# Bill to Save Southwest Chief



## Chas (Jan 22, 2014)

A southern Colorado legislator has introduced a bill to help keep the Southwest Chief running through Colorado.



> [Rep. Leroy] Garcia said his bill provides a way for local communities and private investors to collect funding that could help pay for the improvements.
> 
> Garcia said his bill also would create a commission of the various players to determine how to plan for the improvements.
> 
> ...


I was unaware that there was a "problem with low ridership" here, considering how every time I use the La Junta station, the parking lot is more full.


----------



## guest (Jan 22, 2014)

Pueblo??? How would they get there and back? That's quite a detour, which would add hours to the current schedule...


----------



## VentureForth (Jan 22, 2014)

It's not difficult - depending on the conditions of the track. Instead of heading Southwest from La Junta to Trinidad, it would go West to Pueblo then South to Trinidad. It would add approximately an hour and 70 miles to the time table.

The real downside is that it would probably make the time in ABQ much shorter than the 30-45 minutes it enjoys now.


----------



## George (Jan 22, 2014)

Garcia needs to learn some geography.


----------



## XHRTSP (Jan 22, 2014)

Or Colorado could just build their own commuter line from Denver down to Trinidad. Do it right and make it 110mph and I'm sure you could get some respectable ridership going.


----------



## gmushial (Jan 22, 2014)

How about using the extra money/funding to run a railcar/DMU from Pueblo to either Trinidad or La Junta to specifically meet the SWC? ... no extra time/miles to the SWC schedule, and the beginning of a hub/spoke system to feed the SWC (read: more net ridership for the SWC).


----------



## gmushial (Jan 22, 2014)

XHRTSP said:


> Or Colorado could just build their own commuter line from Denver down to Trinidad. Do it right and make it 110mph and I'm sure you could get some respectable ridership going.


Use the I-25 ROW - wouldn't have to buy land, would be a protected area, ie, no trespassers etc. ... also might be disheartening enough to be driving I-25 and have the railcar zip by doing 40mph even faster (ie, to encourage drivers to abandon their cars).... one thing to have a RR out in the middle of nowhere where nobody see it, but to use the I-25 ROW: would self-advertise with every run. Also might be able to tie into the new airport so far from Denver proper.


----------



## jphjaxfl (Jan 22, 2014)

Santa Fe ran a connecting train from Denver to Colorado springs, Pueblo and Lajunta until A Day. Track was fairly smooth. seems like Colorado could include that as part of the bill.


----------



## OlympianHiawatha (Jan 22, 2014)

Colorado should be able to pay for this out of all the Pot Revenue they have coming in


----------



## bgiaquin (Jan 22, 2014)

Ehh, Here is the thing, even if Colorado does it's part to keep the Chief where it is, that may not convince Kansas and NM to do theirs, therefore the train would be forced to reroute to the transcon anyway. With Pueblo, well, that may be a good idea, but it may not be. It could be just a "try it out and see how it goes" sort of deal.


----------



## Nathanael (Jan 22, 2014)

Checking my handy railroad atlas, it would be pretty easy to detour the train via Pueblo. Slower, certainly.

The thing is, I don't think this is going to work. Amtrak has set a deadline of end-of-2014 for getting the existing route funded, or it will start planning to relocate it to the faster Amarillo route.

It's clearly not a priority in Colorado, but suppose this bill goes through.

There are some state legislators in New Mexico pushing for funding, but New Mexico can't get funding unless Martinez is replaced by a pro-train governor -- and the election is in November 2014, not giving much time to find funding before Amtrak's deadline. Even a new governor may not make it a priority, as the reroute still service Albuquerque and the existing route would cost a lot more money.

No state legislators in Kansas are pushing for funding. Nothing will happen in Kansas unless the governor AND the legislative majority are unseated -- and the election is in November. Even if Brownback is unseated and Davis gets a Democratic majority in the legislature, I'm pretty sure the Kansas government will have other priorities. Indeed, Wichita will probably be advocating *for* the reroute. And Garden City etc. don't have any money of their own to contribute -- Wichita might.

I just don't see the funding coming through in time to maintain the existing route. It needs a *lot* of money, and the money isn't going to come through unless all three states agree.

Frankly, the Amarillo route is better anyway, although an Albuquerque-Pueblo-Denver route would be quite worthwhile. (The sticking point there is apparently coal-train crowding on the "Joint Line" between Pueblo and Denver. A "coal bypass" has been proposed but not funded or built.)


