posted
Actually, the SWC need not give up serving ABQ if it reroutes to the southern trans-con, in contrast to what the article states.
There is 1) a wye just south of ABQ station, which could easily be used, and 2) no significant backtracking needed because, for example using a train from the west, a line branches off the main trans-con directly to ABQ and from there another line goes to Belen, where the SWC would rejoin the main trans-con. These total significantly less mileage than if the train had to come from and then go back to Belen on the main trans-con.
All this would take some extra time of course, but would keep the SWC serving the main urban area between Kansas City and Southern California, as well as staying reasonably convenient to the most popular NM tourist destination Santa Fe--as convenient as ABQ airport is to Santa Fe.
Not doing this would create a significantly less convenient situation than even Maricopa on the Sunset route vis-a-vis Phoenix. The article says a Belen stop is still in metro ABQ, but that's not really true.
posted
Of interest, how did Richard manage to crack Kalmbach's rather tight paywall? While I'm of course a TRAINS subscriber (bought a Lifetime back in 1958 - best investment I ever made), I had done a 'Delete Browsing History' yesterday and had not yet logged in to Kalpub's site. Surprise, the linked material came up like the term paywall had not yet been coined.
Now to point; even if I am no advocate of maintaining or expanding (as some around the railfan community seem to hope for) the existing LD system, I nevertheless am Kubler-Ross Phase V, Acceptance, about the existing system - and so apparently is the Class I industry.
However, I do believe there is an 'oblige' to operate that system in the most economic and efficient manner possible, and to maintain trackage solely for the use of a 'one a day' pair of trains, regardless of what public agency/ies fund such, is simply a waste of taxpayer resources.
While possibly Albuquerque would continue to be served in the manner Mr. Nadeau has set forth, the seasonal Boy Scout traffic (and their friends in Class I Executive Suites) will have to accept alternatives (they're kids, they're young, and overnight in a bus seat is survivable for them).
It appears that, while BNSF has 'popped the pot' a bit on publicly funded track improvements to support a Daily passenger train over the Transcon, such certainly appears reasonable when compared with the UP's laundry list to operate a Daily Sunset over their Transcon.
All told, it appears this issue will 'come to a head' in the reasonable future.
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Even with the ABQ to Belen rail mileage the who route from KC to ABQ is 4.1 shorter than the present route they use. On detour trips the train ran ahead of the regular schedule due to the much faster track on the transcon.
Chris
Posts: 711 | From: Santa Ana | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, even though it stopped at a zillion places and most of the southern trans-con had not yet been doubled tracked, the San Francisco Chief still kept a good pace between Gallup and Kansas City, even in 1965. See:
posted
Mr. Nadeau et magna alia, when can it be collectively accepted that investor owned roads that have made track capacity expansions, have not done so to enable more passenger trains operating over their lines?
During 1965, and this is simply an educated guess on my part, was that there were some 'three or four a day', plus the SF Chief as well as some 'locals' that got out of the way of anything - including the Roadmaster's Hy-Rail, operating over the Transcon East of Isleta.
But today, look at the Fred Frailey 'puff pieces' in TRAINS, and you will see 'hot' trains in the range of 'twenty a day' in each direction - oh and plus the Locals and the RM.
All told, I think it magnanimous on the part of Warren and his subordinates that actually run the BNSF day to day, to consider allowing The Chief to operate over the Transcon rather than simply 'you will operate over Raton - and, while we're at it, you will pay for any last spike hammered into those lines.'
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mr. Norman: Sorry you had trouble with the TRAINS website. I do have a TRAINS subscription but always have problems navigating their site. I logged on and tried a search, punching in "Southwest Chief", but got "0" for a response. I finally found the article under their "Newswire" and "Previous Stories", underneath. It also takes forever to get search results.
Don: I wonder, with the 1965 San Francisco Chief, why it didn't go to Albuquerque?
Another old passenger train schedule I find interesting is the 1927 Los Angeles Limited. A nice run through Iowa, Nebraska, Wyoming, Utah, and Nevada:
posted
According to the folks in Winslow, AZ the daily count is near 80, and this down from a couple years ago when it was close to 100. But I do recall a quote from a BNSF executive several years ago that it would be a lot easier to slot a passenger train in the parade of 70mph intermodal trains on the Transcon than it is to traverse the mostly single track high line of the EB.
Posts: 2397 | From: Camden, SC | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
@ yukon Perhaps Santa Fe found the ABQ to Texas market (potential connections to Dallas/Houston, etc. via Clovis) too small.
As you know ABQ was served by the Chief, El Cap/Super Chief, and Grand Canyon Ltd into the late 60's. Via Santa Fe, these trains could connect to Texas at Newton, KS or Kansas City.
