No more ski train (Denver, Boulder: mineral rights, for sale, 2009)

[jodyr]

Looks like after 69 years, the ski train is going on to other missions. Colorado's Ski Train to Winter Park ends after 69 years - Denver Business Journal:

I was sad about this at first, and then remembered: I've only used it twice.

[Sockeye]

Very sad. We rode it at least once every season with friends. This is also testimony of our country's obsession with the automobile. With CO being so dependant on the ski industry for revenue, one would think we would have installed passenger train service along the resort corridors by now.

[breaksraver13]

Originally Posted by Sockeye

Very sad. We rode it at least once every season with friends. This is also testimony of our country's obsession with the automobile. With CO being so dependant on the ski industry for revenue, one would think we would have installed passenger train service along the resort corridors by now.

and this has been a HOT topic for a while, but it too isn't without its restraints.......there are a couple of spots on I-70 that are issues....not to mention financing in a crumbling economy.

[vegaspilgrim]

Originally Posted by Sockeye

Very sad. We rode it at least once every season with friends. This is also testimony of our country's obsession with the automobile. With CO being so dependant on the ski industry for revenue, one would think we would have installed passenger train service along the resort corridors by now.

Or maybe it's testament to the current economy. It's a lot cheaper for a group of people to drive up in one car than pay $$$ for train tickets.

[jazzlover]

Another step in the wrong direction for Colorado. The discontinuance of the Ski Train is no surprise, though. You can thank Colorado's transportation morons for this one, too. First, the Ski Train was purely a private operation--trying to compete with a massively government-subsidized highway system. Unlike highway competition, the Ski Train had to make its income on money from ticket sales and didn't enjoy the huge advantage of having its right-of-way maintained at taxpayer expense. Second, the planning idiots in Denver permitted double-ended rail access to Union Station to be cut down to single-ended. That makes getting trains in and out of Union Station cumbersome, and subject to frequent delays for trains traversing the yard tracks to get to Union Station. The Ski Train would be frequently delayed--often substantially--only a few blocks from Union Station. Hardly something that encourages patronage.

Of course, the Ski Train ran on single-track trackage with limited long sidings on a line running at near capacity with long, slow coal trains. Again, frequent delays. Then there is the matter of the passenger cars themselves. Nice as they are, they are still 1950's-era equipment--expensive to maintain, and, on the Ski Train schedule, only running a few days per week.

So, it's no surprise that the Ski Train is going bye-bye, but it's a great loss for Colorado. And just that much more of rail passenger service that will have to be resurrected at some not-that-long into the future date, when our clueless taxpayers finally crumple under the tax burden of subsidizing our disintegrating highway network.

PS--Vegaspilgrim, as one who is studying accounting, you should know that "It's a lot cheaper for a group of people to drive up in one car than pay $$$ for train tickets" if you ignore the "off-budget" costs that those people are paying in taxes to subsidize the road they're driving on. If those costs were included, the real cost of driving would look way butt-ugly.

[sunsprit]

jazzlover ... I wouldn't go so far as to say that the railroads compete with a massively government-subsidized highway system ... as to imply that the railroads don't have a background of government money and subsidy, and derive a huge amount of income from the lands, minerals, and water they've been given.

Or, have you forgotten just how many alternating sections of lands with mineral and water rights the railroads own as a no-strings attached gift from the public going back to their inception? Or the money allocated to subsidize the railroads over the last decades for their service which wasn't economically viable in some sectors compared to trucking and private transport?

The railroads, like other transportation industry businesses ... have suffered greatly from their accomodations to the unions and their labor and retirement system. I've spent a lot of time around railroad shops (as a sales rep for my product lines) and have rarely seen any real "work" going on by the employees. I've seen a bunch sitting around on their company provided computers calculating the days until they "retire" and their benefits, I've seen them at breaks, I've seen them on job sites where we were quoting sub-contracted services .... but never actually with a tool in hand or doing any "work" on the equipment in the shop. And I don't mean just one or two guys "goofing off" ... I mean the whole crew on that shift, in a multi-million dollar facility. Their biggest concern seemed to be who was going to "take over" their responsibilities when their last day to punch the clock took place. The hardest worker I've ever seen was a department manager, shuffling papers across his desk ... and issuing me a PO for products and services. Since we have major shops in Denver and Cheyenne, I think I've seen some of the bigger operations around.
The hardest workers in the rail business I've ever seen were private company workers doing refurbishing and rebuilding, major overhauls, repainting ... or volunteers on some of the historic tourist rail companies. That, and some of the track crews out on the roadbed running equipment to replace track or support structures.

[jazzlover]

Originally Posted by sunsprit

jazzlover ... I wouldn't go so far as to say that the railroads compete with a massively government-subsidized highway system ... as to imply that the railroads don't have a background of government money and subsidy, and derive a huge amount of income from the lands, minerals, and water they've been given.

Or, have you forgotten just how many alternating sections of lands with mineral and water rights the railroads own as a no-strings attached gift from the public going back to their inception? Or the money allocated to subsidize the railroads over the last decades for their service which wasn't economically viable in some sectors compared to trucking and private transport?