----------



## mwmnp (Jan 22, 2014)

For a number of reasons, this really shouldn't be taken as a serious proposal. Rerouting the Southwest Chief through Pueblo would interfere with BNSF's directional running in the area. From La Junta to Pueblo and then Pueblo to Trinidad the westbound train would be running the "wrong way" as the La Junta-Pueblo line is primarily for eastbounds (technically southbounds, since many of the trains swing south past La Junta) while the Pueblo-Trinidad line is primarily for northbounds. Now there are slightly over 45 miles of double-track on the Pueblo-Trinidad line, but all of the double-track is non-signaled, meaning Amtrak would be limited to 59 mph, though realistically the actual speed may be slower as trains heading south from Pueblo to Mayne (located near exit 42 of I-25) grind uphill as the tracks rise about 2000 feet in elevation over the course of approximately 60 miles (the current westbound route from La Junta to Trindad also rises about 2000 feet, but over the course of about 80 miles). Furthermore, the track that the Chief would undoubtedly have to use in order to avoid running on the same track as BNSF trains is owned and dispatched by Union Pacific as part of the BNSF-UP joint line that extends north to Denver.

By far the elephant in the room with this proposal, though, is that this rerouting does absolutely nothing to address the fact that nobody but Amtrak uses the tracks from Trindad to Lamy. A long-term solution here would still be needed.


----------



## Just-Thinking-51 (Jan 22, 2014)

Wichita KS at one point was paying for airline service to Denver CO.

They may still. Read a story once how the price was going up for the city to keep the air service.


----------



## XHRTSP (Jan 22, 2014)

gmushial said:


> also might be disheartening enough to be driving I-25 and have the railcar zip by doing 40mph even faster (ie, to encourage drivers to abandon their cars).... one thing to have a RR out in the middle of nowhere where nobody see it, but to use the I-25 ROW: would self-advertise with every run.


Glad I'm not the only one who thinks all trains next to an interstate need 110 service. That just seems like a given for the reasons you stated.
Boardman, if you're reading this, make it so!


----------



## gmushial (Jan 22, 2014)

Nathanael said:


> Checking my handy railroad atlas, it would be pretty easy to detour the train via Pueblo. Slower, certainly.
> 
> The thing is, I don't think this is going to work. Amtrak has set a deadline of end-of-2014 for getting the existing route funded, or it will start planning to relocate it to the faster Amarillo route.
> 
> ...





mwmnp said:


> For a number of reasons, this really shouldn't be taken as a serious proposal. Rerouting the Southwest Chief through Pueblo would interfere with BNSF's directional running in the area. From La Junta to Pueblo and then Pueblo to Trinidad the westbound train would be running the "wrong way" as the La Junta-Pueblo line is primarily for eastbounds (technically southbounds, since many of the trains swing south past La Junta) while the Pueblo-Trinidad line is primarily for northbounds. Now there are slightly over 45 miles of double-track on the Pueblo-Trinidad line, but all of the double-track is non-signaled, meaning Amtrak would be limited to 59 mph, though realistically the actual speed may be slower as trains heading south from Pueblo to Mayne (located near exit 42 of I-25) grind uphill as the tracks rise about 2000 feet in elevation over the course of approximately 60 miles (the current westbound route from La Junta to Trindad also rises about 2000 feet, but over the course of about 80 miles). Furthermore, the track that the Chief would undoubtedly have to use in order to avoid running on the same track as BNSF trains is owned and dispatched by Union Pacific as part of the BNSF-UP joint line that extends north to Denver.
> 
> By far the elephant in the room with this proposal, though, is that this rerouting does absolutely nothing to address the fact that nobody but Amtrak uses the tracks from Trindad to Lamy. A long-term solution here would still be needed.


Since both of you understand the bigger picture involved here - might one or both of you get up on your soapboxes and paint a broader picture of what this reroute is (really) all about... please.

many thanks - greg


----------



## The Davy Crockett (Jan 22, 2014)

Isn't the decision on the reroute allegedly supposed to happen this month? :unsure:


----------



## D.P. Roberts (Jan 22, 2014)

Personally, when I saw the headline my first thought was "Who is Bill, and why is the SWC in danger?"


----------



## gmushial (Jan 22, 2014)

D.P. Roberts said:


> Personally, when I saw the headline my first thought was "Who is Bill, and why is the SWC in danger?"


Yes, English is a type 2 grammar, ie, meaning is highly context dependent.


----------



## Paulus (Jan 22, 2014)

gmushial said:


> Since both of you understand the bigger picture involved here - might one or both of you get up on your soapboxes and paint a broader picture of what this reroute is (really) all about... please.


The quick and dirty of the reroute is that BNSF is abandoning the Raton pass route; there isn't any local traffic and because of higher grades, they're consolidating all of its through traffic onto the Southern Transcon. The only trains that will be running on it will be Amtrak. As a result, BNSF is requiring that if Amtrak wishes to continue operating over that line, they, or any sponsoring government entities, will be solely responsible for maintenance on that line (as they are the sole users). There is approximately $100 million in needed repairs and I believe about ten million per year in annual maintenance required to maintain speeds higher than 40mph. BNSF has offered, at no additional cost, to host the Southwest Chief on the Southern Transcon instead. For whatever reason there has been much wailing and gnashing of teeth over this reroute.