Interesting how UP (your example) & ATSF (Grand Canyon Ltd) would slap the name "Limited" on trains that were anything but!
@ Mr. Norman My comments did not address any future negotiations between Amtrak & BNSF. I am well aware of your views of Amtrak vis-à-vis freight railways!
quote:Originally posted by Gilbert B Norman: All told, I think it magnanimous on the part of Warren and his subordinates that actually run the BNSF day to day, to consider allowing The Chief to operate over the Transcon rather than simply 'you will operate over Raton - and, while we're at it, you will pay for any last spike hammered into those lines.'
quote:Originally posted by palmland: But I do recall a quote from a BNSF executive several years ago that it would be a lot easier to slot a passenger train in the parade of 70mph intermodal trains on the Transcon than it is to traverse the mostly single track high line of the EB.
Indeed, not to mention trying to weave a train out of the procession at one end, and trying to weave it back in at the other end. Simple dispatching/pathing logic, nothing magnanimous about it.
-------------------- Geoff M. Posts: 2426 | From: Apple Valley, CA | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
Interesting how UP (your example) & ATSF (Grand Canyon Ltd) would slap the name "Limited" on trains that were anything but!
************************* I always thought that the term, "Limited", referred to a limited number of stops, along the way.
In the case of the Los Angeles Limited, I believe it was an all-Pullman train before 1930. Thus, the name Limited could have meant a limited number of passengers.
But, not sure. Maybe others could clarify.
Richard
Posts: 1909 | From: Santa Rosa | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, Richard, my 1935 OGR shows the California Ltd as alll Pullman, but no extra fare like the Chief. The Grand Canyon Ltd wasn't far behind. While it did have coaches, it also offered Valet and Barber service. The secondary train was the Navajo.
Posts: 2397 | From: Camden, SC | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
Limiteds may or may not have been all-Pullman, though quite a few were.
As I recall, the hierarchy of the Santa Fe in the 1920s began with:
- The Chief - The California Limited.
I don't know where the Grand Canyon Ltd fell in the list.
Certainly by the late 1950s it was simply the Grand Canyon.
If I recall my history correctly the Los Angeles Limited was discontinued as a named train in the mid-50s.
Posts: 1404 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought "Limited" originally meant that the train was "all-Pullman," or all first class.
Posts: 2428 | From: Grayling, MI | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mileage comparison - Belen to Dalies 10 Belen to Albuquerque and then to Dalies 62
So if #3 proceeds on the Transcon through Amarillo to Belen and then goes to ALB where it must wye to proceed to Dalies there is an extra 52 miles added to the trip, plus the time needed to perform the wye operation.
Posts: 467 | From: Prescott, AZ USA | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
One way to avoid wyeing the train is to either: A) Station two locomotives at Albuquerque. They position to hook onto the SW Chief as she arrives in town. They hook to the train on her arriving tail, and it becomes the head for the remainder of the journey.
B) Set up all locomotives serving 3-4 to run butt-butt (in other words, noses OUT). In Albuquerque, decouple from the head end, run around the train (the trackage exists) and couple to the former tail end. Done.
This is not rocket science. Railroaders do this regularly.
-------------------- The City of Saint Louis (UP, 1967) is still my standard for passenger operations Posts: 1404 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also remember that the California Zephyr gets wyed at Denver in both directions without significant delay--that has been the only way to reach both the Amtrak temporary station and Union Station.
posted
Mr Pullman, of course we all understand the manuevers you suggest, and they work in certain situations. But Amtrak configures their trains with baggage and crew cars up front, with sleepers next for a reason,or reasons. Perhaps this fits the way the engineer can stop his consist so that those stations where baggage service is provided he has the cars in sight.
Sometimes Amtrak carrys private cars on the rear for enhanced revenue (very good revenue to be sure)and these should not be placed next to the locomotives. I am sure Amtrak officials created the consist configuration with a definate plan.
To have another set of locomotives setting in ALB without any other purpose would be a waste of power that could not be justified
Posts: 467 | From: Prescott, AZ USA | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by RRCHINA: Mileage comparison - Belen to Dalies 10 Belen to Albuquerque and then to Dalies 62
So if #3 proceeds on the Transcon through Amarillo to Belen and then goes to ALB where it must wye to proceed to Dalies there is an extra 52 miles added to the trip, plus the time needed to perform the wye operation.
The extra miles are well worth it to serve Albuquerque directly. The situation is not at all equivalent to Phoenix.
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
A) Amtrak can choose to pay BNSF to keep the track up to snuff.
B) Amtrak can accept substandard trackage. BNSF clearly thinks this is redundant mainline, and is more a long branchline.
C) Amtrak can ask to move to the Transcon.
Pick 1.
