posted
Trainsmag.com just reported that Amtrak and BNSF are discussing the potential reroute of the Southwest Chief off the former Santa Fe "passenger main" via Raton, N.M.,and onto the freight main via Amarillo, Texas.
BNSF spokesman Pat Hiatte saya the railroad will neither confirm nor deny rumors that it plans to shut down the Raton Subdivision. But an Amtrak official told a Kansas newspaper that rerouting the Chief is under discussion.
"Right now, BNSF is very reluctant to talk. This is a very early, preliminary discussion, not something that is a proposal," Brian Rosenwald, the general manager of long-distance for Amtrak, told the Wichita Eagle. "But at this point,this is more than rumor."
Rosenwald could not be reached for comment today.
"We might listen and decide to fight any change," Rosenwald told the newspaper. "We might listen and decide it's not a bad idea."
Last year, BNSF began a systemwide review of its 33,500-mile network with a goal of prunning 1000 miles' worth of low-density lines. The Raton route-with little freight traffic and the steepest main line grade in America-is almost certainly under review.
BNSF won't rule any line in or out of that review, and has said it has no current plans to sell or abandon the line. But since the review process is ongoing and open-ended, the status of the Raton line could change at any point.
posted
"For those tuning in late", the proposed routing is that of the "San Francisco Chief" as well as other ATSF Mail & Express trains.
No question that "via La Junta" (a phrase appearing in both AT&SF Timetables as well as in passenger tariffs) is faster simply because it is more direct. Now that the speed of a non-corridor passenger train is no longer paramount and since #3-4 have become "Mixtos Diario" with sometimes 25 box cars and roadrailers, the longer routing with less severe grades could result in operating economies, such as requiring three P-42's instead of the present four. Likewise, I would think that Wichita (IATA code ICT) and Amarillo could be on-line sources of both passenger and freight traffic (wouldn't THAT be the gas, if aircraft manufacturers Boeing and Cessna each with extensive facilities in Wichita became users of Amtrak Express; a real ROTFLMAO would be someone with Boeing traveling to Corporate HQ in Chicago aboard #4; almost as funny as when an Amtrak official gets "caught on a plane").
In short, while someone residing in Newton or La Junta could have differing thoughts, I think this is an idea whose time has come.
Possibly Amtrak's Mr. Rosenwald reviews this Forum, and will benefit from the discussion regarding this proposal.
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
If the Raton Pass line is sold, is there enough local business for a shortline operator? The Santa Fe Southern operates the ex-ATSF branch Santa Fe-Lamy.
Posts: 874 | From: South Bay (LA County), Calif, USA | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are reports of the BNSF crack Z-Train having several business cars in its consist, as we speak, traveling the proposed route of #3/4 through Wichita. Several Amtrak & BNSF officials are said to be onboard. Reggie
Posts: 462 | From: Bakersfield Ca., 93312 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is this really going to happen? Come-on, really think about this. A re-route will eliminate Albuquerque! Will Albuquerque allow this to happen after building a huge and expensive new passenger station. BNSF may abandon the Raton line but Amtrak can't afford to. Albuquerque is too important a stop to eliminate. I don't know how influencial New Mexico's representatives are, but they won't be too happy about losing passenger train service in their most populous city! Posts: 579 | From: San Bernardino Subdivison | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Southwest Chief...... You are absolutely right! Bypassing Albuquerque would be a very hard sell. According to a post on another railfan forum, the plan seems to be to have #3 & #4 make a reverse move from Belen to Albuquerque. To me, this doesn't seem workable. Backing these trains up over 20+ miles is ludicrous. Maybe they could be wyed nearby? I don't know the area at all.
------------------ Any time could be train time! Ken V.
If the 20 mile backup from Belen ever becomes reality, THAT means Amtrak has acknowledged that 3-4 are simply "Mixtos" and are operated for the convenience of the freight. A 20 mile "backup" is not exactly being done "for the convenience of the host railroad", let alone passengers that will see a good hour added to the schedule.
When I previously "endorsed" this proposal as an "idea whose time has come" it was with knowledge that Albuquerque was not "on line" for the Texas routing, but I would have presumed that the train would be routed Northward from Belen to Isleta then Eastward to Albuquerque, where, in the absence of a suitable wyeing facility, we would become "European" and reverse directions for the balance of the trip to LA.