----------



## gmushial (Jan 22, 2014)

Paulus said:


> gmushial said:
> 
> 
> > Since both of you understand the bigger picture involved here - might one or both of you get up on your soapboxes and paint a broader picture of what this reroute is (really) all about... please.
> ...


thank you - much appreciated.


----------



## XHRTSP (Jan 22, 2014)

So for those of us who don't live between Wichita and Albuquerque (I'm assuming that's where the discontinuity will be), should we be happy, sad, or what?


----------



## gmushial (Jan 22, 2014)

Found this article on the reroute:

http://keephoustonhouston.wordpress.com/2012/10/24/the-southern-transcon-beckons/

Another:

http://amarillo.com/news/local-news/2010-10-08/bnsf-suggests-amtrak-line-run-through-amarillo

and another (includes map of reroute):

http://amarillo.com/news/local-news/2013-05-25/amtrak-mulls-amarillo-route

TO also has a "Questions about BNSF Transcon via Amarillo" thread with lots of info about history etc.


----------



## Nathanael (Jan 23, 2014)

The Davy Crockett said:


> Isn't the decision on the reroute allegedly supposed to happen this month? :unsure:


I thought the decision was supposed to happen December 2014.



Paulus said:


> The quick and dirty of the reroute is that BNSF is abandoning the Raton pass route; there isn't any local traffic and because of higher grades, they're consolidating all of its through traffic onto the Southern Transcon. The only trains that will be running on it will be Amtrak. As a result, BNSF is requiring that if Amtrak wishes to continue operating over that line, they, or any sponsoring government entities, will be solely responsible for maintenance on that line (as they are the sole users). There is approximately $100 million in needed repairs and I believe about ten million per year in annual maintenance required to maintain speeds higher than 40mph. BNSF has offered, at no additional cost, to host the Southwest Chief on the Southern Transcon instead. For whatever reason there has been much wailing and gnashing of teeth over this reroute.


This is all correct. A few additional points:- The Southern Transcon (through Amarillo) is just as fast as the current route; possibly faster.

- The Southern Transcon would allow for station stops in Amarillo and in Wichita downtown; there is therefore more potential ridership on the Southern Transcon route.

- The rerouted train, coming from the east, would still stop at Newton, Kansas, and would then go to Wichita, to Amarillo, and finally to Albquerque, where it would resume the existing route.

- The stations which would lose service are mostly tiny towns with really low ridership, except for Lamy (used only for connecting service to Santa Fe), and Raton (used mostly to get to the Philmont Boy Scout Ranch).

- Connecting service to Santa Fe is now available from Albuquerque (via RailRunner) anyway.

- Obviously, the cities which would be bypassed are upset, as are the legislators from the bypassed districts, but they don't seem to have much influence in any of the three state legislatures.

- BNSF's current contract with Amtrak expires sometime in 2016. The current contract allows Amtrak to run across Raton Pass at the current cost -- but BNSF will demand the financial changes mentioned above in any contract made after 2016. Therefore, the reroute will happen in 2016.

- Amtrak has stated that it needs some lead time to prepare for the reroute (presumably in order to get stations built in Amarillo and Wichita, set up new crew change points, hire people, etc.) and therefore Amtrak told the states that if it doesn't get funding committed by the end of 2014, it will commit to the reroute.

- Amtrak took officials from all three states on a tour of the current route, and after that all three state governments declined to pay any money to keep the train on its current route.

- Amarillo city just bought the old train station in anticipation of the potential reroute.

- Wichita has been trying to get funding for a Heartland Flyer extension northerly through Wichita to Kansas City, so its city government will probably be gung-ho about getting Southwest Chief service.

- The developer who owns Wichita Union Station is also supportive of passenger train service to the station.

Things look quite optimistic for the reroute, as far as I am concerned. I'm looking forward to the reroute and I think it will improve ridership, revenue, and costs for the Southwest Chief.

But as Paulus says, there has been much upset about it from others -- understandable from the people living in cities which will be bypassed, of course.


----------



## Anderson (Jan 23, 2014)

Just an observation, but deadlines like this tend to be flexible. If a deal is possibly on the table (Martinez loses or it looks like she's backing down/reversing course), Amtrak can slide it by a few months.


----------



## Ispolkom (Jan 23, 2014)

Paulus said:


> BNSF has offered, at no additional cost, to host the Southwest Chief on the Southern Transcon instead. For whatever reason there has been much wailing and gnashing of teeth over this reroute.


