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.
 

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.
 

------------------
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"
 

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.
 

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).]
 

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.

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).
 

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.