However, I have since given this proposal more thought, and hope same is being done at "60 Mass". It should be noted that neither the 70000's Boxcars nor the Roadrailers can operate on the "head", insomuch as they do not have HEP lines. The 1300's MHC cars shown in that excellent photo posted (likely taken circa 1995) are so equipped. Likewise, I have never observed roadrailers operated (Amtrak, NS, or BNSF) with the trailer rearend forward; as such, there may be no alternative other than to wye those cars. Further, I believe that standard cars may not be coupled behind roadrailers, which means that as a minimum there would have to be a "cut" made between the boxcars and the roadrailers when reversing the train at Albuquerque.
Oh what about the passengers riding a**backwards to LA? Who cares 'bout them.
Oh well, guess the new "intermodal" transportation center at Albuquerque will soon be a "unimodal" and Albuquerque will become "Maricopaized".
"Ah, solve all problems; jus bus 'em down to Belen"
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Southwest Chief was always my favorite Amtrak long distance train because it was the only one that didn't have a pathetic top speed of 79 mph or less. It would be a shame to see the 90 mph running go away. Oh well...
Posts: 56 | From: Hawley, PA | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rumors about the abandonment/sale/downgrading of the Raton line have been flying for more than a decade. Previous rumors died because ATSF, short of capacity, ended up routing at least a pair of hot pig trains via Raton, there was local business east of La Junta, La Junta was a good connection to Denver, and there was coal moving west from York Canyon.
Now, BNSF has increased capacity of the main line through Amarillo, no pig trains run via Raton, BNSF has other ways to get to Denver, and York Canyon Mine is closing. A short line could handle the local business east of La Junta, and there isn't much west of LJ until you reach Lamy and the Santa Fe Southern.
The backup move, or whatever, from Belen to Albuquerque is a problem. Possibly the train could be wyed at Albuquerque, or a balloon track could be built. Mr. Norman is right -- you can neither run RoadRailers on the head end nor haul them backwards (FRA rules). So the train would either have to back up or be turned. That's not an insuperable obstacle.
As for the 90 mph running, it was made possible by a 1920s "intermittent inductive" train stop, which is being removed in any case as CTC is being installed on the main line. So back to 79 it is, except on marginal segments where the obsolete signal system has yet to be replaced.
Posts: 614 | From: Merchantville, NJ. USA | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Huh, so either way I guess it's 79 mph. It seems pretty stupid that a signal upgrade results in a speed reduction! I think the 79 mph rule is a little too conservative, and the FRA should allow at least 90 mph on straight track in the middle of nowhere as long as it's not "dark" territory. And speaking of dark territory, heck, in Canada, don't they do 100 mph on unsignalled track?!
Posts: 56 | From: Hawley, PA | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by vthokie: Huh, so either way I guess it's 79 mph. It seems pretty stupid that a signal upgrade results in a speed reduction! I think the 79 mph rule is a little too conservative, and the FRA should allow at least 90 mph on straight track in the middle of nowhere as long as it's not "dark" territory. And speaking of dark territory, heck, in Canada, don't they do 100 mph on unsignalled track?!
I agree that it "seems stupid" that such an upgrade reduces the top speed. I don't understand why the old ATSF main across NM and AZ cannot remain at 90 mph or more.
Also ... The speed limits for unsignalled track in Canada have been reduced significantly since the fatal VIA crash in Thamesville ON a couple of years ago. In CTC territory, however, there are several segments of track where 100 mph is still permitted (LRC equipment ONLY).
[This message has been edited by Ken V (edited 04-15-2002).]
posted
Amtrak isn't allowed to run at 90MPH where there is no Automatic Train Stop (ATS). BNSF has no use for ATS, so they don't have a reason to pay for it if only the SW Chief uses it. BNSF might think that if they slow the Chief by 11MPH, their trains might not be "holed" as much.
Posts: 553 | From: Flagstaff, AZ USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Although I rode the route "bumper to bumper" during 1991, I have not ridden any portion since. At that time, Amtrak had not initiated their agressive "push" to convert the long distance trains into "Mixtos", and as such, that 1991 consist had only four MHC's on the head.
