would go in eventually).

Also, is there serious talk of a second train on the Builder's route (other than CHI-MSP)?


----------



## jis (Jun 5, 2012)

Anderson said:


> Also, is there serious talk of a second train on the Builder's route (other than CHI-MSP)?


Not that I am aware of. I just threw that in as a what if. What has been studied is restoring North Coast Hiawatha, but that is mostly Montana Rail Link in Montana. It is additional train on BNSF from Minneapolis to the MRL boundary point, and possibly an additional train in Washington.

BTW, how many freights a day do you suppose runs between Denver and Longmont? My impression is it is less than half a dozen, and maybe even less.


----------



## Shawn Ryu (Jun 5, 2012)

It seems to me the only way to make passenger rails work in US is to nationalize tracks.


----------



## The Davy Crockett (Jun 5, 2012)

From the article:



> When RTD put FasTracks to voters in 2004, it estimated it would cost $66 million to acquire BNSF's rights of way on the corridor from Denver's Union Station downtown to Longmont, RTD documents from October 2003 show.
> Like so much in the FasTracks scenario, it was a guess based on deals brokered by other transit projects across the country.
> 
> RTD officials rejected as too expensive a plan to buy the track outright, as they would do with other companies on other sections of the FasTracks footprint.
> ...


What is the the old adage? Don't ASSUME anything, because if you do you'll make an 'ASS' out of 'U' and 'ME!' :blush:



> A bit of BNSF's price comes from federal requirements for wider rights of way and improvedUintersection signals. Then there's a costly Global Positioning System that dispatchers need to safely track all the vehicles. Also, BNSF insisted RTD run three-car trains rather than two as crossing signals might not work properly.
> A BNSF executive said the railroad's price was based largely on how much RTD planned to use its line for its commuter trains — a number that ultimately landed at 55 one-way trips daily.
> 
> "That's a big, pretty significant number," said the BNSF executive, who was not authorized to speak on the matter and requested anonymity. "That many creates significant disruptions."


So its not ALL gravy, but it does seem like the term 'over a barrel' might be appropriate here... :huh:


----------



## Anderson (Jun 5, 2012)

55 one-way trips may not be as many as you've got on the BNSF line in Chicago, but it's still a reasonably serious disruption of operations, and it probably means (in so many words) that BNSF is losing one direction in the morning and one in the evening to lots of commuter trains.

Yes, some of it is gravy, but I'd like to see a breakout on those costs.

Additionally, note the date...at that point, for reference, CSX stock was at the equivalent of $5 (it now hovers around $20) and their quarterly dividend was less than a split-adjusted $.02 (now $.14). Norfolk Southern is a similar story ($20 then vs. $65 now; $.08 in quarterly dividends then vs. $.47 now). You find the same thing at UP and CN (KCS just reinstated their dividend, but their stock situation is similar); only CP is more muted among the Class I railroads. This speaks to the shift to freight railroads over the last decade. Another ancedote is that VA was looking at running commuter operations on the Peninsula, and CSX has more or less said "No way" when they were open to it before.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jun 5, 2012)

No biggie. All this does is push the timeline from a projected completion date of 2017 to somewhere around 2044.

Personally, I can't wait to see what the trains of tomorrow will look like when this project is finally finished.

*Fast, sleek, quiet, and smooth I'm sure.*







*Ha ha ha... nah, I mean **this**...*






*Or maybe it was **this** piece of...world class design and engineering.*






:lol:


----------



## The Davy Crockett (Jun 6, 2012)

Texas Sunset said:


> *Or maybe it was **this** piece of...world class design and engineering.*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


HEY! It may not be pretty on the outside, but it is pleasant on the inside - if the SCA is not a jerk!


----------



## Nathanael (Jun 7, 2012)

BNSF doesn't really have alternative routings for the freight traffic on this line, and it includes several "through" trains.

I wonder if it might be cheaper to build BNSF a new line from Longmont to Denver (bypassing Boulder). It may actually be cheaper to build BNSF a new route and trade it for the current route than to buy slots on on the existing route. RTD owns the former UP Boulder sub, which gets you most of the way from Denver to Longmont, albeit on a route useless for passenger service.

It mnight also be cheaper to build a new RTD rail right-of-way down US 36, which has an empty median.


----------



## railiner (Jun 7, 2012)

jis said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> > Also, is there serious talk of a second train on the Builder's route (other than CHI-MSP)?
> ...


I assume the route in question is the former Colorado and Southern mainline from Denver to Wyoming that runs via Boulder to Longmont. Amtrak has detoured over that route between Denver and Cheyenne a few times over the years, when the UP route was disrupted. I don't think there is much freight on that line....most of the coal trains from the Powder River Basin ran on the BN mainline thru Nebraska. There used to be a CB&Q branchline from Denver to Longmont via Erie. It was served by a single daily freight known as "The Buckwheat". I don't even know if that line still exists.....


----------



## railiner (Jun 7, 2012)

Nathanael said:


> BNSF doesn't really have alternative routings for the freight traffic on this line, and it includes several "through" trains.
> 
> I wonder if it might be cheaper to build BNSF a new line from Longmont to Denver (bypassing Boulder). It may actually be cheaper to build BNSF a new route and trade it for the current route than to buy slots on on the existing route. RTD owns the former UP Boulder sub, which gets you most of the way from Denver to Longmont, albeit on a route useless for passenger service.
> 
> It mnight also be cheaper to build a new RTD rail right-of-way down US 36, which has an empty median.


The suggestion to run on the US36 R.O.W. sounds good, except there is a pretty steep grade to negotiate near Superior. Not sure how steep it is, but it could be a problem.


----------