The wailing and gnashing is because many people think that the Southern Transcon has less interesting scenery than the Raton Pass route. I'd personally prefer that the Southwest Chief stay on its present route, just as I'd prefer the California Zephyr stay on its present D&RG route rather than revert to the San Francisco Zephyr route over the Overland route.

I've even planned a trip this November on the Southwest Chief to go over Raton Pass one last time in case the train is rerouted.

That being said, I don't think that it's a good use of Amtrak money to maintain the track that BNSF wants to abandon. Amtrak's capital funds are limited, and I think there are better ways to spend them.


----------



## VentureForth (Jan 23, 2014)

You can almost be rest assured that if Amtrak & The States get the funding and "save" the current routing, BNSF will find an excuse to keep running their own trains on it.


----------



## XHRTSP (Jan 23, 2014)

VentureForth said:


> You can almost be rest assured that if Amtrak & The States get the funding and "save" the current routing, BNSF will find an excuse to keep running their own trains on it.


Assuming the funds can be identified, at that point would it be as cost effective for Amtrak or local agencies to just buy the line outright? Then charge the freight rent?


----------



## gmushial (Jan 23, 2014)

XHRTSP said:


> VentureForth said:
> 
> 
> > You can almost be rest assured that if Amtrak & The States get the funding and "save" the current routing, BNSF will find an excuse to keep running their own trains on it.
> ...


Any guesses in terms of cost? How many miles of line are we talking? 700, almost 800 miles?


----------



## VentureForth (Jan 23, 2014)

And then I want to see them rehabilitate the line from Pueblo through the Royal Gorge and up through Leadville...

Oh, I suppose that's narrow gauge...


----------



## zephyr17 (Jan 23, 2014)

VentureForth said:


> You can almost be rest assured that if Amtrak & The States get the funding and "save" the current routing, BNSF will find an excuse to keep running their own trains on it.


Why? They don't run trains on it now and they own and maintain it. What's the source of the traffic?


----------



## VentureForth (Jan 23, 2014)

They don't run on it because they want to abandon it. If it's paid for and maintained by someone else, they will likely use it.

When they threatened to abandon completely the line between Belen and Trinidad, New Mexico bought the whole route for like $90 Mil or something. If they refused the section from Lamy to Trinidad, they would have been charged like $87 Mil (These are off my head numbers from something that happened 10 years ago). When NM bought the whole section, with the off chance that Colorado would buy from Trinidad to Denver, BNSF suddenly started running trains on that track again. I don't have source info for all this - just what I experienced watching while I lived there.


----------



## jis (Jan 23, 2014)

If they are really interested in maintaining some level of access to that trackage I am surprised that they are not simply trying to do a CSX-NY State like lease deal maintaining trackage rights. The whole thing might be more palatable for all sides involved since the amount of money immediately required would be much less.


----------



## Ispolkom (Jan 23, 2014)

jis said:


> If they are really interested in maintaining some level of access to that trackage I am surprised that they are not simply trying to do a CSX-NY State like lease deal maintaining trackage rights. The whole thing might be more palatable for all sides involved since the amount of money immediately required would be much less.


Perhaps BNSF is relying on its recent experience in North Dakota. It failed to get any response until it announced that it would rather abandon through service on the Devils Lake subdivision than pay the $100 million to fix flooding issues at Churchs Ferry. Given the amount of traffic that line now sees, I'm wondering if BNSF wasn't being a wee bit disingenuous in order to get government help to pay for the Churchs Ferry project.

Perhaps we see a similar strategy here, where BNSF would be quite happy to keep an alternate route open at someone else's expense. One problem with a lease deal might have to do with the fact that you'd involve 2 state governments, run by governors of different parties with quite different interests.


----------



## Nathanael (Jan 23, 2014)

XHRTSP said:


> VentureForth said:
> 
> 
> > You can almost be rest assured that if Amtrak & The States get the funding and "save" the current routing, BNSF will find an excuse to keep running their own trains on it.
> ...


Governor Richardson of New Mexico arranged to buy the line for, I kid you not, $5 million dollars. Cheap. Governor Martinez actually broke the contract deliberately, and really got nothing for it.

I think there's going to be a "once bitten twice shy" feeling about selling that line -- cash upfront and close tomorrow or no deal.


----------



## Nathanael (Jan 23, 2014)

Ispolkom said:


> The wailing and gnashing is because many people think that the Southern Transcon has less interesting scenery than the Raton Pass route.


Ah. Mountains bore me. I've never seen the Panhandle, though...



> I'd personally prefer that the Southwest Chief stay on its present route, just as I'd prefer the California Zephyr stay on its present D&RG route rather than revert to the San Francisco Zephyr route over the Overland route.