I guess this discussion should be focused on whether there are existing wyeing facilities at Albuquerque and the nature and scope of Amtrak freight operations, if any, there. I believe the only reasonable and practical way that the train could be operated to serve Alberquerque would be to run it forward to there and then wye it If any existing or anticipated freight traffic could be handled with roadrailers, then a supply of bogies could be maintained at Belen for handling aboard the train there. If the traffic is handled in boxcars, well Amtrak simply might have a "new" Albuquerque Belen train in the timetable insomuch as Amtrak (for the record at least) cannot handle revenue freight on a "host" without passenger accomodations (anyone whom has observed an all freight Amtrak train should be mindful that such was ostensibly only a deadhead move of cars).
Lastly, Mapquest (still free) provides detail of railroads at a 700m scale. From such a review, it would appear that the backup would only have to be from Isleta, but that is still 15 miles.
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was in Albuquerque last Thanksgiving and there is no present wye or balloon track. But from what I remember there is plenty of room for a wye. And with the extremely long servicing stop, the train could be wyed during the servicing time. So this reroute isn't all impossible. As for the express and mail, Albuquerque has thier own switcher dedicated to servicing the Chief's roadrailers and boxcars. So express and mail are certainly big in Albuquerque. So here is my solution. Train number 4 would continue to Albuquerque(ABQ) as it normally does, turning of the main at Dalies. When it gets to ABQ it would be wyed and sent down the line again, but this time going east at Isleta and meeting the new mainline at Belen. Train number 3 would turn of the maineline at Belen and proceed north to Isleta and continue on to ABQ. There it will be wyed and go south to Dalies as it normally does. Single Track Raton Line
Posts: 579 | From: San Bernardino Subdivison | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Mr. Chief's" post has done a lot to clarify this issue. Since Albuquerque is a focal point of Amtrak's freight operations and that some portion of that freight is handled in boxcars (as distinct from roadrailers), Albuquerque will continue to see a train (anyone think passenger convenience might be part of the equation??). However, if roadrailers could be substituted for all Albuquerque freight, all bets are off.
Lastly, an interesting point: a review of a Rand McNally shows the "lay of the land" to be considerably different than the ATSF System Maps of yore would suggest. The system maps (I reviewed one prior to participating in this thread) would suggest that Isletta is West of Albuquerque and Dalies still further West. In fact, all four are practically on the same longitudinal axis; Dalies (106.75W) is only some three miles west of Belen (106.46W).
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
To comment a bit more on Mr. Norman's comments:
A perusal of current the BNSF employee timetable reveals that Belen has six main tracks and two wyes (north and south on the line to/from El Paso). Albuquerque has a "turning facility", probably a wye (though I don't know how long the tail is).
A re-routed #3 would simply proceed around the connecting track and north to Albuquerque at 59 MPH (the El Paso line is unsignaled). At Isleta, it would enter signaled territory for the last few miles into ABQ.
The train would have to wye, either in whole or in part, in ABQ. It would then head back south to Isleta and west to Dalies on its current route. Doesn't seem like such a big deal to me. The critical issue is the capacity of the "turning facility" in ABQ.
Posts: 614 | From: Merchantville, NJ. USA | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Looks as if "one more nail in the coffin" regarding the existing route of 3-4; briefly stated the BNSF has imposed a Passenger speed of 60mphver 365 miles of route where 79 was the previous speed. "Do the math" and, very roundly, for 180 miles noted within the article 45" has been added to the Chief's running time.
BNFS Railway, which owns the track and contracts with Amtrak for its use, imposed the reduced speeds on Aug. 20 following an inspection, said BNSF spokesman Andy Williams.
"Yes, we do have a slow order in place - 60 mph for passenger, 40 mph for freight," Williams stated in an e-mail. "This rail was laid between 1940 and 1951. It is now not feasible to maintain ride quality on these segments for passenger trains operating at speeds of 79 mph."
For speeds to return to 79 mph, new rail would have to be installed along the segments - and there are no plans to replace the rail "at this time," Williams said.
While BNSF officials wouldn't identify the segments of track involved in the slowdown, Fred W. Frailey, a freelance writer and special correspondent for Train Magazine, said officials confirmed for him it involved about 180 miles of the more than 365-mile route from Newton to La Junta, Colo., including an area from Hutchinson to 22 miles west, from east of Dodge City to west of Garden City, and from Syracuse to Las Animas, Colo.
