According to today's 'Trains' newswire, this issue has been raised again, by BNSF:
"BNSF Railway has again put out feelers to Amtrak on the possibility of rerouting the Chicago-Los Angeles Southwest Chief away from its current route over New Mexico's Raton Pass. Instead, the train would use a southerly freight route from Kansas City through Amarillo, Texas, once used by Santa Fe's San Francisco Chief. At this point the inquiry has yet to progress to a stage where BNSF has shared with the passenger carrier the costs of maintaining the line to its existing level of utility."
The article goes on to say this is far from a done deal and Amtrak will review then make recommendation to its board. We also need to hear from New Mexico that now owns the CO portion.
Taking the southern route might produce more revenue with the population of cities like Amarillo. With the double track transcon BNSF now has, speeds and reliability would probably be good, even when freight traffic returns.
On the other hand, you would miss that great scenery in Colorado and western Kansas would lose all service (we used the very popular Garden City, KS station). It would also make it harder to initiate service down from Denver (now have a thruway bus to Raton). Unlike the southern route, this line currently has the capability of 90mph running (other than in the mountains) and very little freight traffic interference.
Posted by amtrak92 (Member # 14343) on :
I hope they don't change it. I think they should just add a new train over the transcon.
Posted by TwinStarRocket (Member # 2142) on :
There is also the issue of backing into Albuquerque, which would eat up a lot of the time saved avoiding the mountains. And Lamy seems to be too popular of a stop/destination to lose. Do the scouts still use the Chief to Raton?
I think the scenery from Trinidad to ABQ is among the best on Amtrak. I have driven over Abo Pass and most of the roads parallel to the southern route and the scenery on that portion of the Transcon is unexciting.
Posted by PullmanCo (Member # 1138) on :
Many Boy Scouts and Venturers use 3/4 on their way to Philmont Scout Ranch each season. Understand that "season" generally means June 15 to August 10.
This is basic railroading. Two-four more road units need to be allocated, for a power switch at Albuquerque. WB, train comes in on the cutoff, and runs North from Belen to Albuquerque. Power cuts off, power couples on, train rolls westward to pick up the beginning of the Belen Cutoff at Dalies. ETA: In theory, 1 pair of locomotives will suffice, 2 pair deals with any other issue.
Same thing eastbound. Train runs Dalies-Albuquerque. Waiting power (advisable to have cabs reversed) couples on, old power uncouples, train heads to Belen and the Cutoff.
If you want covered storage for the units, put a buidling up where ATSF had the roundhouse, or park them inside the Santa Fe shops.
Posted by TwinStarRocket (Member # 2142) on :
Does that mean the order of the consist would be reversed each time through ABQ? Would the baggage car be on the end, and the coach seats face backwards? And the passengers right behind the locomotives would breath fresh diesel fumes?
Posted by RRRICH (Member # 1418) on :
It sounds to me (and looks like on the maps) that the W-bd would back into ABQ from Dalies (about 20 miles, if I recall), do the ABQ stop, then proceed forward westbound like it always has. The E-bd would pull into ABQ as always, then back out to Dalies, then resume heading forward over the Transcon to points east. No turning of any cars required.
Is that right?
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
This is of course "treading old sod", but this is the first mention of such since enactment of RSIA '08 and its 2015 target date for installation of Positive Train control over all lines that handle passenger trains, as well as on lines that handle any appreciable volume of HAZMAT. While I accept that we have learned opinion here at the Forum that holds the mandate will prove beneficial to the industry, it is becoming apparent that the industry holds otherwise.
I continue to hold, and others apparently concur, that the PTC mandate under RSIA '08 will result in reroutes of both passenger trains and HAZMAT. It will also raise the threshold at which a railroad will say 'that line is no longer worth it" i.e. it generated enough on-line traffic or was a nice detour to have "just in case' with its existing train control system. There could well be loss of passenger train service or, where loss of any rail service is on the table, the spectre of a 're-reg' initiative moving forth with the Critters - and a regulation minded President ready to get out the pen.
