UP Being Taken to STB Over Tennessee Pass

That seems to be the ruling just handed down for Metra and the UP - the state has no say.

Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk

NotYou wrote: ↑Fri Sep 24, 2021 5:35 pm There were two interested railroads, seems pointless to sit on it if there are multiple interested parties.

Interest in operation is nice, but then you have that pesky repair bill. I still don't see the benefit of dumping a quarter billion dollars for a through route that is boxed in on both ends.

Colorado Pacific would still have to go through UP to reach the line anyway, and the other outfit doesn't even have actual traffic to haul, let alone anything beyond a RR on paper.

Agreed the economic fundamentals don't look too good. However as Warren Buffett's mentor Benjamin Graham wrote: the market of value of something is only what someone else is willing to pay for it now, not it's actual value. Since the two railroads were putting in time and and money on it, I would not be surprised if they still see the line as a viable business.

Anyone else think this is going to come up again in 2022? Stefan Soloviev is feisty and UP had a chance to lease the line for $$$$ and they are in PSR mode ($$$$), I can't imagine everyone is going to sit still.

I don't think so but crazier things have happened. Maybe Soloviev will settle on Raton Pass for his western outlet!

Doubtful. What makes anyone think STB would change their mind after turning it down?

UP just announced record profits for FY2021. They don't need the money that badly.

Looks like the deal wasn't turned down by the STB, the request for an expedited approval was turned down.

https://denvergazette.com/news/environm ... 7c93e.html

eolesen wrote: ↑Fri Jan 21, 2022 3:01 am Doubtful. What makes anyone think STB would change their mind after turning it down?

UP just announced record profits for FY2021. They don't need the money that badly.

Best I can tell, there have been three different dockets filed by Colorado Pacific with the STB.

36386 was denied without prejudice (meaning they could file another application) as incomplete. 36470 and 36471 were also both denied on procedural grounds.

That's all before anyone's had a reason to actually argue whether or not UP and the Royal Gorge should have to give up their rights on the property.

From where I sit, if you can't get your ducks in a row to have your case heard on three different attempts, chances don't look good for the fourth.

But hope does springs eternal with some....

"Without prejudice" meaning they can resubmit via the usual route, which hasn't been done yet. UP and Royal Gorge could agree to something if the price is right.

I don't know where you sit, and not going to ask as that is a personal geolocational matter. Can say "you had three tries and none panned out so good riddance," but I don't know enough about the STB board make-up of those 3 hearings. If it was the same board that had a particular opinion those three times, then there wasn't much difference.

Not saying Colorado Pacific getting the Tennessee pass line is a given, but don't think the fight is over.

Fair enough that the makeup of the board can change, however... the STB's board members who are appointed by the sitting president for multi-year terms tend to rely heavily on analysis and recommendations from the career staffers.

My bigger point here was that Colorado Pacific couldn't get their act together procedurally. That's rarely a good sign when dealing with agencies who thrive on red tape they've created.

Here's what's was required in Colorado Pacific's application:

An application under the PC&N standard must contain “detailed evidence that permits the Board to find,” in accordance with 49 U.S.C. § 10907(c), all of the following:
(A) The rail carrier operating the line refused within a reasonable time to make the necessary efforts to provide adequate service to shippers who transport traffic over the line;
(B) The transportation over the line is inadequate for the majority of shippers who transport traffic over the line;
(C) The sale of the line will not have a significantly adverse financial effect on the rail carrier operating the line;
(D) The sale of the line will not have an adverse effect on the overall operational performance of the rail carrier operating the line; and
(E) The sale of the line will be likely to result in improved railroad transportation for shippers who transport traffic over the line.

Colorado Pacific can't provide what's required for a feeder line application mainly because UP hasn't refused to upgrade the line at shipper's requests. The fact there are no shippers using the line tends to help make that impossible.