BNFS, a division of Berkshire Hathaway Inc., owns the line and runs a couple of freight trains a day on it. Under an agreement with Amtrak that took effect in January, BNSF has agreed to maintain the track to allow both freight and passenger speeds up to 40 mph, but Amtrak would be responsible for costs to keep the track maintained for 79 mph operation.
In an article he wrote last year about the deal, Frailey estimated it's costing Amtrak about $10 million per year to maintain the track from Newton to New Mexico for those speeds.
The track is now to the point, however, that entire segments of line need to be replaced with continuous non-welded track in order to continue those higher speeds. Those costs would run into the millions.
One of three things will occur; the Chief will be rerouted, bidding the Scouts Adios in the process, Amtrak will "pony up' to have the line restored to 79mph standards, or significant time will be added to the Chief's schedule. It is simply unreasonable to expect that BNSF will incur those additional maintenance costs when 40mph freight operation will apparently meet their requirements of service.
disclaimer: none
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's hard to believe this has been talked about for 8 years and it will certainly be a sad day when the route of the Super Chief is nothing but a hiking trail through New Mexico's high plains, if the state of New Mexico doesn't preserve it for future use.
But from Amtrak's standpoint, what's not to like. The BNSF wants to make a southern route work so on time performance is likely to be as good as or better than the present route; times are likely comparable with the recent downgrade over Raton; and passenger traffic potential is significantly increased with larger cities along the route. I guess the only negative is who funds the new or restored stations along the route.
GBN, while I had the pleasure of a short coach ride on the SF Chief (from C&S at Amarillo to a Santa Fe Dallas train at Clovis), there was another train on this route, the southern section of the Grand Canyon. I think I'd consider that more than a mail train, at least in the 50's, with 5 sleepers including a couple for the Grand Canyon.
I remember seeing it near 'the end' and thinking what a fun ride it would be. Well maintained cars, a diner with charcoal smoke from the exhaust insuring those boarding that lunch would be ready and a spiffy 6-6-4 sleeper with kerosene marker lights welcoming passengers for a leisurely ride across the plains and beyond.
Posts: 2397 | From: Camden, SC | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is a wye in the auto yard that they have used to turn the train in Albuequerque when they have run the train in detour service when the Raton line has been closed.
Chris
Posts: 711 | From: Santa Ana | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Recent previous posts, here and elsewhere, indicate AMTRAK has commited to keep #'s 3 and 4 on the Raton line.
This latest info from BNSF can not have been a surprise as BNSF has continually kept AMTRAK aware of the fiscal requirements if the SWC is to continue where it is. I suggest that AMTRAK is planning to spend $$$ to upgrade the line. It may have the option of using second hand CWR which should be sufficient if properly inspected and graded. This cost, and perhaps others that are needed, would be a one time expenditure and must be comparerd to the costs to relocate onto the TRANSCON. Some of the TRANSCON relocation costs are recurring as opposed to a 'one time' costs to fix the Raton line.
Yes I recognize the above is oversimplified but I wanted to suggest this possibility to this forum.
Posts: 467 | From: Prescott, AZ USA | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure what the relocation recurring costs might be, RRChina. While mileage is longer, I suspect fuel consumption wouldn't be too much different given the struggle up the Raton grade (and does Amtrak add an extra unit for grade?)
But, I do think a weak argument could be made for Amtrak investing in the Raton line. West of KC all the way to Albuquerque could be upgraded to its former glory as essentially a 90 mph high speed all passenger line. Since there is so little freight this would become Amtrak's showcase higher speed Transcon route.
To even remotely justify that expense would call for rerouting the CZ over the line to La Junta then up to Denver, adding service to Pueblo and Colorado Sprgs (with perhaps a River Runner extension to handle Omaha and Lincoln traffic).
The only other reason to stay would be if the states picked up the upgrade cost. To continue to poke along the plains at 60mph should not be an option.
Posts: 2397 | From: Camden, SC | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The recurring cost would be the connection to ALB from Belen and back through Isleta to Dalies or vice versa. It would be both time consuming and the turning of the train, twice daily, will require extra equipment and staff.
Secondly, 90 MPH would not be necessary as 79 MPH would compare to the Transcon route (and many other LD routes).