I've thought about whether it would make sense to reroute the Zephyr on the "Overland" route. It would be much faster and more reliable. *However*, there's a huge amount of "ski traffic" on the present California Zephyr route, and no online passenger traffic to speak of on the Overland route through empty Wyoming. So unless a separate set of "Ski Trains" ran on the D&RG route, it wouldn't make sense. If the tourist traffic ever gets taken over by special corridor trains, perhaps funded by the state of Colorado, then I think within a few years you'll see people seriously suggesting a reroute of the CZ. But it doesn't look like that's going to happen any time soon.


----------



## Anderson (Jan 23, 2014)

I do wonder how much BNSF _really_ wants to abandon the route. If the Transcon is out for some reason, this is their only route east from LA, and with the wild surges in traffic over the last decade or so abandoning capacity seems to be a questionable move. They've been burned with cut capacity plenty lately, after all, though to be fair the practice of transferring part of a (former) main line to another operator and then using it has precedent.


----------



## JayPea (Jan 23, 2014)

Anderson said:


> I do wonder how much BNSF _really_ wants to abandon the route. If the Transcon is out for some reason, this is their only route east from LA, and with the wild surges in traffic over the last decade or so abandoning capacity seems to be a questionable move. They've been burned with cut capacity plenty lately, after all, though to be fair the practice of transferring part of a (former) main line to another operator and then using it has precedent.


True. In 1983, the (then) BN mothballed but did not completely abandon their former NP route from Pasco to Auburn over Stampede Pass. In 1986, the BN sold the portion of the line from Pasco to Cle Elum, WA to shortline operators Washington Central Railroad. However, in 1996, to alleviate some of the congestion with the ever-increasing traffic generated by (now) BNSF, the BNSF reacquired the line from the Central Washington Railroad and resumed operations between Pasco and Auburn, over Stampede Pass. WIth freight traffic ever increasing in the Pacific Northwest, BNSF is beginning to rue the day they abandoned and removed the rails from the former SP&S route between Spokane and Pasco. There has been some talk, likely not too serious, of rebuilding that route, and/or acquiring the old Milwaukee Road right-of-way between Tacoma and the tiny town of Lind, WA, some 80 miles southwest of Spokane, where the BNSF's Northern Pacific line meets the old Milwaukee Road right-of-way, and rebuilding the rails on it. This route traversed Snoqualmie Pass. Likely that's not too serious a proposal either due to the very high costs to do so.


----------



## VentureForth (Jan 23, 2014)

Nathanael said:


> Governor Richardson of New Mexico arranged to buy the line for, I kid you not, $5 million dollars. Cheap. Governor Martinez actually broke the contract deliberately, and really got nothing for it.
> 
> I think there's going to be a "once bitten twice shy" feeling about selling that line -- cash upfront and close tomorrow or no deal.


To reiterate, the $5 mil (?) was only to tack on the distance between Lamy and Trinidad and had to be bought with the rest of the line to Belen.

Though the return on investment may have taken a while, I think BNSF would be paying lease back before too long when the Transcon and the Northern routes are maxed out.

Feds and State should be looking at how much BNSF revenue is being hauled on the recently refurbished routes that were ready for abandonment.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S3 using the Android Amtrak Forums mobile app


----------



## cirdan (Jan 24, 2014)

JayPea said:


> True. In 1983, the (then) BN mothballed but did not completely abandon their former NP route from Pasco to Auburn over Stampede Pass. In 1986, the BN sold the portion of the line from Pasco to Cle Elum, WA to shortline operators Washington Central Railroad. However, in 1996, to alleviate some of the congestion with the ever-increasing traffic generated by (now) BNSF, the BNSF reacquired the line from the Central Washington Railroad and resumed operations between Pasco and Auburn, over Stampede Pass.


 If I remember rightly how it was reported in Trains magazine at the time, they didn't just resume running trains on the old tracks, but spent quite a bit of cash bringing the route back up to standards.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jan 24, 2014)

Nathanael said:


> XHRTSP said:
> 
> 
> > VentureForth said:
> ...


 Wow, what a mess. Rather unfortunate for New Mexico to elect a bad faith governor.



Nathanael said:


> Ah. Mountains bore me. I've never seen the Panhandle, though...




There used to be a separate Ski Train for nearly 70 years. First there was the worldwide economic turmoil caused by a market bubble here in the US. Then there was the resulting credit market implosion. Finally there was a large increase in liability requirements imposed by Amtrak (possibly at Union Pacific's request or insistence). And that was the end of the Ski Train. According to Amtrak the hardware that had been fine for decades was now unsafe to run, although it appears to still be in use on other routes.


