Passenger rail more likely on rail-trail ROW or freight ROW?

[Patrick Boylan]

Somebody in another thread said something like freight railroads preserve right of way, but rails to trails is really a nail in the coffin.
What are your thoughts?
I read many opinions that go like "you'll never see a passenger train, the freight railroad won't allow it". For example, Northeast Corridor inland route, or New York-Chicago, places which used to have more than 1 track, yet nowadays don't seem to have enough right of way to restore any of the multiple tracks that used to be there. Are the anti rail to trail sentiments I think I see in these fora realistic?

Moderator's Note: changed title from "rails to trails vs freight" on 3/2/2014

[Freddy]

From what I've seen, once it goes 'trails' you can pretty much burn the bridge, so to speak,behind you.

[Patrick Boylan]

Freddy, why? Isn't it possible one of the reasons why passenger hasn't reappeared on a rail to trail is because it was never coming back in the first place? How exactly did the rail to trail burn the bridge and how is that different from 'nail in the coffin', a metaphor I already used? I was actually hoping for people to add to the discussion, and compare rails to trails with freight railroads, not just repeat what I said with no support. So why does rail to trail burn the bridge, but assuming your not mentioning freight means you think freight doesn't burn the bridge, how does maintaining freight service supposedly keep the dream of passenger service alive while rail to trail seemingly doom it?

[Freddy]

Where I've seen trails are in areas that no longer have the businesses, factories, warehouses etc. that were serviced by the railroad. If the business isn't there and won't be back then
the railroad, whether a shortline or class 1 won't be either.

[electricron]

The DCTA A-Train uses an ex-MKT corridor between Denton and Carrollton. A rail trail had been implemented between Denton and Cornith, although the corridor had been bought and was still owned by DART. DCTA was able to install brand new tracks for its commuter rail operations but it had to rebuild the trail adjacent to the tracks within the corridor.
What happens to unused rail corridors varies. Having a trail built doesn't always mean the corridor can not be reused for rail again. The DCTA line is an example where rail was reinstalled.

Often abandoned rail lines return to the original property tracks and their ownership. This is usually what happens in rural farm and ranch areas. In urban cities, abandoned rail lines are usually turned into trails, or used for highway and passenger rail expansion. In parks; state, national, and cities controlled; the abandon rail corridors are incorporated into the park.

There are states, like Texas, that allow the formation of rural rail districts that take over the control and operations of rural rail corridors abandoned by the freight companies. While these rail districts rarely generate enough income to keep the corridor open at even average speeds, they can keep the corridor open at very slow 10 mph speeds. This is usually done to keep freight services connected to industries that don't require daily or weekly train services. Without that local industry, rural rail districts are rarely initiated.

The State of Texas actually owns two abandoned freight corridors. (1) Texas State Railroad as a museum between Palestine and Rusk, and (2) the South Orient between Presido and Comanche. While there's little industry on the latter corridor, TXDOT sees it as a future intermodal growth corridor from Mexico to the DFW. While it had max speeds as low as 10 mph over most of the corridor, TXDOT is spending the money to refurbish it to minimum 25 mph speeds. They hope at that point a private third party might wish to purchase, lease, or operate more intermodal trains over it.

Not all abandoned corridors remain abandoned. They don't necessarily have to be turned into trails. They can be reborn back into a freight corridor again.

[Patrick Boylan]

Freddy, first you said "you can pretty much burn the bridge", which I took to mean that changing the rail to a trail was the reason trains would never come back. Now you're saying that the trails you've seen are places where there's no business to support trains, which reverses the cause and effect I thought you meant the first time. So which is it, does the trail stop the rail from coming back, or is it no rail business that enables the trail?

electricron, why did DCTA have to rebuild the trail adjacent to the tracks within the corridor?

[electricron]

electricron, why did DCTA have to rebuild the trail adjacent to the tracks within the corridor?

I'll admit I don't know the exact reason why, just that they did. I believe the City of Denton previously had bought the corridor north of Corinth from DART so they could build the trail but within that deal DART had a buy back option so rail could be installed later. And Denton insisted that the trail remained in the corridor when DART bought that part of the corridor back. But I don't have the legal documents in front of me for proof. I believe DART owns the entire corridor now, that DCTA leases their part of the corridor from DART and is responsible for A-Train maintenance, and Denton is responsible for maintaining the trail north of Corinth.
FYI, DCTA plans to extend the trail eventually all the way south to southern Lewisville once more funding is found. I'm not sure who will be responsible for its maintenance after it is built, but I believe Lewisville and Highland Village will within their city limits.

[Patrick Boylan]

Can we admit that one possibility is that the railroad got a better buy back option's fair price by agreeing to keep the trail? If so that's essentially saying they had to rebuild the trail because somebody paid them to do it, by virtue of not charging them as much as they otherwise could have to exercise the buy back option.

[electricron]

Can we admit that one possibility is that the railroad got a better buy back option's fair price by agreeing to keep the trail? If so that's essentially saying they had to rebuild the trail because somebody paid them to do it, by virtue of not charging them as much as they otherwise could have to exercise the buy back option.

I don't have any information to disagree with your idea. Never-the-less, there were legal obligations on DART's part to have DCTA rebuild the trail, which ultimately was done better than what Denton had built.
My whole point was that passenger rails and trains were reintroduced into an abandoned rail corridor that once had the rails picked up and removed and had a trail made above the old railbed.

Rail and trails can co-exist in the same abandoned rail corridor. Having a trail built in an old rail corridor doesn't preclude reinstalling rails and trains later.