Posts: 467 | From: Prescott, AZ USA | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
Also ... The speed limits for unsignalled track in Canada have been reduced significantly since the fatal VIA crash in Thamesville ON a couple of years ago. In CTC territory, however, there are several segments of track where 100 mph is still permitted (<font color=blue>LRC equipment ONLY</font>).
[This message has been edited by Ken V (edited 04-15-2002).]
The Renaissance trains are permitted to travel at LRC speeds. I was recently on the 17:00 semi-express from Montreal to Toronto and it reached 100 mph several times for short periods.
Posts: 216 | From: Mississauga, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
For more years than I'd like to admit to there has been saying in our family: Mrs. "M" didn't raise any stupid kids, a couple may have been slow but none were stupid. As one of Mrs. "M's" kids, I'm beginning to wonder if maybe I'm the exception to the rule. Namely trying to follow the SWC reroute thread through this and other forae. For the slowest of her offspring, bordering on stupid, could someone lay out for me in funny book simple terms (the ones I follow best) where and how the "reroute" of the SWC differs from the present route. Something that would allow me to follow along with my finger in one of my atlases. I wouold be eternally in your debt. Thanks. Best regards, Rodger...and please let the family adage be true.
Posts: 112 | From: Merrimac, MA | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rodger, Between Newton, KS and Dalies (a rail jct 10 mi west of Belen NM), the SWC diverges from the highly traveled BNSF "Transcon" which goes through Wichita KS, Amarillo TX, Clovis and Vaughn NM. The transcon is flatter and less scenic, with the possible exception of Abo Canyon just east of Belen, which has just been double tracked relieving the last bottleneck on this BNSF mainline.
No longer served by Amtrak would be Hutchinson, Dodge City, Garden City, Lamar, La Junta, Trinidad, Raton, Las Vegas NM, and Lamy/Santa Fe. Wichita and Amarillo are more populous than any of these. ABQ would require a detour north from Belen and back to Dalies where the train would have to be turned around somewhere to avoid running backwards. A lot of nice scenery would be missed, and the historic line of the Super Chief would fade into history.
Posts: 1572 | From: St. Paul, MN | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
In conjunction with Mr. Twin Star's route description, possibly this Wapedia map will be of help even if no cities are noted on such:
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Speaking from a tourist-type-passenger point of view (a tourist-type-passenger who doesn't really care about the small differences in travel times), I would be very sad if the train didn't go through the Raton Pass, which is such a scenic and exciting way of entering the mountain West. I also would dislikethis new route not stopping at Lamy, which is the stop for Santa Fe (and is used a fair amount, isn't it?). Also, one of the things I liked about the Raton Pass route was that it was NOT shared with freight. This made the viewing and travel very lovely for passengers on Amtrak. Once past ABQ, the red rocks are gorgeous, but views are often marred by freight train going by! Finally, I liked the idea of stopping in Dodge City; it was a place I still intend to visit, but have not as yet.
On the other hand, it would be nice to have stops in Wichita and Amarillo.
Question: Would there be any way that new little commuter train in New Mexico (ABQ to Santa Fe) might continue up through the Raton Pass and make some sort of connection into Colorado? Or any way the new route could be made to include Lamy as well as Amarillo?
Question: What exactly would the route be from Wichita to Amarillo? It wouldn't go through Guthrie, would it? And there still would no train to Tulsa, right? BUT: Any chance this reroute would also spur the extension of the Heartland Flyer sometimes talked about? (And would that extension involve serving Tulsa?)
Question: I don't understand the business about the CA Zephyr changing routes--if it took the route mentioned in the post above (involving Colorado Springs and Pueblo), wouldn't that mean a horrible diminution of its scenery? And that is the most scenic train in the west.
Question: When might this change take place?
Posts: 2642 | From: upstate New York | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sojourner: Q1: Of course there is always talk by advocacy groups of passenger rail continuing north from Raton along the Front Range of the Rockies. Without extending to the population centers of Pueblo, Colo. Springs and Denver it would not be viable. That would end up being intercity rather than commuter rail. There is good fast rail there, but would their be enought people riding it? Cities in the southwest are growing.
Q2: Tulsa and Guthrie would not be served. BNSF travels fairly directly from Wichita to Amarillo.
