RailForum.com
TrainWeb.com

RAILforum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile | directory login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» RAILforum » Passenger Trains » Amtrak » Laying New Track

   
Author Topic: Laying New Track
TALKrr
Full Member
Member # 683

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for TALKrr     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
A rep from our state's transportation dept. was on the local radio the other day. He said that in Pennsylvania it cost between $12 and $14 million to lay one mile of road. I presume he is referring to "state" road. I presume laying "inter-state" highway is even more costly.

Anyhow, I got to thinking how this compares to laying a mile of double track. Since traffic on roads can go opposite directions, I thought the double track comparison should be considered.

If rail has the advantage, I really think this is something that needs to be publicized.

Also to consider relates to maintaining a mile of double track as compared to a mile of highway , whether state or federal.

Anyone have the figures ?

Posts: 187 | From: Pittsburgh , PA | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gilbert B Norman
Full Member
Member # 1541

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Gilbert B Norman     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't have figures, Mr. Talk, but somehow, I doubt if the Class I roads will be open arms over public funding of additional track capacity - especially if that capacity is to be made available for passenger services.

As I've noted at several forums including here, the roads believe they signed a "Faustian pact with the Devil' when they joined Amtrak. To accept public funding for track capacity increases could well lay them open to someone party imposing an obligation to host additional, or even operate proprietary, passenger trains.

I guarantee you, having once been in "management" of a Class I, they will have no part of that, be it "back in my day" or today. That the UP has "successfully' fought off any public funding initiatives to expand capacity LA-"Meadows" to enable what I believe would be an "overnight success" corridor is indicative of their tenacity on this point.

Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rY.
Full Member
Member # 3528

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted      Profile for rY.   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I doubt if the Class I roads will be open arms over public funding of additional track capacity - especially if that capacity is to be made available for passenger services.
Wow it didn't take long to go from "do you have the figures?" to "no passenger rail, no how."

I, too, would be interested in both the cost and the time involved in constructing quality railroad right-of-way as compared to the same figures for building or expanding highways.

Posts: 108 | From: Culver City, CA, US | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kiernan
Full Member
Member # 3828

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Kiernan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
When I was at a public meeting for the Rail Runner here in New Mexico, one of the experts said that a mile of new rail cost around ten million dollars. I didn't ask if that included right-of-way acquisition. Adding one lane in each direction on Interstate 25 between Albuquerque and Santa Fe would probably cost around ten million per mile, and that wouldn't include right-of way acquisition.

Interstate highways are incredibly expensive. The Century Freeway in Los Angeles would be an outrageous example--huge piles of money went into right-of-way.

A good comparison of the two--at least when they're done together--might be the T-Rex project in Denver. It includes light rail and extra lanes on Interstate 25 being build at the same time. If you go to their website www.trexproject.com you can download a fact book that will provide some cost information.

Construction is getting expensive really fast, whether it's rail or road. I have friends at the Federal Highway Administration who are moaning about how quickly their budget is being eaten up by higher costs on projects.

--------------------
Kiernan

Posts: 155 | From: Santa Fe, New Mexico | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
George Harris
Full Member
Member # 2077

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for George Harris     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Mr. Norman, I wonder how these same railroad company managers would feel if they found that their unwillingness to serve any public purpose caused them to lose their right of way at road crossings? I think at some point these guys have to realize that thier current attitude can ultimately cost them a lot more than it can benefit them. Frankly, the older I get the less use I have for the extremely selfish and shortsighted posturing of some of these dolts. Ignorance is curable, but stupidity is not, nor is stupidity related to IQ. Some of the things being done by certain railroad managers is extrodinarily stupid.

At this point there appears to be a growing willingness to provide public funding for increased railroad capacity. The need for additional capacity appears to be well beyond the ability of the companies to generate it at current freight rates. To turn it down on the basis that - horror of horrors - it might lead to the requirement that they operate a couple of passenger trains in a rational and timely manner has to be short sighted stupidity beyond comprehension.

Faustian pact with the Devil? Rediculous. At some point these people need to get out of their offices and see a different view of reality. They are costing themselves any public sympathy they might have ever had by their appearance of arrogance.

Back to the original subject of the thread:

The following are all wild guesses, but should get you somewhat closer than the number first given.

$10 million per mile seems high for an open country railroad. I believe that this is near what BNSF is estimating for double tracking through Abo Canyon, and that is a costly piece of railroad. The track itself on an existing roadbed is probably more in the order of one million per mile.