Now to address the issue at hand. As Messrs. Pullman and Twin Star note, the Scouts have been very loyal to both the railroads and Amtrak over the years, and many a railroad executive 'got there' owing to contacts (whoops, networking in newspeak) he made through being active in Scouting. But loyalty has its price - and the maintenance to passenger train standards of some 200 miles of track solely to accommodate the "one a day", especially since the ante is being greatly raised as a result of the PTC mandate, just may now come at too high a price.
Another factor favoring the reroute is the double tracking through the Abo Canyon on the "Transcon". Apparently this project has moved forth - Recession notwithstanding. With or without passenger trains, that line either has or will have a train control system that will qualify as "PTC". There is also the possibility that passenger traffic potential at both Amarillo and , albeit "plane loving", Wichita will offset losses at Albuquerque which would likely continue to be served by an Ambus through Belen. Bypassing major cities is nothing new for Amtrak - even the "Amshack in the Styx" cases of Richmond and Jacksonville represent a "bypass".
All told, this one could well end up a "happen" this time.
Posted by palmland (Member # 4344) on :
GBN, you may well be right about reroutes account PTC. What I don't understand is whether BNSF's current ATS (Automatic Train Stop) that was once in place throughout the line could be upgraded to meet PTC standards - whatever they are. The system must be at least partially active as the SWC reaches 90 mph in place. I have also photographed the ATS devices along the track in KS.
Perhaps there is a signal expert amongst us?
I also wonder if FRA will issue PTC exemtptions for lightly used lines. The chances of a SWC collision in CO seem minimal since its counterpart train is the only other train using that line.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Straight from the Act:
quote:Sec. 20157. Implementation of positive train control systems
‘(a) In General-
‘(1) PLAN REQUIRED- Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008, each Class I railroad carrier and each entity providing regularly scheduled intercity or commuter rail passenger transportation shall develop and submit to the Secretary of Transportation a plan for implementing a positive train control system by December 31, 2015, governing operations on--
‘(A) its main line over which intercity rail passenger transportation or commuter rail passenger transportation, as defined in section 24102, is regularly provided;
‘(B) its main line over which poison- or toxic-by-inhalation hazardous materials, as defined in parts 171.8, 173.115, and 173.132 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, are transported; and
‘(C) such other tracks as the Secretary may prescribe by regulation or order.
‘(2) IMPLEMENTATION- The plan shall describe how it will provide for interoperability of the system with movements of trains of other railroad carriers over its lines and shall, to the extent practical, implement the system in a manner that addresses areas of greater risk before areas of lesser risk. The railroad carrier shall implement a positive train control system in accordance with the plan.
Part 173.115 seems to cover anything that goes "up in smoke". 173.132 seems to be anything that could take care of your "sniffles" - and then a little more. I must note my surprise in that the Act does not address 173.50, or "things that go boom".
In short, I think the industry could care less, and likely even endorse, any PTC implementation over publicly owned lines such as the NEC that predominately handle passenger trains. After all, who will pay the bills?
Now as far as HAZMAT, again I will defer to our member (and I know of one) more learned on this subject with better grounding in contemporary industry affairs than I who has not seen a railroad paycheck in almost thirty years.
While Chatsworth would have been avoided with an active PTC system, I still have to question how either Weyauwega or Rockford could have been avoided even if such were in place.
Posted by notelvis (Member # 3071) on :
Rather than an Ambus connection to ABQ at Belen, I would think that a direct RAIL connection could be made to Albuquerque and Santa Fe with a train from the New Mexico Railrunner.
If scheduled so that 3 and 4 meet in Belen, one roundtrip of the Railrunner could handle connecting passengers in both directions.
Though my preference would be to maintain the existing route.
Posted by sojourner (Member # 3134) on :
I certainly hope they don't change it--going over the Raton Pass is so exciting, and I love the signs and the little church or mission and everything. It's a wonderful way to come into New Mexico, and it's great that for part of it there are no freight trains blocking the views. Plus, Lamy is a really important stop for Santa Fe; it would be foolish to do away with it or make people have to change in Albuquerque for that RoadRunner or whatever it is.