Q3: This unlikely reroute of the Zephyr would be the SWC route CHI-La Junta, then up through Pueblo, Colo Springs, and Denver. West of Denver would be unchanged. No scenery would be missed but all stations from Galesburg to Denver would lose service, including Omaha. KC would be added to the CZ.
Q4: When? Don't hold your breath. Note this topic was started in 2002. Only negotiations have been mentioned lately. The SWC will now be slower for the immediate future through KS and CO. The 90 mph ghost of the Super Chief begins to look more like the average Amtrak LD. Canada starts to look like a better vacation destination.
Posts: 1572 | From: St. Paul, MN | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
Therefore, it appears that some 30 min is being lost account the speed restriction, and those who favor the continuation of the existing route could argue that scheduling issues are unfounded.
I really think some "heavy" is "doing a little leanin" as it would otherwise appear a no brainer to move ahead with the reroute. This will especially be the case when at such time, Amtrak assumes full maintenance cost of Lamy-La Junta and the incremental cost of 79 over 40 La Junta-Newton. There are too many other places to spend those $$$ where greater public benefit would be attained than on a "one a day" route
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mr Norman, I believe that the '40' to which you refer (La Junta-Newton) is the freight train authorized speed. Amtrak is authorized at 60 mph.
And hasn't there always been one or more heavies involved with Amtrak decisions. According to a writer who covers railroad activities Amtrak has said "send us the bill" regarding costs associated with the Raton line.
Posts: 467 | From: Prescott, AZ USA | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I must be missing something here, but isn't much of the Raton line still 90mph in sections? ATS inductors still abound all over the place along this part of the line.
So what is this 79mph info about?
Shouldn't the report say the speed will be reduced from 90 to 60 instead of 79 to 60?
Please inform me if I missed when the 90mph sections (on the Raton/Glorietta Sub) were reduced to 79 (excluding the RailRunner section which I am aware of).
-------------------- Matt Visit gallery for photos of our train layouts Posts: 579 | From: San Bernardino Subdivison | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Southwest Chief, the maximum authorized speed on that partion of the Raton line between Newton and Trinidad is 90 mph because of the ATS inductors. However we should not make computations assuming that 90 mph is always being used.
The 202 mile racetrack between Dodge City and La Junta has 22 locations where speed is restricted (Garden City 1.3 miles at 45mph)for example. Also the complete stops at Garden City, and Lamar must be considered.
La Junta to Trinidad has 29 restricted locations (35 mph for 1.8 miles) for example.
So the overall effect on running time will not be too dramatic. The timetables will be adjusted between cities where the 60 mph prevails but the CHGO to LAX time may stay about the same.
Posts: 467 | From: Prescott, AZ USA | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
SW Chief, I don't think 90mph has ever been the speed limit over Raton. In looking at a 1989 ATSF ETT. It lists the top speed between Trinidad and Raton (Raton SubDiv.) as 79mph. But there are also almost continuous speed restrictions due to 89! curves that limit top speed to 20-30mph. The Las Vegas SD between Raton and Las Vegas, NM shows 79mph as top speed, also with a number of speed restrictions. On the Glorietta Sub between Las Vegas and Lamy the top speed is 79mph, again with many restrictions. Only on the last lap between Lamy to Albuquerque does the speed limit increase to 90mph. Not exactly a speedway.
This accounts for an interesting comparison. In the 50's the Santa Fe ran the San Francisco Chief, as noted previously, on the southern route between Newton, KS (where the two routes diverge) and Gallup, NM (the first scheduled stop after the lines re-converge at Dallies, NM) via Wichita and Amarillo.
A comparable train, the Chief (not to be confused with that premier train, Super Chief) took the northern route over Raton, same as today's SWC. Conventional wisdom says since the northern route is shorter with significant 90mph trackage, it was a lot faster.
Here is the schedule for SF Chief: Lv. Newton 7:30pm, Ar. Gallup 9:30am or 14 hours, although bypassed Albuquerque.
The Chief left Newton at 3:25am and headed through western KS and Raton. It arrived Gallup at 5:12pm. Total transit time was 13hrs 47min, or only 13 minutes faster than the SF Chief.
