posted
My slightly sarcastic thread title was me having slight reservations about this. Yes, it's great in the short term, but if it's going to cost $12m every few years to keep these tracks up to standard for just two trains a day, it's not really a sustainable long term solution.
-------------------- Geoff M. Posts: 2426 | From: Apple Valley, CA | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess this is good news. The only way this makes sense though is if in fact there is other money (or unknown Amtrak/BNSF agreement) that accounts for the remaining cost to keep the line open to Albuquerque.
We have ridden the SWC in/out of Garden City (its name is a real misnomer unless you're into cattle feed lots). While I'm sure those western KS cities want to keep their train, someone needs to step up and present a plan for the real problem: Trinidad to Albuquerque.
I read somewhere one idea: have Ed Ellis' Iowa Pacific take it over with BNSF trackage rights from his 150 mile long San Luis & Rio Grande RR at Walsenburg to Trinidad then over Raton. Most of his traffic now goes north on the UP to Denver but if any traffic to the southwest, Albuquerque would certainly be a good outlet. Regardless I am sure he does not have the money or interest in paying the $x millions needed for rehab of the Raton line.
It really doesn't make sense that Amtrak has committed to keep the SWC running but no one (except railfans) is talking about their fuzzy math.
Posts: 2397 | From: Camden, SC | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
I believe that the Southwest Chief is just one major washout on Raton Pass from a permanent reroute.
-------------------- 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 |
A very interesting article. One thing I like about the Don's suggested new schedule, combing the Capitol Limited and SW Chief, is the better times into Flagstaff. Flagstaff is a neat little town and a possible jumping off point to Sedona, the Grand Canyon, Zion & Bryce Canyon in Utah.
Flagstaff is also the home of Percy Lowell's famous observatory, a interesting place to visit.
Richard
Posts: 1909 | From: Santa Rosa | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The fact of the matter is that Amtrak, in 1971, had a choice of four different Chicago-LA routings:
- ATSF Chicago to Los Angeles.
- CMStP&P (the Milwaukee Road)/UP Chicago to Los Angeles.
- CRI&P/SP Chicago to Los Angeles.
- And, from pre-streamline days, BN(CB&Q)/D&RGW/UP.
Amtrak, as an economic decision of the moment, chose AT&SF ... not for the scenery, necessarily, but because: - They were buying virtually the entire passenger fleet of the Santa Fe. - Santa Fe owned the tracks all the way.
Well, now we are in 2014. Scenery is nice, but scenery attracts only if it's advertised. I don't see much advertising for Raton Summit. In fact, in 2002, the last time I summitted Raton, the old ATSF sign was looking mighty ragged.
BNSF now moves its freight (edit 10-14) service on the multi-track TRANSCON. UP's traditional Overland Route is now fully owned by UP, and has major chunks multi-tracked as well.
Amtrak needs to come up with a marketing strategy for the LDs that makes sense, or it needs to understand they are a political sop to get the annual 218+51, and still come up with a marketing strategy that makes sense.
That may well include leaving a line that just doesn't do much revenue business for anyone.
PS: The Boy Scouts have been politically active on this issue,
but let's be honest: Let's double the boardings/debarkings to 10K/year. Is that really enough revenue to justify the millions of repairs and upkeep for one movement a day?
Posts: 1404 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just read Don's blog. Wouldn't it be nice if Amtrak HQ had some creative thinking like this shows.
But,for better or worse, it appears we are 'stuck' with the present route if Amtrak's commitment is to be believed. Pullman's observation that it makes no economic sense to pour money in to maintaining the current route is on the mark. But then Amtrak defies logic, it's all about politics and providing a service to remote towns, the disabled, elderly, and those unable to afford air fares.
Certainly the SWC would be far more attractive financially if it increased the volume and reduced the total LD network expenses. One way to do that would be combining the SWC and CZ on the CZ route. At Denver the SWC would proceed south through Colorado Springs and Pueblo and then west at Trinidad (It does appear there is still a head on connection there). This would add about 3 hours plus additional time to switch at Denver.
It would result in a reduction of about 600 route miles with its associated crew, trackage costs,fuel, and perhaps, less power. The 600 mile savings assumes that a new train would be added between Omaha (and the CZ connection) to KC - and then 60 miles to the university town of Lawrence terminating at Topeka.
Aside from the cost savings, this would provide new service to the growing cities along the front range south of Denver. It would also link KC/Topeka and Omaha and perhaps be the start of the much discussed extension of the Heartland Flyer. Given the significant net reduction in miles on their railroad, the BNSF might be more inclined to deal with a train on two new routes.
For this to work, on time performance would need to be better than it is now. But Amtrak made it work at one time. Remember the spit of the Pioneer and Desert Wind from the CZ? I am also assuming the Tiger grant could be used to upgrade the SWC line in Colorado /New Mexico rather than western Kansas.
Posts: 2397 | From: Camden, SC | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by palmland: Certainly the SWC would be far more attractive financially if it increased the volume and reduced the total LD network expenses. One way to do that would be combining the SWC and CZ on the CZ route. At Denver the SWC would proceed south through Colorado Springs and Pueblo and then west at Trinidad (It does appear there is still a head on connection there). This would add about 3 hours plus additional time to switch at Denver.
suggest that you, or somebody, spend some time with maps and old schedules. I have not done so, but I think this revision would add far more than 3 hours. As part of this, there is no way that Denver to Pueblo could come anywhere near the run time that passenger trains did on this lin in the past. It is heavily congested and it is doubtful that the curves could be run at the sppeds they did in the past.
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're right, George. The old run time was about 4 1/2 hours. But, the CZ to Denver is 1 1/2 hours faster than SWC to Trinidad. The Texas Zephyr averaged 47 mph with stops in Colo. Springs, Pueblo, and Walsenburg. But probably need another 1/2 hour for Amtrak's slow switching and the awkward move now required to head south from Denver.
Posts: 2397 | From: Camden, SC | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