But if Amarillo needs service, fine by me to add another train or a spur train through there too!
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
Note that when 3/4 were detoured via Amarillo due to snow on Raton that they did not reverse at Albuquerque or require more elapsed time KC to Albq. My understanding is that the train was run through a wye somewhere in or near Albuquerque.
Posted by CG96 (Member # 1408) on :
quote:Originally posted by PullmanCo: Many Boy Scouts and Venturers use 3/4 on their way to Philmont Scout Ranch each season. Understand that "season" generally means June 15 to August 10.
Removal of this train from this route would also mean that Amtrak - or any other rail service provider - would lose that clientele. It is a case of if the train is not the closest form of transport, and if it doesn't make convenient stops, Scouts (and, more importantly, their adult leaders) will not take the train at all. Amtrak stands to lose many future passengers who, like me, had their first passenger train ride going to and from Philmont should they execute this re-routing.
Downgrade the tracks to FRA Class 3 (59 mph) if necessary, but it might be unwise to lose the Scouts. For this train, and possibly for the entire network, the loss of Scout traffic represents a really, really, really big loss of current and future passengers.
Posted by PullmanCo (Member # 1138) on :
Frankly, the vast majority of units and people coming to Philmont Scout Ranch and Philmont training center either fly to Albuquerque or Denver, and bus in, or drive in.
The marginal traffic brought by Scouting, and the cost of keeping the line open, if Amtrak becomes the sole user north of Lamy? Folks, this is a business decision. I like Raton, too, but not if it takes an extra $50M from Amtrak to BNSF to keep the line open.
There is always the option of wye-ing 3/4 near Albuquerque, but that to me is less practical than changing direction of run. The argument about the Train Crew getting to the engine crew is a tad spurious; P units don't have nose doors that I've seen.
Hold power over in Albuqueque is a simple answer.
Posted by Southwest Chief (Member # 1227) on :
Why would BNSF be interested in rerouting a mandated high priority passenger train onto their heavy freight line?
I thought that the state of New Mexico now owns the Raton line. Wouldn't they be partly responsible for implementing positive train control?
According to this, New Mexico should own the full line to Trinidad by now. And also be partly responsible for maintenance costs/fees for some of the route. It says maintenance costs between Lamy and Trinidad will be covered by "users", whatever that means. So will Amtrak have to pay? Yeah right if that happens.
So did this agreement fall through?
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
quote:Originally posted by Southwest Chief: Why would BNSF be interested in rerouting a mandated high priority passenger train onto their heavy freight line?
When they have done it, it appears that there was very little difficulty. My undrestanding is that it was allowed the same 70 mph as the premier container trains, so there was little problem with in passing trains going the same direction.
Posted by Printman2000 (Member # 4338) on :
I live in Amarillo and would love to have service here. I currently have to drive 4 hours to Lamy to catch a train.
Since moving here in 2005, I have seen two re-routes through here. One was mentioned back when they had heavy snowfall in Raton. Both 3 & 4 rerouted on the transcon for several days.
The other happened in June of this year (2009) when a bridge somewhere around Raton burned. I believe it was rerouted for only one day.
Both times, I was out to watch them come through town. It was awesome to see Amtrak here.
Anyway, Albuquerque was somehow served both times. Not sure how, but they did it. And the consists were not reversed.
Posted by rresor (Member # 128) on :
Looking at a railroad map of New Mexico, it appears a westbound could head north from Belen to ABQ, wye there, and head out via Dalies. Eastbound, reverse the process. Wyeing the train shouldn't be too time-consuming. After all, it's what Amtrak now does with the Silver Star at Tampa.
This really has nothing to do with the PTC rule. BNSF could probably spin the Raton line off to the states or to a short line, which would exempt it from PTC in any case. But the issue is the cost of maintaining several hundred miles of railroad for one train a day in each direction. That is simply not a long-term economic proposition.
