WASHINGTON — The Surface Transportation Board has turned down an application from a company seeking to revive a long-dormant portion of the former Northwestern Pacific route in Northern California after the company missed a filing deadline.
The North Coast Railroad Co. was seeking to purchase 176 miles of rail line between Willits and Eureka, Calif., reportedly as part of a plan to export coal through Eureka’s Port of Humboldt Bay [see “Northern California legislators say plan would revive long-defunct line …,” Trains News Wire, Sept. 8, 2021]. The North Coast Railroad Authority, recently renamed the Great Redwood Trail Agency, is seeking to abandon the line to create a trail.
But North Coast Railroad Co.’s notice of intent, due May 31, was not filed until June 1, and the STB said in its Friday decision that it would reject the notice because the company “has not articulated a sufficient reason why its notice could not have been filed by the May 31 deadline, especially given that [the railroad company] has been an active participant in this proceeding … Moreover, NCRA objects to the late filing.”
The rejection renders moot questions about a North Coast financial filing with the STB. As reported by the Eureka Times-Standard, the filing showed the company’s balance with a credit union fluctuated from less than $100 to a high of $3,269.96, although the statement claimed a balance of $15.7 million. A representative of the credit union said the company was unable to verify the financial statement because of “several discrepancies.”
The STB decision also rejected a notice of intent from Seeker Enterprises to purchase 3 miles of the line for railbike activities, saying its filing did not comply with board requirements for financial information. Another notice of intent, from Mendocino Railway to purchase 13 miles of the line, was allowed to remain active despite the NCRA’s objections.
I would urge readers to take a closer look at the story and the outward link to the article in the Times-Standard. I expect the STB saw this proposal as far from serious and was happy when it was handed an opportunity to dispense with it administratively.
As someone who, for professional reasons, used to traverse inland Humboldt County on a regular basis (and one of the few in that category not involved in the timber or marijuana business) – I would suggest that keeping a rail line open in the Eel River Canyon, while complying with today’s environmental/water quality rules, would be next to impossible.
Bingo.
Expecting any rail line to be able to export a fossil fuel in volume on the west coast is a dead end. Even the Utah based Uintah oil project wants to ship their oil to the Petro Coast in Texas/Louisiana, hence the need to cross Colorado. When an export terminal to Asia would probably be more profitable.
Several of the lesser ports on the west coast have been approached about building an export terminal for various US resources and they all get shouted down by the greens, most of which don’t even live in the area.
I find it odd that these greens remove all of the very things that support these towns economically and the same towns then can’t maintain the needed rail service to their port.
My request is that they would collectively work to bring green economics to these towns so that there are ways to support them and their industry and maintain employment.
Back to this line in California, I would suggest an eco-tourism line that uses electric or hybrid engines using LNG. Build lodges along the line and treat it as an internal cruise line, where the train stops and people can take excursions at each one. Off-roading, nature tours to forests, geology tours, kayaking on the nearby streams, hiking. I would have to see if the numbers work without having some kind of freight service involved, but I think you would have more green interest if it is sold as something experiential and not just commercial freight.
As for people criticizing the financial condition of these proposed operators, I might remind that these small entities usually try to get regulatory approvals before reaching out to the capital markets for financing. Granted $3k in a credit union is not impressive, the potential investors were only putting up enough cash to pay the attorneys to prepare their STB filings.
This is what happened with the proposed Chicago bypass railroad that wanted to base themselves around the new freight airport at Peotone, Illinois. When they filed they had $16 in their accounts and were promptly laughed off. But no capital market would approach them if they didn’t have an approval in their hands.
Problem here is the Port of Humboldt Bay/Eureka already has approval to build an export coal terminal from all necessary parties…so that’s not an issue in this case. The major problem as mentioned earlier is the route…the Eel River route is notorious for major problems, the NWP(SP) spent more money in keeping the line open than they did in earning revenue. The current routing through part of the canyon is slide prone and would need to be rebuilt on the opposite side of the canyon and highway 101 to even be considered viable(that’s in the area near the Scotia mill), but the cost is even more expensive than trying to reopen the old SD&AE…which has a more favorable business outlook. It’s also not worth it as a trail, same problems unless they expect to just skip the worst areas.
I have not ridden this line, but I am familiar with the area and have worked with individuals that are familiar with the infrastructure on the line. My opinion is that it is one of those rail lines that just can’t generate the revenue needed to maintain the ROW through challenging terrain. I am all for rail preservation, but there are reasonable alternatives to rail service for the limited amount of industry along the corridor. It is a tough stretch of railroad to keep in service, and it has soaked up a lot of funding in the past with little time in service to show for it.
As for the one day missed deadline, it sounds like there were bigger problems with the railroad submitting the request than just missing the deadline. I think the STB used the late submission as a way to save time and paperwork.
Having ridden the line some thirty years ago the idea of restoring it to service for the purpose of exporting coal makes no sense at all.
Denied for a one day missed deadline???? Especially egregious was another reason for denial was that a group wanting a trail, probably without railbanking objected. Railroad interests should supersede trail interests.
Agreed!
Did you miss the part about the financial “discrepancies?” That’s probably the larger issue. They claim to have money they don’t actually have. That’s a huge problem.