In general, there should be very little difference between the cost of a single track railroad and a two lane road in similar country. The track might result in the railroad being slightly more expensive, and the bridges for the single track railroad would probably be about 25% to 50% more expensive than a two lane road bridge, so the relative cost of the railroad will go up if there are a lot of bridges. If the railroad is double track, right of way will be essentially the same. The earthwork section will be about 15 to 20 feet wider, depending upon track centers, and the bridges will be about 75% more than for the single track bridges, and of course the cost for the track itself will be twice as much. However, a double track railroad will be far less than the cost of a freeway style road.

George

Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Beacon Hill
Full Member
Member # 4431

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Beacon Hill     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If global warming is a hoax and the Iraq war will pay for itself in oil revenue, then we can continue into the future with the status quo. But if "things" are now different we had better start thinking about 21st century transportation policy. Recently all the Class I roads told the STB that they are prepared and ready for the up-coming peak season--well, we'll see.

For years there was excess capacity and not enough demand for rail service, but recently the table has turned and all railroads will have to create efficient new capacity or fall away. Likewise, most major cities that are struggling with transportation issues will pay big bucks to use railroad right-of-ways. Class I roads have every right to be tough negotiators, but rebuilding a rail line isn't cheap and there aren't a lot of places to find cheap money. So sooner or later the smart people are going to get together and work things out.

From my viewpoint in Washington state, I see a railroad, BNSF, that has learned to play nice and is getting a very nice upgrade to its infrastructure at a reduced cost, courtesy of state and local governments. Compare that to the meltdown situation in Oregon with the Union Pacific. As a result, BNSF can get a container from the Port of Tacoma to a distribution center in the Midwest faster and more efficiently than UP can from Portland. So BNSF spends less on fuel and labor, needs fewer locomotives and can charge the same tariff as UP. How's that scenario going to play out?

Posts: 78 | From: Seattle | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mr. Toy
Full Member
Member # 311

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Mr. Toy   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gilbert B Norman:
I don't have figures, Mr. Talk, but somehow, I doubt if the Class I roads will be open arms over public funding of additional track capacity - especially if that capacity is to be made available for passenger services.

Mr. Norman, while I hold you in high esteem, and I usually respect your opinions you have repeated this one too many times. Frankly, I think it is nonsense. The Capitol Corridor is a perfect case in point. California has been paying for capacity improvements on UP track over the last few years primarily for the benefit of passenger trains, but with plenty of additional capacity for freight, too. The Capitol Corridor will soon be running 32 trains per day, up from just 8 per day in 1998.

The Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority always makes sure that when they go to the table to negotiate with UP, that there's something in it for everyone. That has been their formula for success in dealing with UP. I suspect in other areas where negotiations with UP failed, the attitude of the passenger advocates was somewhat different.

The state would like to negotiate with UP on other track segments, such as Sacramento-Reno, and San Jose-LA, but since these projects are still lacking funds there's nothing to offer UP. If federal matching funds were available, I think there'd be some serious dealing and we'd be on the way to a major expansion.

As to costs per mile, I've often seen it bandied about on this board that a single track costs $1 million per mile. I have no idea if that is true. Based on a local 4-lane freeway project that was killed a few years ago, that one was priced at about $25 million per mile (construction costs only) in late 1990s dollars.

Posts: 2649 | From: California's Monterey Peninsula | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Geoff Mayo
Full Member
Member # 153

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Geoff Mayo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I've also seen the $1m/mile figure quoted, but that was several years ago. Even so, as George says, the cost varies enormously depending on the terrain. Generally speaking, a nice, hard, flat route is going to cost less than soft, boggy, hilly ground.

I wonder whether signalling and telecomms is included in the cost per mile? That can cost as much as the trackbed itself.

Geoff M.

--------------------
Geoff M.

Posts: 2426 | From: Apple Valley, CA | Registered: Sep 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TALKrr
Full Member
Member # 683

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for TALKrr     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Thanks everyone for your interesting comments---as usual.

Generally speaking , it seems as though track can be laid and maintained at a cost that is lower than that of roadways. I presumed so, bit was not certain. Of course , many factors need to be considered: terrain, bridges, etc.

I can not understand why a freight company would not want to accept public money to lay new track and expand its capacity , along with that of Amtrak. Afterall, these are companies who sell stock on the public stock market. What is the difference. Surely factors can be negotiated into contracts that benefit both sides adequately.

I honestly do not think there can or will be an improvement in Amtrak dispatching until (especially Union Pacific) admits it needs more track capacity and is willing to discuss HOW to make that possible.

Delays over UP lines will , most likely , just get worse and worse. In my opinion, something drastic needs to be done---but I do not know what that is. It's a shame.

Posts: 187 | From: Pittsburgh , PA | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RRCHINA
Full Member
Member # 1514

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for RRCHINA     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
There are many, many factors which may (will) dictate costs associated with creating additional tracks within or adjacent to existing railroads.
A classic example in an urban location is the Alameda Corridore from the Port of Long Beach and the Port of Los Angeles to the UP and BNSF main lines and yards near Redondo Jct. This was done in the past ten years and was highly publicized so our California associates should be able to obtain the total cost.