Posted by Printman2000 (Member # 4338) on :
There is a wye a couple of miles south of the Albuquerque station. This is the one reportedly used during recent temporary reroutes.
Google Map Posted by PullmanCo (Member # 1138) on :
That's the one others have mentioned, about 2 miles south of the station.
I've been on the wye into Denver Union Station more than a few times in my life. Before Amtrak, UP to Kansas City used it, as does now Amtrak/BNSF/UP on the historic CZ route (CB&Q/D&RGW).
Wye-ing an active passenger train is a less than best practice imo (this is as opposed to an empty train being wyed or looped around at the coach yard).
I still say the simplest solution, and one that Amtrak seems to have extra power to cover, is place 2-4 units a Albuquerque for a re-engining. Deutsche Bundesbahn does this regularly at places like Frankfurt, Nuernberg, and Munich main stations.
Posted by Printman2000 (Member # 4338) on :
So you are saying reverse the direction of the cars? That would be a lot of work to turn all the coach seats with passengers on board.
Posted by PullmanCo (Member # 1138) on :
No. The train rolls in locomotive and baggage car first.
New locomotives, waiting, couple on the non baggage car end, and hook up power.
Old locomotives unhook power, uncouple and separate.
When train leaves, baggage car is trailing.
If the Europeans can do it, why not us?
Posted by RRRICH (Member # 1418) on :
As I mentioned earlier, why not just back the W-bd SWC Chief into ABQ from Dalies, then proceed forward on the way out (reverse with the eastbound)? No wyeing needed.
Posted by Southwest Chief (Member # 1227) on :
quote:Originally posted by RRRICH: As I mentioned earlier, why not just back the W-bd SWC Chief into ABQ from Dalies, then proceed forward on the way out (reverse with the eastbound)? No wyeing needed.
Because that's an awfully long distance to run a passenger train in reverse. And it would have to be at restricted speed. So lots of time wasted.
Posted by TwinStarRocket (Member # 2142) on :
And wouldn't backing up at Dalies also mean stopping ON the Transcon to reverse. Kind of busy sometimes.
The wye 2 mi south of ABQ looks close enough to the airport to drop some folks off for car rentals and plane connections. lol.
Posted by Printman2000 (Member # 4338) on :
quote:Originally posted by PullmanCo: No. The train rolls in locomotive and baggage car first.
New locomotives, waiting, couple on the non baggage car end, and hook up power.
Old locomotives unhook power, uncouple and separate.
When train leaves, baggage car is trailing.
If the Europeans can do it, why not us?
Actually, yes. The cars would then be traveling in the opposite direction. That would require turning all the seats in coach. Not an easy task with passengers on board.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Again I note, Amtrak thinks nothing of bypassing the fifth largest city to avoid paying the cost of maintaining fifty some miles of track that would be deemed "solely Amtrak". They don't even provide an Ambus in this instance.
Now we are addressing the thirty fourth largest city (source: 2009 World Almanac) and the potential of maintaining 200 miles of track - albeit some in conjunction with a commuter agency. However, even if all is deemed "solely passenger", all too much would still be "solely Amtrak".
Finally Ms. Sojourner, you have taken enough positions here at the forum, including earlier at this topic, to establish that the economics of providing passenger service are not your concern. While obviously I disagree with any such position, I respect that you are both a taxpayer and voter. But your views notwithstanding, when we are dealing with the public trough, the rail passenger service to be funded should ideally be that which moves people through populated regions and in sufficient volume so that the need for more costly facilities, namely air and highway, will be at the least "slowed down'. While I accept, that the ways of a Democratic Republic call for "passing out a little largess" everywhere so that what counts gets funded, there is an obligation to ensure that largess is passed out in the most economic and efficient manner possible - and this reroute away from a scenic historical route with some on line traffic potential, but with avoidance of the possibility that an expensive train control system would need be installed as well as 200 miles of trackage maintained in entirety by two 'broke" passenger agencies, would represent just that.