----------



## jis (Jan 24, 2014)

Nathanael said:


> I've thought about whether it would make sense to reroute the Zephyr on the "Overland" route. It would be much faster and more reliable. *However*, there's a huge amount of "ski traffic" on the present California Zephyr route, and no online passenger traffic to speak of on the Overland route through empty Wyoming. So unless a separate set of "Ski Trains" ran on the D&RG route, it wouldn't make sense. If the tourist traffic ever gets taken over by special corridor trains, perhaps funded by the state of Colorado, then I think within a few years you'll see people seriously suggesting a reroute of the CZ. But it doesn't look like that's going to happen any time soon.


Besides it would be a reversal on part of Amtrak since it is they who tried and worked very very hard to move the train from the UP Overland Route to the then D&RGW route in the first place.


----------



## bgiaquin (Jan 24, 2014)

Nathanael said:


> Ispolkom said:
> 
> 
> > The wailing and gnashing is because many people think that the Southern Transcon has less interesting scenery than the Raton Pass route.
> ...


A separate Ski Train did operate from Denver to Winter Park from 1940 to 2009.


----------



## JayPea (Jan 24, 2014)

cirdan said:


> JayPea said:
> 
> 
> > True. In 1983, the (then) BN mothballed but did not completely abandon their former NP route from Pasco to Auburn over Stampede Pass. In 1986, the BN sold the portion of the line from Pasco to Cle Elum, WA to shortline operators Washington Central Railroad. However, in 1996, to alleviate some of the congestion with the ever-increasing traffic generated by (now) BNSF, the BNSF reacquired the line from the Central Washington Railroad and resumed operations between Pasco and Auburn, over Stampede Pass.
> ...


They did spend millions on upgrading the line. Unfortunately, the biggest improvement they could have done has, so far as I can tell, not been done yet, and that is enlarge the Stampede Pass Tunnel in order to allow double-stacked intermodal cars. At present the tunnel is too short for double-stack cars and this greatly reduces the Stampede Pass route's usefulness for transcontinental traffic. After the initial money was spent to get the line ready for traffic again, the line fell into some disrepair, limiting its usefulness even further. However there are now some upgrades being done to the trackage. There has been talk of providing funds to upgrade the tunnel but so far all it has amounted to is talk.


----------



## Nathanael (Jan 24, 2014)

bgiaquin said:


> A separate Ski Train did operate from Denver to Winter Park from 1940 to 2009.


Ah yes. A great loss to see that end.

It wasn't a full substitute for the existing route, though. Apparently tourist traffic fills the train up to Glenwood Springs (33113 on/offs in 2013), and there's even a lot of traffic to Grand Junction (29826 on/offs in 2013). It's only west of Grand Junction that the traffic really drops off. So to replace the California Zephyr's role in the Rocky Mountains, I feel that you'd have to run trains all the way from Denver to Grand Junction. (Green River, UT and Helper, UT have insignificant traffic and Provo is connected to Salt Lake City by FrontRunner.)


----------



## Chas (Jan 24, 2014)

Nathanael said:


> - The stations which would lose service are mostly tiny towns with really low ridership, except for Lamy (used only for connecting service to Santa Fe), and Raton (used mostly to get to the Philmont Boy Scout Ranch).


Don't confuse the size of the station's town with the area that it serves. La Junta and Trinidad, Colorado, attract passengers from the cities of Colorado Springs and Pueblo, plus various other towns.


----------



## Chas (Jan 24, 2014)

NARP press conference in Pueblo planned tomorrow, Sat., Jan. 25.

"A press conference will be held to discuss legislative efforts to save the Southwest Chief at 11am MST tomorrow, January 25 at the Pueblo Museum Rail Yard in Pueblo, Colorado.

"Local and state legislative leaders will be present to discuss their newly introduced legislation to save the train, which, without significant track maintenance, is at risk of being rerouted or discontinued.

"Representative LeRoy Garcia of Pueblo will be among the leaders present. This week Garcia introduced a bill that calls on local communities and private investors to partially fund the necessary upgrades to the track. The bill also proposed a new train stop in Pueblo, CO with the goal of increasing ridership in Southern Colorado."


----------



## printman2000 (Jan 26, 2014)

http://amarillo.com/news/latest-news/2014-01-25/southwest-chief-sacrificial-train



> Is Southwest Chief a 'sacrificial train'?Some rail watchers think Amtrak is using the Southwest Chief routing issue to sidestep its congressional mandate to subsidize long-distance trains — those traveling more than 750 miles — with federal funds.


----------



## printman2000 (Jan 26, 2014)

And another, stating that Amarillo is ready and waiting...

http://amarillo.com/news/latest-news/2014-01-25/next-stop-amarillo-lawmakers-scramble-amtrak-fix



> “I’ve been waiting to find out if there’s a real chance Amtrak will change the route,” said state Rep. John Smithee, R-Amarillo. “If that’s the case, we’ll be all in.