Today's SWC ironically also leaves Newton at 3:25 am and arrives Gallup at 7:08pm, or 15hrs 43min - 1 hour 43 min slower than the old Chief. Add another 30-45 min for the new slower schedule and its more than 2 hours slower.
What would the schedule be if the SWC went via the southern route? Only the BNSF knows for sure, but I'll bet it would be comparable if not faster than the current route. A lot would depend on how the Albuquerque stop was handled.
But while the southern route might make good business sense, as a traveler and railfan I would hate to miss that ride over Raton.
Posts: 2397 | From: Camden, SC | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
It will be sad if we lose the opportunity to ride a passenger train over Raton pass and through northern New Mexico......
I do feel that it is likely that the Chief will ultimately be rerouted however. Just a question of when and how the hammer eventually falls.
-------------------- David Pressley
Advocating for passenger trains since 1973!
Climbing toward 5,000 posts like the Southwest Chief ascending Raton Pass. Cautiously, not nearly as fast as in the old days, and hoping to avoid premature reroutes. Posts: 4203 | From: Western North Carolina | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
I was amazed at the number of passengers that got on and off at Lamy on August 14th. My sister was taking #3 back to Fullerton so I stayed to see both #4 and #3. Good number of passengers even though the Santa Fe Southern was not running that day.
Interesting to see the little town come to life before the Chief's were scheduled to arrive.
Would be a shame to loose these unique and hard to get to locations.
But I also see why it doesn't make sense to keep the line going for just two trains a day (and no freights).
As Abo Canyon nears completion I see a real push to reroute the Chief as not only likely but a good bet it will happen.
A historic line is likely nearing its end. So if you want to experience it, book your tickets now.
-------------------- Matt Visit gallery for photos of our train layouts Posts: 579 | From: San Bernardino Subdivison | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interesting discussion here- as to speeds along the old Route of 4/3, there does seem to be an inexorable "slowing down" of the authorized speeds on the trackages (off the Transcon.) For example, LMR-GCK was timetabled at 1 hour 13 minutes on many of Amtrak's public TTs not too long ago. I was under the impression that Lamar to Garden was the "fastest" city pair segment historically? I recall a trip back in the 80s, with a lashup of 4 F40s (no mandated 'fuel conservation' on those brawny bad boys!) where a seasoned engineer running under High Greens could knock down the 100 miles in about 68 minutes. Look at the current running time LMR-GCK- 1 hour 21 minutes. And the ride is much rougher than the "speedy" era..
My choice for 4/3 would be move it to the Transcon and do a bus connect for ABQ, not a "back in-back out" move. I believe the Raton days are numbered; like SWC said in his post above- book a trip if you've never been over the famous Hill and tunnel, before it just becomes another memory down a rusted section of rail, or <gasp> a hiking trail.
Posts: 588 | From: East San Diego County, CA | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are eight (8) speed restrictions in the 100 mile distance between GC and Lamar. In order going west they are 45 mph (at GC); 75 mph; 80 mph; 70 mph; 75 mph; 70 mph; 75 mph and 60 mph (at Lamar).
At these locations speed must be reduced in advance so that the designated reduced speed is in play when entering the limits being controlled. Acceleration can only occur after the rear car in the consist is out of the controlled area. So we can see that 60 mph maximum can now be maintained throughout the 100 miles. Now given the stops at GC and Lamar the one hour and forty minutes is 19 minutes longer under optimum conditions.
Posts: 467 | From: Prescott, AZ USA | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just supporting SW Chief's post: It's my impression that Lamy/Santa Fe is quite a busy stop. There are a lot of relocated folks who've moved to the Santa Fe area, inc from California. I think if there is rerouting they may want to look at going up to Santa Fe as well as Albuquerque; unless that new commuter train can handle the switchover smoothly? I don't know how it runs, how it would handle sleeper passengers with luggage, etc etc . . .
Posts: 2642 | From: upstate New York | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think Sojourner has a good idea. Why not do what it takes (especially since BNSF wants to make it happen) to have the commuter Rail Runner Belen station also be configured to serve as the stop for the rerouted SWC.
Rather than a thruway bus connection, have a special Rail Runner train to meet SWC arrival/departure with limited stops only at Albuquerque and Santa Fe, plus maybe one or two others that LD passengers might use. Also provide for checked baggage transfer.
Posts: 2397 | From: Camden, SC | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