Posted by Greg (Member # 66) on :
A few observations having just taken train 4 last week from Los Angeles to Kansas City:
There is quite a lot of excess padding between Los Angeles and Kansas City, probably 2 hours of which could either be removed or absorbed within the overall schedule if trackage across western Kansas was downgraded from Class 4 to Class 3. Some examples:
1) Departed Gallop 20 minutes late, but still 25 minutes early into Albuquerque (effectively 45 minutes of pad). The 20 minutes late at Gallup was mostly due to an earlier 5 spot stop at Kingman on account of unloading at a grade crossing from the south main instead of using the platform along the north main). 2) 25 minutes early into La Junta 3) 15 minutes early into Topeka 4) 35 minutes early into Kansas City.
There was additional padding of lesser amounts, mostly 5 minutes or less throughout the route at numerous stops. There seems to be quite a lot of padding left over from the express era.
Trackage to the Colorado border owned by New Mexico was in excellent condition. Jointed rail across western Kansas was rough, but not late 1980's IC CONO trackage across Illinois near-derailment rough. Traveling at 60 across western Kansas versus 79 would probably improve ride quality some without affecting overall run time if excess padding were excised from the schedule.
Yards at Las Vegas and and Raton had no rail equipment at all, very eerie.
It wouldn't appear removal of service via Raton has to be a done deal.
Posted by notelvis (Member # 3071) on :
The old Harvey House Hotel at Las Vegas, NM is just waiting for someone to come in, give it the La Posada treatment, and turn the place into a destination.
I wish I had the scratch to tackle that itch.
Isn't there still an old Santa Fe roundhouse standing in Las Vegas too? That would be a nice destination for excursions with the 2-10-2 under restoration in Albuquerque.
Posted by Printman2000 (Member # 4338) on :
The western Kansas track is the absolute worst track I have ever been on.
Posted by RRCHINA (Member # 1514) on :
Mr.Presley, There is a substantial difference between the La Posada in Winslow and the Castaneda in Las Vegas primarily because of the thirty year difference in their construction dates. Plus the Castenada has not had the interum maintainance which the La Posada received. To rehab the Castenada would be, to use a modern term, a money pit.
Also, the roundhouse has been privately owned by a local business for thirty years. These itches would need lots of scratch (ing).
Posted by notelvis (Member # 3071) on :
quote:Originally posted by RRCHINA: Mr.Presley, There is a substantial difference between the La Posada in Winslow and the Castaneda in Las Vegas primarily because of the thirty year difference in their construction dates. Plus the Castenada has not had the interum maintainance which the La Posada received. To rehab the Castenada would be, to use a modern term, a money pit.
Also, the roundhouse has been privately owned by a local business for thirty years. These itches would need lots of scratch (ing).
Ah yes....... I have looked online now at the Castaneda in Las Vegas. It is considerably older than the Posada........and the historic building across the street, circa 1899, is also a dump. Restoring one without the other would be pointless.
Maybe, if I had the scratch, I should just retire trackside in Chama instead.
Actually, that too is a non-starter. My wife would have difficulty living in Chama with the nearest Wal-Mart 75 miles away.....and even that one is inaccessable much of the year when snow closes Cumbres Pass.
Posted by Southwest Chief (Member # 1227) on :
quote:Originally posted by notelvis: Maybe, if I had the scratch, I should just retire trackside in Chama instead.
Actually, that too is a non-starter. My wife would have difficulty living in Chama with the nearest Wal-Mart 75 miles away.....and even that one is inaccessable much of the year when snow closes Cumbres Pass.
Why not retire trackside in the Durango area? Lots of nice places to live along the line, and there's even a Wal-Mart Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
quote:Originally posted by Printman2000: The western Kansas track is the absolute worst track I have ever been on.
You must have never ridden the ICG/ICRR between Memphis and Jackson, Mississippi during the 1970's or Penn Central almost anywhere in the same time period.
Posted by palmland (Member # 4344) on :
GBN, It's hard to argue with your logic on the economics of a reroute. But, as we all know, sound business decisions and good fiscal practices often do not apply in the world of Amtrak and politics.
