Does anyone know of a shortline operator who would be interested in providing freight service on a 44-mile line in Minnesota? This line connects with the BNSF at Wayzata, and extends westward to Hutchinson. This ex-BN line was operated by Dakota Rail until a couple years ago. Apparently the established customers were sufficient to justify a continued operation, but the condition of the track poses a considerable risk of derailments.

This property has been the center of a fair amount of controversy during the last couple years. Hennepin County had planned to purchase the line when operation ended, with the intent of using the corridor for either light rail transit or for a hiking trail. However, the previous owner reportedly received an offer from a developer who was interested in dividing and parceling out the corridor to a variety of homebuilders and adjacent landowners. The developerÂ’s offer was several times higher than the CountyÂ’s offer, yet there was overwhelming public opposition to breaking up the property, and losing the opportunity for a contiguous trail.

Any change in the disposition of the line apparently was subject to the approval of the Surface Transportation Board, and their preference was to keep the line in operation. So, in order to overcome the proposal to break up the corridor, the County agreed with the STB to operate the line as a freight railroad for at least two years. With that promise from the County, the STB rejected the previous ownerÂ’s plan to break up the property, thereby allowing the County to purchase the line as the sole bidder. Yet there has been no resumption of operation, and it remains unclear how the County will fulfill their commitment to the STB in that regard. Also unclear is the reason why the established shippers have not demanded a resumption of service, since that was the reported commitment made by the County to the STB.

The premise of the discontinuance of operation was that the line was no longer viable without a complete rebuilding. However, with all of the conflicting agendas surrounding it, one might wonder if that assessment of the condition is not overstated. Without a complete rebuild, I believe this line could be returned to viability with extremely careful train handling and prompt detection and correction of trouble spots as they develop, thus achieving a gradual upgrade. Success would be in the hands of the engineman, and his ability to keep the cars from going on the ground. This would require an independent operator, since the County per se could not likely operate the line under those conditions. Certainly, with their overhead, they could not make money on the operation.

I am just throwing this out for consideration, and I make no guarantee of the accuracy of these details. They are either my opinions, based upon my observation of the operation of this line, or my understanding of the facts as they have been reported in the news. However, I do believe this information to be completely accurate.



KEAGLEDESIGN@VISI.COM

A few years ago, there was a federal program designed to help out in just such a situation, called the Local Rail Freight Assistance Act. I never heard much about it actually being put into use, but I would definitely check to see if it is still available.

One thing worth noting is that most highway upgrades today on secondary roads are done to accommodate larger and heavier trucks. It is much cheaper to repair a railroad line with public funds to carry the same cargo than to rebuild highways to do it.

> Does anyone know of a shortline operator who
> would be interested in providing freight
> service on a 44-mile line in Minnesota? This
> line connects with the BNSF at Wayzata, and
> extends westward to Hutchinson. This ex-BN
> line was operated by Dakota Rail until a
> couple years ago. Apparently the established
> customers were sufficient to justify a
> continued operation, but the condition of
> the track poses a considerable risk of
> derailments.

> This property has been the center of a fair
> amount of controversy during the last couple
> years. Hennepin County had planned to
> purchase the line when operation ended, with
> the intent of using the corridor for either
> light rail transit or for a hiking trail.
> However, the previous owner reportedly
> received an offer from a developer who was
> interested in dividing and parceling out the
> corridor to a variety of homebuilders and
> adjacent landowners. The developerÂ’s offer
> was several times higher than the CountyÂ’s
> offer, yet there was overwhelming public
> opposition to breaking up the property, and
> losing the opportunity for a contiguous
> trail.

> Any change in the disposition of the line
> apparently was subject to the approval of
> the Surface Transportation Board, and their
> preference was to keep the line in
> operation. So, in order to overcome the
> proposal to break up the corridor, the
> County agreed with the STB to operate the
> line as a freight railroad for at least two
> years. With that promise from the County,
> the STB rejected the previous ownerÂ’s plan
> to break up the property, thereby allowing
> the County to purchase the line as the sole
> bidder. Yet there has been no resumption of
> operation, and it remains unclear how the
> County will fulfill their commitment to the
> STB in that regard. Also unclear is the
> reason why the established shippers have not
> demanded a resumption of service, since that
> was the reported commitment made by the
> County to the STB.