The railroads, like other transportation industry businesses ... have suffered greatly from their accomodations to the unions and their labor and retirement system. I've spent a lot of time around railroad shops (as a sales rep for my product lines) and have rarely seen any real "work" going on by the employees. I've seen a bunch sitting around on their company provided computers calculating the days until they "retire" and their benefits, I've seen them at breaks, I've seen them on job sites where we were quoting sub-contracted services .... but never actually with a tool in hand or doing any "work" on the equipment in the shop. And I don't mean just one or two guys "goofing off" ... I mean the whole crew on that shift, in a multi-million dollar facility. Their biggest concern seemed to be who was going to "take over" their responsibilities when their last day to punch the clock took place. The hardest worker I've ever seen was a department manager, shuffling papers across his desk ... and issuing me a PO for products and services. Since we have major shops in Denver and Cheyenne, I think I've seen some of the bigger operations around.
The hardest workers in the rail business I've ever seen were private company workers doing refurbishing and rebuilding, major overhauls, repainting ... or volunteers on some of the historic tourist rail companies. That, and some of the track crews out on the roadbed running equipment to replace track or support structures.

On most subjects I agree with you, sunsprit, but you need to get your facts straight on this one. First, only a very few US railroads were "land grant" railroads that received substantial lands adjacent to their rights-of-way--the Union Pacific through Wyoming, admittedly, being one. Even then, those land grants only applied to the "transcontinental" portions of their route. In many cases, the railroads long ago disposed of that land so acquired. In any case, it was a subsidy granted nearly 150 years ago--not the annual pork-barrel subsidies (in staggering amounts) that the roads and highways get. In Colorado, the Denver & Rio Grande--the state's biggest railroad until it was eventually merged with the Southern Pacific and then the Union Pacific borg--did not get one acre of federal land grants--except for its right-of-way--and often not even that. In many cases, the D&RG had to purchase its right-of-way from private land owners.

Second, unlike autos and trucks that ply taxpayer-built and supported roads, railroads must maintain their own rights-of-way at their own expense, AND pay property taxes on those rights-of-way, to boot.

Third, as to the work ethic of railroaders, yes, there are some silly work rules and other problems that impair worker efficiency there. Of course, if you walk into a state highway shop, or go watch some union (and most of them are) road contractors, you can see the same inefficiency times 10. (Question: "What's orange and sleeps three? State Highway truck." ) Go and spend some time on a railroad track maintenance gang and you may come away with a different opinion of just how "easy" railroad work is.

Here's a real interesting idea: Let's strip ALL taxpayer support from ALL modes of US transportation--let the free market really work. See what survives. It WON'T be the highway or air travel system.

[Mike from back east]

The old land grants go back to Lincoln's building of the transcon. The land given was essentially worthless then, and the RR's were on the hook to develop it, which they did by bringing in immigrants from Europe - at their own expense.

Over the years, the RRs gave their rail shipping services to the Federal govt at free or greatly reduced rates, under Section 22 of the Interstate Commerce Act, aka "Section 22 Rates." We oldtimers in the freight business remember them well. The RR's long ago paid back the govt for those lands via Sect-22, and by the taxes generated by the activities on those lands. If they make a buck on the mineral rights, that's cool, just like the cattlemen make a buck by grazing their critters on massive amounts of Federal land here in the west.

Land grants didn't apply to the eastern RR's, they did it all by selling stock and taking huge risks, many of which lost all they invested.

The last ten years we're finally starting to see some Federal support for rail expansion, as lawmakers are hearing the shouts of the public for more rail options, and they are realizing that you can never pour enough concrete to solve auto commuting needs. I believe I saw a stat that one third of the land mass of Los Angeles is in some way paved for cars or parking.

[sunsprit]

OK, jazzlover ... let's take a little trip down memory lane about the history of the Colorado territory railroads, and most specifically, the 1922 Moffat Tunnel Improvement District which funded and built the railroad bed and track up to the mountains, completed in 1928. The rail facility was then leased to the Denver and Salt Lake Railway Company for less than 40% of it's construction cost.

Now, if that's not a huge public bond debt and subsidy to the private railroad, then you and I are really going to disagree as to what constitutes a public subsidy to support a business.

This publicly funded development by Denver led to the popular pastime of folks taking the train up to the mountain slopes to stop there and ski, and Denver later used this destination activity to build the Winter Park Ski facility, which they operated until 1950 before they turned it over to an operator.

So, as I see it, the development of the Moffat railroad as well as Winter Park ... the two key components of the "ski train" ... were the direct result of exceptional risk and investment by the public, and not the railroad on it's own dime.

You might further consider that the Colorado Territory had many offers by railroad companies to build facilities and track into the area, but only if publicly subsidized. There's a long (and, perhaps, sordid) history of towns and cities in the region wanting rail service ... the main means of heavy transport of goods and people at the time ... and towns and cities passing public bond issues which later came to bankrupt those folks when the railroads either didn't complete their promised services or themselves went bankrupt. But the key factor here was that the public subsidy and funding came first, and was at great risk for a possible public benefit.