----------



## AlanB (Jan 26, 2014)

printman2000 said:


> http://amarillo.com/news/latest-news/2014-01-25/southwest-chief-sacrificial-train
> 
> 
> 
> ...


One could claim that with regard to the Sunset Limited east; but not in this case. If Amtrak reroutes, which at present seems likely, then Amtrak has to keep paying to run the train. Only if it remains on its current routing would Amtrak technically be getting some help, and even then not really. The money is really going to BNSF; not Amtrak. Yes, Amtrak won't have to pay BNSF track fees in that area; but that's a small amount of money.


----------



## gmushial (Jan 26, 2014)

AlanB said:


> printman2000 said:
> 
> 
> > http://amarillo.com/news/latest-news/2014-01-25/southwest-chief-sacrificial-train
> ...


Related question: has anyone seen published per mile lease/usage fee rates? ie, for a single SWC, what does Amtrak pay to BNSF to run from LAX to CHI, ie, what percentage of the ticket price goes to pay the track fees... don't have any sense at all of even the size of this number - is it insignificant, or is it large enough to be a determining factor in terms of routing and budgeting?


----------



## Paulus (Jan 26, 2014)

gmushial said:


> Related question: has anyone seen published per mile lease/usage fee rates? ie, for a single SWC, what does Amtrak pay to BNSF to run from LAX to CHI, ie, what percentage of the ticket price goes to pay the track fees... don't have any sense at all of even the size of this number - is it insignificant, or is it large enough to be a determining factor in terms of routing and budgeting?


The contracts are confidential but Amtrak averages just a bit over $4 per train mile as of a few years ago.


----------



## gmushial (Jan 26, 2014)

Paulus said:


> gmushial said:
> 
> 
> > Related question: has anyone seen published per mile lease/usage fee rates? ie, for a single SWC, what does Amtrak pay to BNSF to run from LAX to CHI, ie, what percentage of the ticket price goes to pay the track fees... don't have any sense at all of even the size of this number - is it insignificant, or is it large enough to be a determining factor in terms of routing and budgeting?
> ...


Many thanks - that's a huge insight. Any sense of NEC or LD routes costing more or less? ... but given your number than it sounds like there's $8k +/- that comes off the top for a CZ from end to end... any sense if these charges are on a per consist basis, or a per car basis, ie, can Amtrak save a little if they have a half empty CZ by dropping an unused coach car or sleeper?

again, many thanks,

greg


----------



## jis (Jan 26, 2014)

The track charges are per train mile I believe.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## gmushial (Jan 26, 2014)

jis said:


> The track charges are per train mile I believe.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


So, there's no way to save money on Amtrak's part if they have a half empty LD train - the track charges are basically a fixed cost item :-(


----------



## Ryan (Jan 26, 2014)

Why the :-(?

It's a good thing - longer, fuller trains don't cost any more to run (from that perspective, obviously other costs are variable) and bring in a lot more revenue.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jan 26, 2014)

One car is the same as a dozen cars from the perspective of the host. Once you start exceeding the size of the average platform then the station stops start taking longer for double or triple spotting but so long as Amtrak is able to clear a station in within an agreed upon window the host probably doesn't care about the size of the train itself. If you keep increasing the length of the consist then at some point you'd eventually risk exceeding the size of the average siding for a given route, but we're so far from that point that I doubt we'll ever see such a thing in any of our lifetimes. You could double or triple or even quadruple most Amtrak trains before the host would be incapable of dispatching them due to issues with length.


----------



## VentureForth (Jan 26, 2014)

Devil's Advocate said:


> One car is the same as a dozen cars from the perspective of the host. Once you start exceeding the size of the average platform then the station stops start taking longer for double or triple spotting but so long as Amtrak is willing to clear a station in within an agreed window the host probably doesn't care about the size of the train itself. If you keep increasing the length of the consist then eventually you'd risk exceeding the size of the average siding for a given route, but we're so far from that point that I doubt we'll ever see such a thing in our lifetime. You could double or triple or even quadruple most Amtrak trains before the host would be incapable of dispatching them due to issues with length.


And with sidings designed for long freight trains, you would have to be running 40 cars+ before you're even a blink in picking sidings.
Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S3 using the Android Amtrak Forums mobile app


----------



## gmushial (Jan 26, 2014)

RyanS said:


> Why the :-(?
> 
> It's a good thing - longer, fuller trains don't cost any more to run (from that perspective, obviously other costs are variable) and bring in a lot more revenue.


'Cause if the western LDs are being subsidized by the eastern trains and there is no way to trim costs when the western LDs run half empty, then it might become tempting to reduce the schedule or worse eliminate them/some. ... let's hope the ridership continues to grow and this doesn't come up.