[Freddy]

Freddy, first you said "you can pretty much burn the bridge", which I took to mean that changing the rail to a trail was the reason trains would never come back. Now you're saying that the trails you've seen are places where there's no business to support trains, which reverses the cause and effect I thought you meant the first time. So which is it, does the trail stop the rail from coming back, or is it no rail business that enables the trail?

electricron, why did DCTA have to rebuild the trail adjacent to the tracks within the corridor?

I'm saying that a trail located a few miles from me will never be rail again because everything about or associated with it being a railroad is no longer there. It's an asphalt paved road
that starts and stops at various points along it's eight mile length. The rail,of course, rock,road crossings, bridges/trestles no longer exist and in some areas the roadbed has been graded off to make small sitting/rest areas. In places where that's been done and the trails installed, in my opinion, one can probably say with a good bit of certainty that they'll never be
another railroad there because whatever businesses that caused a railroad to be built in the first place are no longer there. That's what I meant by 'burning the bridge', the fact that it's gone and won't be back, both the physical plant and business.

[electricron]

Freddy, first you said "you can pretty much burn the bridge", which I took to mean that changing the rail to a trail was the reason trains would never come back. Now you're saying that the trails you've seen are places where there's no business to support trains, which reverses the cause and effect I thought you meant the first time. So which is it, does the trail stop the rail from coming back, or is it no rail business that enables the trail?

electricron, why did DCTA have to rebuild the trail adjacent to the tracks within the corridor?

I'm saying that a trail located a few miles from me will never be rail again because everything about or associated with it being a railroad is no longer there. It's an asphalt paved road
that starts and stops at various points along it's eight mile length. The rail,of course, rock,road crossings, bridges/trestles no longer exist and in some areas the roadbed has been graded off to make small sitting/rest areas. In places where that's been done and the trails installed, in my opinion, one can probably say with a good bit of certainty that they'll never be
another railroad there because whatever businesses that caused a railroad to be built in the first place are no longer there. That's what I meant by 'burning the bridge', the fact that it's gone and won't be back, both the physical plant and business.

Well, in your example, obviously the land reverted back to property owners, or your city decided to put a street or trail in, or both, I'm not sure. They obviously never thought of reintroducing rail again.
In the DCTA example, DART bought miles of rail corridors around Dallas when the freight railroad companies abandoned the corridors. There are other corridors DART didm' buy, and those lines reverted back to the original property tracts. There are other lines DART has no intention at all of putting in rail lines and they're being rebuilt as trails. DART's just about done everything they can do with abandoned rail corridors.
I'm not suggesting it is wise to save every rail corridor, what I'm trying to suggest is that every abandoned rail corridor can be saved for future passenger or freight rail operations, even after a trail has been built in it, all it takes is a local government entity willing to put up the money to do so. Don't look at Uncles Sam to do everything.

[BandA]

Given some derelict abandoned rail line, with all rotten ties, and rails deemed to be somehow too non-continuous and light-weight for freight or passenger service. If you scrap the rail and remove the ties, spread some crushed rock and call it a rail trail, how does that increase the cost of eventually restoring the rail line? Assume NIMBYs and rail-trail "activists" don't exist.

[Ken W2KB]

Somebody in another thread said something like freight railroads preserve right of way, but rails to trails is really a nail in the coffin.
What are your thoughts?
I read many opinions that go like "you'll never see a passenger train, the freight railroad won't allow it". For example, Northeast Corridor inland route, or New York-Chicago, places which used to have more than 1 track, yet nowadays don't seem to have enough right of way to restore any of the multiple tracks that used to be there. Are the anti rail to trail sentiments I think I see in these fora realistic?

Many environmentalists at best tolerate railroads, and moving to active opposition in recent years given that railroads are major haulers of crude petroleum and coal, both of which are perceived as contributing to climate change and unhealthy air in a major way. Chemical tank cars are another reason for enviro opposition. Any attempt to reactivate a line would likely engender substantial opposition from enviros as well as the nimbys. As an example, railroads are perceived as 'trains are often multiple diesel engines, belching fumes into the fresh, clean air.' Electrically powered railroads might be acceptable, but only if exclusively wind or solar powered, which would effectively eliminate such from a practical engineering and economic standpoint. In essence, the probability of returning a right of way to service is not zero, but it is highly unlikely.

[mtuandrew]

Given some derelict abandoned rail line, with all rotten ties, and rails deemed to be somehow too non-continuous and light-weight for freight or passenger service. If you scrap the rail and remove the ties, spread some crushed rock and call it a rail trail, how does that increase the cost of eventually restoring the rail line? Assume NIMBYs and rail-trail "activists" don't exist.

If a trail exists, rail-trail activists exist. Otherwise, there wouldn't be a trail.

Moderator's Note: Changed the thread title, it's a smidge confusing as it stands.

[johndmuller]

A large part of the difficulty in restoring rail would be the local politics. A rail-trail is kind of like a free greenspace in your local neighborhood. Not that everyone is going to use it, but most everyone thinks it is good to have it. Local politicians and real estate agents tout them and of course at least some people actively use them for hiking and biking. Contrast this family friendly concept with that of the least disruptive rail application you can imagine and the difference is obvious.

As an interesting side note, the county wanted to upgrade a local trail in the village to connect our local rail trail to another major trail on the other side of town, but the village elders worried about apparently dangerous rail trail users invading our fair burb via this newly improved connection and turned down the offer.

I used to let the dog run near the local rail-trail when it was in the last stages of being a railroad, and even though the trains were going quite slow, they could still pop up unexpectedly - causing considerable anxiety about getting the dog under control in time. Substitute your children for the dog and you can see how the local suburbanites would react to resumption of service.

From a more practical point of view, this line, and I imagine most rail trails, are kind of light on the grade separation, which makes them both less desirable and more expensive to reactivate.