But perhaps one possible use would not be Amtrak but rather a New Mexico / Colorado pact on the much discussed front range route: Boulder-Denver-Colorado Springs-Trinidad-Albuquerque. I think passenger rail service to western Kansas is history.
Posted by PullmanCo (Member # 1138) on :
In re politics:
Kansas has one Democratic congresscritter. 3/4 make one stop in his district.
The Majority isn't Republican right now.
There's no political reason not to hang the "Adios" drumhead on the historic Santa Fe.
Posted by Mike Smith (Member # 447) on :
Palmland, you forgot El Paso.
Posted by Printman2000 (Member # 4338) on :
There is a good chance that we will be getting Kay Bailey Hutchinson as our new Texas governor. She is very pro Amtrak so that could be mighty helpful for us Texans.
Posted by chrisg (Member # 2488) on :
I'm surprise no one mentioned the possible of the stops of Clovis and Amarillo which has far more population than all the other towns on the northern line combined.
Chris
Posted by palmland (Member # 4344) on :
Thought I would resurrect this old thread as a blog by Fred Frailey on the Trains.com site today is not encouraging about the SWC remaining on its current route. Frailey's comments refer to the hope that several of the states affected would chip in with part of the maintenance costs to keep the SWC going via Raton:
************ "While I was on vacation, my friend and Southwest Chief advocate Evan Stair forwarded to me the official response to Amtrak from those three states. I read their joint letter, and my body temperature went down 5 degrees. They said, in so many nice words, no way, Jose, will we shoulder any such burden. Sayonara, baby! We don’t give a ***!
In so doing, the three state secretaries of transportation wrote the end of this train on its present route. They jerked the chair out from under Amtrak, which can try to patch together a federal government relief package. But if the three states which benefit from it disavow any responsibility whatever, why should Congress go along?...........Amtrak and its people should go to BNSF’s Matt Rose now and negotiate the best deal they can to reroute the Southwest Chief via Amarillo, Tex., and Clovis, N.M. BNSF will strike a hard bargain. This is its bread and butter, the Transcon, brimming over with important freight trains and studded with three single-track segments that already cause serious delays. The price of admission to the Transcon could conceivably reach $100 million......So instead of waiting until 2015, Amtrak needs to invoke Plan B right now. " ********
Amtrak's action plan seems to have been 'let's just hope things work out'. Apparently not to be and hopefully it's not too late to get it rerouted. Better that than a possible truncated train serving both ends of the route as Frailey goes on to speculate.
Posted by notelvis (Member # 3071) on :
Having ridden the SWC in July crawling through a slow order near Lamy and inching our way over Raton Pass, I cannot envision a scenario now which would allow the train to remain on it's current route.
The track conditions are deteriorating and bringing them 'back up to speed' is getting more expensive the longer nothing is done.
And I can't argue that repairing the track here should be done. BNSF has no incentive to do it.
I would agree that this reroute is coming and it would not surprise me if it comes sooner than most people expect.
Posted by chrisg (Member # 2488) on :
There is a wye in the auto yard just south of the Albuquerque Station that they have used on all the detours in the past. Eastbound into the wye before backing into the station and then westbound the same thing.
also it is 4.1 miles shorty going the Southern Route even with the trip back down to Belen included in that firgue.
Chris
Posted by notelvis (Member # 3071) on :
Using the wye to continue service to Albuquerque as Chris suggests is certainly a doable proposition. In fact, the backtracking to serve Albuquerque is a shorter backtrack than what the Silver Star does to serve Tampa.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
For TRAINS subscribers' ready reference, here is the material Mr. Palmland notes:
For anyone here who has somehow envisioned Local funding of Amtrak's LD routes, Mr. Frailey has provided a textbook as to why if any proposal, such as from a hostile future Administration, for such were to be set forth, consider it DOA (dead on arrival). Lest we forget, there has been one attempt at a locally funded LD, the Lake Shore's forerunner, that lasted all of seven months during 1971.