-------------------- The City of Saint Louis (UP, 1967) is still my standard for passenger operations Posts: 1404 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
A little more to it... KS;CO and NM have been asked (by Amtrak I think) to contribute $2M per year for ten years and to be matched by equal amounts from BNSF and Amtrak to upgrade and maintain the current SWC route. The states are looking into this now.
A move to the Transcon will have significant costs for Amtrak (see the Sunset proposal from UP); but this while similar would not be so costly.
Posts: 467 | From: Prescott, AZ USA | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just rode the Chief and noticed there was a short stretch of double track between Raton and Las Vegas (NM) where they were adding ballast to the OTHER track. I don't believe BNSF has anything on that line anymore. It was fairly flat range with no apparent erosion issues. Kinda makes you wonder.
We did experience an old fashioned manual switch throwing in a remote area to get our #4 out of the way of a late #3 (not at the usual meet area). The conductor announced it just before Las Vegas. It was in an area of S curves and #3 was really moving fast up the winding track through the pines. Too bad I didn't have my camera out.
Posts: 1572 | From: St. Paul, MN | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Now it turns out that #3 I wanted a photo of was the one with the soon-to-be-deceased man found near Seligman. People's exhibit A.
Posts: 1572 | From: St. Paul, MN | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
I rather doubt kansas and its legislature will pony up. See also the Heartland Flyer debacle. See also some of the 2014 legislation coming out of the ks House of Representatives.
posted
Should NM, CO, and KA come together and fund the Chief (track upgrades for a line solely used by it certainly constitutes funding), this will be groundbreaking, for the only LD to have ever been funded at Local level was the June 71-Jan 72 'pre-incarnation' of the Lake Shore.
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mr. GBN, The line south from Trinidad is solely used by Amtrak. The line between Lamy and ALB is owned by NM and partially used by the commuter line from ALB to Santa Fe.
BNSF uses (infrequently)the line from La Junta to Trinidad. BNSF uses the line from Newton to La Junta every day
Posts: 467 | From: Prescott, AZ USA | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
To be clear though, the line from La Junta eastward to Newton has become largely redundant for through traffic since the ATSF-BN merger added a much more direct Chicago - Denver route onto the ATSF system.
It's fair to say that BNSF has no intention of keeping the line east from La Junta up to passenger train standards, which are not at all needed for limited non priority freight traffic.
In fact, the quality of this route has already significantly deteriorated. Whereas it might welcome improvements on the southern trans-con, BNSF has no motivation to pay for them on the current SWC route.
I believe SWC supporters should focus on its future on the southern trans-con.
posted
IIRC the original LAKESHORE which several states pledged to fund was discontinued in Jan 72 (first run May 10, 1971) because Amtrak ran the NORTH COAST HIAWATHA and POTOMAC VALLEY SPECIAL due to pressure from Senator Mansfield (D-MT)and Congressman Harley Staggers (D-WVA)with no financial contribution from the states served.
Needless to say the LS states complained about this but to no avail and I don't think a payment was ever made thus the service was eventually terminated
Posts: 37 | From: LAKEWOOD, OHIO | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't quite follow your post, Bill -- the Lake Shore Ltd has never been discontinued, as far as I can remember. If it was, it was reinstated a year or less later.
Posts: 2428 | From: Grayling, MI | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The present LSL began service in October of 1975. The LAKESHORE I was referencing was not part of the original Amtrak system on May 1, 1971 but was begun due to IIRC the states of Ohio, Pennsylvania and Illinois pledging money to operate this train. The states didn't pay as they argued since the NORTH COAST HIAWATHA and POTOMAC VALLEY FLYER were brought on line as part of the national system due to political pressure and the states served were not making payments why should they.
As far as the SWC is concerned IMHO funding will not be forthcoming and it will have to switch to the transcon line.
Posts: 37 | From: LAKEWOOD, OHIO | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
"Roch said everything from localized taxes in communities that benefit from the line to expanded private-sector use of the rails is being eyed as a possible solution. Identifying an industry to use lease the line for cargo transport in order to make maintaining the track more appealing to BNSF would be optimal, he said."
“I think that’s where our best hope lies,” Roch said. “I’ve engaged the governor directly on that. She’s committed to support those efforts. That would fix the issue without an investment of tax dollars.”
It sounds reasonable, but it I have the think it would not be likely. Maybe they could divide the SW Chief up into little, less than 750 mile segments and force the states to pay.
Richard
Posts: 1909 | From: Santa Rosa | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
“I think that’s where our best hope lies,” Roch said. “I’ve engaged the governor directly on that. She’s committed to support those efforts. That would fix the issue without an investment of tax dollars.”
It sounds reasonable, but it I have the think it would not be likely. Maybe they could divide the SW Chief up into little, less than 750 mile segments and force the states to pay.
Richard
Pure fantasy.
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