Indeed, these subsidized railroad schemes were so disruptive to the Colorado Territory economy that portions (Sections 1 & 2) of the Colorado State Constitution were specifically written to protect the public from them.

Later, when Denver's political and business leadership realized that it needed rail service to be the "big city" that it hoped to be, that it would have to undertake the financing and subsidy of the railroads to make it a viable proposition for the railroads. As a result, they tried numerous times to create a means of public funding, most of which failed to pass the constitutional barriers to this effort, with the most notable initial bond efforts failing in the courts in 1911. It wasn't until Denver figured out how to fund and build the Moffat Tunnel Improvement District in 1922 that a public subsidy of the railroad was finally worked out to get around the State Constitution. This was clearly a very big portion of the public economy and risk ... significant enough to be a major portion of the State Constitution when the Territory became a state.

Also, consider it's been held by the courts that the Moffat rail bed and track is owned by Denver (as is the Winter Park Ski Area), and as such, was exempt from many taxes ... such as Grand County taxation; again, this is a significant long term public subsidy of a facility by it's tax exempt status and it's been that way since it's inception, every year.

There's such a long history of public subsidy of the railroads in the region that to assert that the railroads took all the risk is simply laughable.

For a place to begin on this history, I refer you to "The Colorado State Constitution" by Dale A. Oesterle & Richard B. Collins, pages 265-266. There are specific references to the economics of the public & political history of the railroads in the area, as well as the fact that the "... railroads have offered to lay track only if subsidized". There's also a lot of other publications which you can google which refer to the railroad development in the region ... but the referenced book gives the greater insight into the public subsidies of the railroad business development in the region.

Jazzlover ... this is like shooting fish in a barrel when it comes to discovery of what really happened. And, I'd have to point out, too, that the coal, water, and mineral deposits which the railroads own in the area are more than trivial ... for example, having lived in the Erie area for a few years, it's an area with a substantial history of coal mining ... all on railroad owned property. The railroads were very sensitive to their requirements in the steam era of needing fuel and water ... and that was a key component of their subsidies. You can't acquire those mineral and water rights for any reasonable amount of money today when you buy land in the area ... but it was given very readily to the railroads to attract them for their services way back when .... and, as we're both well aware, water has proven to be an essential and highly valued commodity in the region which the railroads have been able to sell every year for many years since steam power was dropped from the system.

As far as assertions that only the transcontinental railroad was the beneficiary of land grant railroad subsidies in the area ... again, too, it's real easy to pick off this falsehood. For example, Colorado's Gov John Evans is credited with "saving Denver" and the Colorado Territory with his push to get a Denver to Cheyenne rail line built. The Denver Pacific Railroad Company subsequently started operations on the LAND GRANT railbed that was laid in 1868-1870, which connected Denver into the transcontinental rail network.

[sunsprit]

I'll also add that the Colorado rail subsidies were significant even down to the county level as they sought economic development and opportunity in the region.

For example, Jefferson County subsidized the rail development of Denver to Golden with an initial $100,000 bond issue. This brought standard gauge rail service to Golden, with narrow gauge up into the mountains to serve the mining districts there. It also was the seed money for service to Boulder.

Many of the famous names in Colorado history got their economic and political power from bringing the railroads to Colorado ... such as Gov Evans, as well as Cheesman and Moffat. All at public risk while they were personally set to benefit economically from the development.

For reference, please see "The History of Colorado" by William Fiske Stone. He goes into great detail about the politics and public economics of the development of Colorado, and the role that the public subsidies played in bringing rail service to the area as well as the resulting economic growth.

I don't know where you'd get the idea that public subsidies didn't play a major role ... the determining role ... in the development of Colorado rail service and operations and income to the railroads, jazzlover ... but the simple fact is that public financing and risk is what brought virtually every mile of rail service to this state. It's documented, it's associated with many famous political figures in the history of the state, and it's the subject of many hours of reading material for those who choose to seek it out .... FACTS, jazzlover ....

Many of the Colorado resources which have been developed in the area ... be it agriculture, mining, ranching ... were feasible only due to the availability of rail service. Hence, the public demand and willingness to support it was overwhelming ... and forthcoming in many forms of direct construction subsidies, operating subsidies, and tax exemptions. Add in the value of the minerals on much of the rail properties, and it was quite a subsidy from the public, and much land is still owned and only recently in play by the railroads for sale. For example ... the recent development and expansion of the land around the town of Erie was due to the abandonment approval of the rail line into Erie and hence that ground being available for sale; that's just only one example I have personal knowledge of in the recent time frame.

Further reading ... I'd google "colorado railroad subsidy" ... for thousands of articles about this subject of Colorado rail funding and development. There's so many towns that got developed as a direct result of public subsidies bringing transportation access that it's a whole 'nother thread ... much of the tourist industry was spawned by subsidized rail service to the area. I've even got a copy of "The Sportsman's Gazetteer", published by Orange Judd Company (author Halleck) in 1883 which extensively documents the fabulous big game hunting and excellent fishing of Colorado in that era ... accessed by rail service to get to the areas. This was a well established tourist industry by that time.