posted
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.
Posts: 2397 | From: Camden, SC | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I hope they don't change it. I think they should just add a new train over the transcon.
Posts: 465 | From: elgin (s-line) | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1572 | From: St. Paul, MN | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1404 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 1572 | From: St. Paul, MN | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 2428 | From: Grayling, MI | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2397 | From: Camden, SC | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
-------------------- 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 |
posted
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!
Posts: 2642 | From: upstate New York | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
-------------------- "Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one corner of the Earth all one's life." Posts: 506 | From: Wisconsin | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1404 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
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?
-------------------- Matt Visit gallery for photos of our train layouts Posts: 579 | From: San Bernardino Subdivison | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 33 | From: Amarillo, Tx | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 614 | From: Merchantville, NJ. USA | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1404 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 33 | From: Amarillo, Tx | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
-------------------- The City of Saint Louis (UP, 1967) is still my standard for passenger operations Posts: 1404 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2428 | From: Grayling, MI | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
-------------------- Matt Visit gallery for photos of our train layouts Posts: 579 | From: San Bernardino Subdivison | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1572 | From: St. Paul, MN | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 33 | From: Amarillo, Tx | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 41 | From: San Diego, CA, USA | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
-------------------- 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 |
posted
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).
Posts: 467 | From: Prescott, AZ USA | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
-------------------- 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 |
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
-------------------- Matt Visit gallery for photos of our train layouts Posts: 579 | From: San Bernardino Subdivison | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2397 | From: Camden, SC | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 33 | From: Amarillo, Tx | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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
Posts: 711 | From: Santa Ana | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2397 | From: Camden, SC | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