If the ROW of Class 1 RR's is to be used for new or additional passenger tracks why not build them separate from the freight operations so that they will have their own signals, sidings and dispatching and not mingle with the freight trains
In some locations additional ROW may be required and there will certainly be occasions where it will be necessary to co-mingle with freight, but the objective would be to have them separate as much as possible. San Bernardino to Orange and Fullerton is an example where a very busy BNSF
freight operation operates on the same ROW with
passenger several trains.

Posts: 467 | From: Prescott, AZ USA | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gilbert B Norman
Full Member
Member # 1541

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Gilbert B Norman     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by George Harris:
Mr. Norman, I think at some point these guys have to realize that thier current attitude can ultimately cost them a lot more than it can benefit them. Frankly, the older I get the less use I have for the extremely selfish and shortsighted posturing of some of these dolts. Ignorance is curable, but stupidity is not, nor is stupidity related to IQ. Some of the things being done by certain railroad managers is extrodinarily stupid.

At this point there appears to be a growing willingness to provide public funding for increased railroad capacity. The need for additional capacity appears to be well beyond the ability of the companies to generate it at current freight rates. To turn it down on the basis that - horror of horrors - it might lead to the requirement that they operate a couple of passenger trains in a rational and timely manner has to be short sighted stupidity beyond comprehension.

Faustian pact with the Devil? Rediculous. At some point these people need to get out of their offices and see a different view of reality. They are costing themselves any public sympathy they might have ever had by their appearance of arrogance.

George

As always, Mr. Harris, you set forth your points in a mature and respectful manner; I take no umbrage whatever that you evidently disagree with my views on the continued efficacy and operation of LD passenger trains.

I believe that as an industry observer for easily the past fifty years, I am of thought that during the past century, the railroads asked the government for two things - and got them both!

First and foremost was economic deregulation and the resulting ratemaking freedom. That railroads since enactment of Staggers are now free to charge what the market will accept for the transportation of freight (and passengers) has brought about the Golden Age the industry presently enjoys.

The second that with much 20/20 hindsight was of dubious value; and that was seeking relief from passenger train deficits. No question whatever, any Class I would sooner be "out', or not have any requirement to handle passenger trains, even if the train is operated for another party's account. But during the '70's, the deficits were real, they were not any kind of accounting fiction arising from the allocation of unavoidable fixed costs, it was more green pieces of paper going out of the cookie jar then were being put in.

That Amtrak and LD trains are here thirty five years after A-Day was one of the few things about which the water cooler in my office was mistaken - it gave Amtrak five years and then the party would be over.

As I have noted here before, had railroad management simply said to the Amtrak Board of Incorporators "thanks but no thanks" the "Adios" drumhead would have been hung and a railfan "coming out party" held (I participated in A-Day Eve), I think, about 1980. What was not discontinued by petition grant after the five year moratorium pursuant to RPSA '70 would have come off unilaterally under Staggers. The Conrail enabling legislation namely the 3-R of 1974, instead of stating "no passenger trains", would have said "NE Corridor and commuter trains".

Now the other point I would like to lay soundly to rest is if anyone thinks I have reason to "worship" railroad management, please guess again. The railroads are enjoying their success today hardly because of any great marketing acumen, but rather simply by default. There is no reasonable and practical alternatives for shipment of railroad traffic (OK; a shipping container containing high priority goods will be loaded on an over the road semi and be on its way, but all of them...?) Abandonment of trackage, and when I note such I have in mind single tracking the ACL, truncating the SAL to render it useless as a through routing, single tracking the IC, and of course abandoning MILW Lines West. For good measure, I'll even throw in SP's KFalls-Fernley NV, were all "bonehead'. During my years, 1970-81, in the industry, too many managers "scored their points' by dreaming up what they could cut - and not how to consider the future needs and earning potential of the property entrusted to their stewardship by the stakeholders (any party with an economic interest in an enterprise).

Managers at the UP should be prepared to look at the BNSF and wonder why they keep their road "fluid', and why can't UP do same. Likely much has to do with UP traffic base - in all likelihood (but I have no facts at hand) is comprised more of bulk commodities than is BNSF. Furthermore their traffic growth has been where there is least available capacity - namely along the SP routes.

Oh well, just some off topic (at a passenger forum) thoughts prompted by Mr. Harris' quoted message. Thank you for the inspiration, sir.

Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
20th Century
Full Member
Member # 2196

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted      Profile for 20th Century     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This thread is an interesting read. It also is informative for me. Thank you. As I read this I can't help but bring to surface Boston's "big dig". It's way over budget with many construction blunders and with a recent fatality caused by a falling cement block ceiling in the tunnel. This construction project did not include a single laying of new track to connect Boston's South station to its North station. I think the reasoning was to control costs. LOL! If one wishes to travel to Portland,Maine from points south of Boston by Amtrak it is necessary to terminate at South Station. Use another conveyance to North station to catch the Downeaster.
Posts: 498 | From: New Hope, PA, USA | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rresor
Full Member
Member # 128

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for rresor     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I came in late to this discussion, but I can offer a few figures. The $1 million per mile figure is approximately the cost of rail, ties, and ballast laid on a mile of already graded right-of-way -- that is, just the cost of track components.

If ROW is owned, but needs to be graded, a "rule of thumb" figure is $2 million per mile, but of course that will vary greatly with the terrain, as noted by Mr. Harris.

If adding double track to an already CTC line, signaling cost is only about $15,000 per mile (the control points and other expensive stuff are already there).

If you simply divide the total of "Maintenance of Way Operating Expenses" for the US Class I industry by total main track miles, you get an average maintenance cost of about $65,000 per mile per year. That doesn't include "cyclical renewal" costs (replacement of rail and ties, and surfacing/undercutting). But again, that's an average. Maintenance cost for a Class II railroad carrying moderate traffic (say 5 million gross tons at 30 MPH) is on the order of $10,000 per mile per year. Amtrak spends more like $250,000 per mile per year. (All figures are per track mile)

Posts: 614 | From: Merchantville, NJ. USA | Registered: Aug 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
George Harris
Full Member
Member # 2077

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for George Harris     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Thank you Mr. Resor for better numbers. I knew the million per mile seemed low, but was not really sure where it should be. I have been wroking too long in Asia, where for the most part labor practices are about a century behind. You can import labor from the Philippines or some even lower wage countries and pay them $500 per month or less for a 60 plus hour work week, so labor costs tend to be a low proportion of the total.

I am very surprised by how low your signal cost number is for adding a second track. I was of the impression that every time you added a power operated turnout the signal cost would be above $100,000.

george

Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RRCHINA
Full Member
Member # 1514

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for RRCHINA     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I have found the $$$ spent for the Alemeda Corridor....$2.43 Billion. By the way, this is being repaid by the RR's and the shippers.

This should provide some perspectice regarding urban solutions and to what extent passenger revenues would cover some of the costs.

Posts: 467 | From: Prescott, AZ USA | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rY.
Full Member
Member # 3528

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted      Profile for rY.   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
For a vaguely-semi apples to apples comparison to the Alameda Corridor, anyone know what the 105 Freeway in Los Angeles cost to build? [Embarrassed]
Posts: 108 | From: Culver City, CA, US | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
sbalax
Full Member
Member # 2801

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for sbalax     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
A very interesting voice was raised in a letter to the Editor of the Santa Barbara News-Press this week in response to a recent article about the often very late Starlight. The writer, who I suspect only skimmed the article if that, suggested that "they" (Amtrak) just needed to add a second track from Los Angeles to Seattle and everything would be fine. The article had pointed out that the track is owned by Union Pacific, etc.

Frank in Sunny SBA

Posts: 2160 | From: Santa Barbara, CA, USA | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
mpaulshore
Full Member
Member # 3785

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for mpaulshore     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gilbert B Norman:
I guarantee you, having once been in "management" of a Class I, they will have no part of that, be it "back in my day" or today. That the UP has "successfully' fought off any public funding initiatives to expand capacity LA-"Meadows" to enable what I believe would be an "overnight success" corridor is indicative of their tenacity on this point.

Mr. Norman: I note the quotation marks you put around "management", "successfully", and "overnight success". Does this mean that you were not really in the management of a Class I, but only in a position that was somehow phonily managerial? And does it mean that the U.P. has not really been successful in fighting off public funding initiatives to expand L.A.-Meadows capacity, but only been phonily successful in some way? And does it mean that the L.A.-Meadows corridor would not be a real overnight success, but merely some sort of phony overnight success?
Posts: 86 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gilbert B Norman
Full Member
Member # 1541

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Gilbert B Norman     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Mr. Paulshore, "management" was placed in quotations simply because any position I held with a Class I 1970-1981 was either fully or partly exempt. I could have been dismissed without any kind of hearing or investigation. Management is also quoted lest anyone think I was a V-P or even at Director level. "Senior" was the only title I had in a position to denote higher than entry.

In short, I'm hardly any kind of "retired railroad executive" - and I would be a fraud if I lead anyone to believe that.

Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.

Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Home Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2




Copyright © 2007-2016 TrainWeb, Inc. Top of Page|TrainWeb|About Us|Advertise With Us|Contact Us