As I've noted in the past, Boy Scouts is one of those tickets that aspiring managers on any a number of railroads had to get punched. While I'm not about to be invited for a first hand review, I think a walk down BNSF's "mahogany row' in Fort Worth, would show a Boy Scout memento or two visibly displayed. However, this may no longer be enough to ensure continued rail service to Philmont.
As one of the comments at Mr. Frailey's blog noted, the Super Chief's business model of providing end point to end point service with little regard for anything in between expired some seventy years ago.
Finally, should the reroute occur, Albuquerque will be served by an Ambus connection at Belen; let's just stow all this chatter about the wye two miles South of town or that "they back into Tampa two miles every day". So far as Tampa goes, they have to wye the train anyway, so "just keep backing" (and pray) rather than incurring the cost of building a station out at Ybor City, or wherever. The Chief would simply stop at a station in Belen, just as did ATSF #2DD and #1DD last on A-Day, do its station work, and highball.
Posted by palmland (Member # 4344) on :
GBN, I'm not so sure about the Ambus connection. I would think BNSF would be happy to get the SWC off their mainline - especially with an extended stop that would be required in Belen for the servicing / crew change that now occurs at Albuquerque.
Perhaps someone can explain the logistics of the back up move required if Albuquerque continues to be used - what's the distance involved. While never desirable, Amtrak seems to manage it with both the BNSF and UP at the busy Tower 55 interlocking in Ft. Worth to make the TE station stop there. Another advantage to continuing to use Albuquerque, the easy cross platform connection to the Railrunner there for Santa Fe passengers.
It'll be interesting to see BNSF take on this.
Posted by RRCHINA (Member # 1514) on :
Getting the Chief off the main line at Belen is not a significant issue. After all it will have on the busy Transcon after leaving Newton and will continue on it westward from Belen, as it now does west from Alb. Competing with the Roadrunner between Belen and Alb. will have to be worked out if the Chief should go to Alb. There are many adjustments to be made with a reroute, perhaps most significant will be creating locations at the designated stops so that passengers can safely get on or off.
Posted by notelvis (Member # 3071) on :
I imagine that Amtrak would approach communities along the new route asking if they desire a passenger stop and, if so, then asking for those communities interested to provide a paved parking lot, lighting, and an ADA compliant platform.
Amtrak probably still has a few temporary mobile 'amshacks' on hand that could be deployed for indoor waiting until something more permanent can be arranged.
Posted by chrisg (Member # 2488) on :
The wye is just south of the Albuquerque BNSF yard so it is less than 2 miles south of the current Amtrak station location.
chris
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
I realize that the sentiment here would be to have the the Chief continue to serve Albuquerque should the reroute move forth. But the fact remains that it is simply more economical and efficient to establish an Ambus connection through Belen.
Need all of the operational considerations, especially the contingent ones such as a derailment or Grade X-ing intrusion, which are magnified when a train is operating in a reverse direction, become Red Meat for Rep. Mica at a future "Dog and Pony" show?
Just stick with the Ambus; nobody could be THAT inconvenienced by such a transfer.
Posted by Jerome Nicholson (Member # 3116) on :
quote:Originally posted by Gilbert B Norman: I realize that the sentiment here would be to have the the Chief continue to serve Albuquerque should the reroute move forth. But the fact remains that it is simply more economical and efficient to establish an Ambus connection through Belen.
Need all of the operational considerations, especially the contingent ones such as a derailment or Grade X-ing intrusion, which are magnified when a train is operating in a reverse direction, become Red Meat for Rep. Mica at a future "Dog and Pony" show?
Just stick with the Ambus; nobody could be THAT inconvenienced by such a transfer.
Except the Native Americans selling trinkets at the Albuquerque Station!
Posted by chrisg (Member # 2488) on :
Remember Albuquerque is the largest city in the state and it generates plenty of revenue all by itself. A Bus from Belen would be like the Bus from Borie that dried up the ridership from that station. Let us all learn from other mistakes from the past so we don't allow them to happen again. Plus Albuquerque is the Amtrak Crew Base. good luck trying to move that.