> The premise of the discontinuance of
> operation was that the line was no longer
> viable without a complete rebuilding.
> However, with all of the conflicting agendas
> surrounding it, one might wonder if that
> assessment of the condition is not
> overstated. Without a complete rebuild, I
> believe this line could be returned to
> viability with extremely careful train
> handling and prompt detection and correction
> of trouble spots as they develop, thus
> achieving a gradual upgrade. Success would
> be in the hands of the engineman, and his
> ability to keep the cars from going on the
> ground. This would require an independent
> operator, since the County per se could not
> likely operate the line under those
> conditions. Certainly, with their overhead,
> they could not make money on the operation.

> I am just throwing this out for
> consideration, and I make no guarantee of
> the accuracy of these details. They are
> either my opinions, based upon my
> observation of the operation of this line,
> or my understanding of the facts as they
> have been reported in the news. However, I
> do believe this information to be completely
> accurate.


ryarger@rypn.org

Here's a link to start. Also, type in Local Rail Freight Assistance Program into Yahoo, and you will get links to various other state documents on the subject. Access to rail freight service is still a good selling point for regions trying to attract industry, thus it makes sense to keep the tracks down and repair them. In transportation terms, the cost of repairing tracks for slow-speed freight service is minimal.

http://www.osa.state.nc.us/refmaterial/comsup2001/sectionb/20308.doc
ryarger@rypn.org

From what you describe it sounds like an uphill battle to return this railroad to operation. Without strong shipper support, business prospects are poor. Add to that an obvious need for major capital investment coupled with ulterior political objectives and you will find it even more difficult to revive a dead railroad.

There are probably several experienced short line operators in your region who are familiar with the line or at least in a position to give you a professional opinion as to its prospects. If none of the pros are attempting to revive the line, there are probably good reasons why.

Alan Maples

AMaples@aol.com

Bob Dingman of New York & Lake Erie is used to operating shortlines on a frayed shoestring!

> Does anyone know of a shortline operator who
> would be interested in providing freight
> service on a 44-mile line in Minnesota? This
> line connects with the BNSF at Wayzata, and
> extends westward to Hutchinson. This ex-BN
> line was operated by Dakota Rail until a
> couple years ago. Apparently the established
> customers were sufficient to justify a
> continued operation, but the condition of
> the track poses a considerable risk of
> derailments.

> This property has been the center of a fair
> amount of controversy during the last couple
> years. Hennepin County had planned to
> purchase the line when operation ended, with
> the intent of using the corridor for either
> light rail transit or for a hiking trail.
> However, the previous owner reportedly
> received an offer from a developer who was
> interested in dividing and parceling out the
> corridor to a variety of homebuilders and
> adjacent landowners. The developerÂ’s offer
> was several times higher than the CountyÂ’s
> offer, yet there was overwhelming public
> opposition to breaking up the property, and
> losing the opportunity for a contiguous
> trail.

> Any change in the disposition of the line
> apparently was subject to the approval of
> the Surface Transportation Board, and their
> preference was to keep the line in
> operation. So, in order to overcome the
> proposal to break up the corridor, the
> County agreed with the STB to operate the
> line as a freight railroad for at least two
> years. With that promise from the County,
> the STB rejected the previous ownerÂ’s plan
> to break up the property, thereby allowing
> the County to purchase the line as the sole
> bidder. Yet there has been no resumption of
> operation, and it remains unclear how the
> County will fulfill their commitment to the
> STB in that regard. Also unclear is the
> reason why the established shippers have not
> demanded a resumption of service, since that
> was the reported commitment made by the
> County to the STB.

> The premise of the discontinuance of
> operation was that the line was no longer
> viable without a complete rebuilding.
> However, with all of the conflicting agendas
> surrounding it, one might wonder if that
> assessment of the condition is not
> overstated. Without a complete rebuild, I
> believe this line could be returned to
> viability with extremely careful train
> handling and prompt detection and correction
> of trouble spots as they develop, thus
> achieving a gradual upgrade. Success would
> be in the hands of the engineman, and his
> ability to keep the cars from going on the
> ground. This would require an independent
> operator, since the County per se could not
> likely operate the line under those
> conditions. Certainly, with their overhead,
> they could not make money on the operation.

> I am just throwing this out for
> consideration, and I make no guarantee of
> the accuracy of these details. They are
> either my opinions, based upon my
> observation of the operation of this line,
> or my understanding of the facts as they
> have been reported in the news. However, I
> do believe this information to be completely
> accurate.


Old Time Trains
oldtimetrains@rrmail.com