Chris
Posted by notelvis (Member # 3071) on :
I believe that bypassing Albuquerque might jeopardize the support Amtrak as a whole (as opposed to just Raton Pass) generally receives from New Mexico's elected officials.
Chris, you make a valid point in reminding us of how things turned out when Amtrak left Cheyenne.
Regardless of how the Albuquerque question is ultimately resolved, I believe that the SWC reroute is going to happen and perhaps sooner than many people believe that it will. The biggest question in my mind is whether the reroute occurs before or after the 2014 Boy Scout Jamboree season.
Posted by MontanaJim (Member # 2323) on :
I have a friend who works at BNSF corporate Headquarters in FT Worth. He doesnt think there will be a reroute of the chief, thinks that something will be done, if even at the last minute, to keep the chief on its current route.
Posted by RRCHINA (Member # 1514) on :
The cost to maintain track that is solely used by 3 and 4 is not that great,this is between La Junta and Alb. However all three states, but especially NM and CO, are currently rationing their receipts until the economy improves. The major work that is currently needed is upgrading the track in western KS were speeds have been reduced and may be further reduced. This can be incrementally improved, I believe, so that the large numbers we have seen may not all be needed right away. I am inclined to think the Raton route will be retained but may never again see the high speed running of the Santa Fe's trains.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
quote:Originally posted by RRCHINA: The cost to maintain track that is solely used by 3 and 4 is not that great,this is between La Junta and Alb.
Not quite true. The issue is past the point of low cost fixes. the cost of maintaining the track up to this point was comparatively not that great, however it has now reached the point of needing major work to maintain a reasonable speed. This is exactly the situation that occured on the Phoenix Line and on the ICRR's Grenada Division.
I can say this from observation: Back when the Panama Limited was still running on the Grenada Division, I walked a couple of pieces of it just to see how things were. (All tresspasing lectures will be duly ignored.) The line was in well worn 112 lb jointed rail with justg barely class 4 tie conditions, plus having a lot of wood trestles that were near the end of their useful life. When I say worn rail, I mean that to the point that the tops of the joint bars were shiney from wheel flange contact.
I would suspect that the same is true for La Junta to lamy at the least, if not for quite a bit of the rest of the line. It is to the point of needing major rail replacements and replacement of a significant percentage of the ties.
This work will not be cheap. Unless Daddy Warbucks comes around and decides he wants to run fast passenger trains on it, the line's days as a passenger route are probably numbered.
Now, it is certain that on a bisis dollar spent per passenger mile carried to have spent it here would have made a lot more sense than spending it on a near complete rail replacement on the Vermonter route, but that was where the political clout got the money spent.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
While both Mr. Harris and I have seen worse track than the reported condition of Lamy-LaJunta during our professional lives, could this ONR video be the state of that BNSF line?
I haven't been over the LMY-LAJ line since 1991, so this is an "enquiring mind wants to know" moment.
Posted by RRCHINA (Member # 1514) on :
South (West) from LJ the SWC is currently running at 79 MPH and perhaps 90 MPH where ATC is in place. The track is well ballasted and there are some locations with CWR. Hot box -draging equipment dectectors are in place and functioning. BNSF left it in excellent condition and they are currently providing maintenance of the signal system and minor track repairs. With no heavy trains using the track it is fine now.
I just drove from Alb. to LJ last week and did not attempt to keep pace with either #3 or #4 even though the speed limit on I-25 was 75 MPH.
Posted by palmland (Member # 4344) on :
Trains.com reported today on a couple articles from the Hutchinson and Wichita, KS newspapers.
The Hutchinson paper reports BNSF has arranged for a special train to show local officials the deteriorating track conditions on the SWC route through Kansas in this article.
Meanwhile city officials in Wichita are endorsing Amtrak service through their city in this article. While they want an extension of the Heartland Flyer, a reroute of the SWC would also affect that city.
Good for BNSF for pressing the issue. Don't think some other Class ! roads would show similar initiative. Hopefully it will result in some timely decisions and avoid last minute angst when the deadline approaches.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)