----------



## gmushial (Jan 26, 2014)

Devil's Advocate said:


> One car is the same as a dozen cars from the perspective of the host. Once you start exceeding the size of the average platform then the station stops start taking longer for double or triple spotting but so long as Amtrak is able to clear a station in within an agreed upon window the host probably doesn't care about the size of the train itself. If you keep increasing the length of the consist then at some point you'd eventually risk exceeding the size of the average siding for a given route, but we're so far from that point that I doubt we'll ever see such a thing in any of our lifetimes. You could double or triple or even quadruple most Amtrak trains before the host would be incapable of dispatching them due to issues with length.


I was thinking that the fees were based on induced costs to the host, ie, wear, ie, x cars produce f(x) wear and 2x cars produce f(2x) wear... though maybe the biggest wear source might be the loco(s). Hadn't considered the cost to the host in terms of the time-domain, but that would also make sense.

thanks - greg


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jan 26, 2014)

gmushial said:


> Devil's Advocate said:
> 
> 
> > One car is the same as a dozen cars from the perspective of the host. Once you start exceeding the size of the average platform then the station stops start taking longer for double or triple spotting but so long as Amtrak is able to clear a station in within an agreed upon window the host probably doesn't care about the size of the train itself. If you keep increasing the length of the consist then at some point you'd eventually risk exceeding the size of the average siding for a given route, but we're so far from that point that I doubt we'll ever see such a thing in any of our lifetimes. You could double or triple or even quadruple most Amtrak trains before the host would be incapable of dispatching them due to issues with length.
> ...


I doubt most Amtrak hardware is heavy enough or runs often enough to play much of a roll in general wear and tear along much of the nationwide route network. In areas where Amtrak runs dozens of trains per day they obviously represent a much larger fraction of the wear, but those areas are few and far between and if even one full sized freight train passes in an entire day it may cause as much damage to the rails and roadbed as all of the Amtrak trains combined. Even Amtrak's locomotives (and some of their rolling stock) have specialized trucks that cause less wear to the rails than conventional trucks.


----------



## gmushial (Jan 26, 2014)

Devil's Advocate said:


> gmushial said:
> 
> 
> > Devil's Advocate said:
> ...


You almost make it sound like the fees border on arbitrary and capricious, or maybe based on what the market will bear, vs. some computable induced cost an artifact of having the Amtrak trains use the rails.


----------



## The Davy Crockett (Jan 26, 2014)

gmushial said:


> You almost make it sound like the fees border on arbitrary and capricious, or maybe based on what the market will bear, vs. some computable induced cost an artifact of having the Amtrak trains use the rails.


You mean like what UP wanted to charge Amtrak to make the Sunset Ltd a daily train?


----------



## gmushial (Jan 26, 2014)

The Davy Crockett said:


> gmushial said:
> 
> 
> > You almost make it sound like the fees border on arbitrary and capricious, or maybe based on what the market will bear, vs. some computable induced cost an artifact of having the Amtrak trains use the rails.
> ...


An intriguing sentence... but I'm unaware of this situation: can you bring me up to speed on this?

many thanks, greg


----------



## AlanB (Jan 26, 2014)

The Davy Crockett said:


> gmushial said:
> 
> 
> > You almost make it sound like the fees border on arbitrary and capricious, or maybe based on what the market will bear, vs. some computable induced cost an artifact of having the Amtrak trains use the rails.
> ...


Not really a fair example, as that wasn't a serious offer in terms of actually running the service. That unusual amount came about as a way to simply shut down all talks after Amtrak blew the initial deal.


----------



## gmushial (Jan 26, 2014)

Maybe I'm the only one here that isn't aware of the details of UP vs. The Sunset Ltd - might somebody that knows, shed some light on said details?


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jan 26, 2014)

gmushial said:


> Devil's Advocate said:
> 
> 
> > gmushial said:
> ...


Although the specifics are kept a secret I believe the fees themselves represent a maintenance and an operational impact that is difficult to quantify in absolute terms. Running a single daily Amtrak train does represent an opportunity cost as to the scheduling of other trains, but since the host controls the dispatching and must agree to any changes they are able to choose when and how to handle this disruption so that it creates the least possible impact to their own operations. Another consideration is that Amtrak trains can run faster that freight trains and as a result are potentially more likely to have accidents involving fouled crossings or poorly maintained track due to their increased speed and lighter weight. In the case of an accident involving an Amtrak train the liability cost is largely indemnified onto Amtrak's shoulders. That being said the host railroad remains responsible for cooperating with the various regulatory agencies during the post accident period, for rerouting and rescheduling their own trains, and for repairing the track and related infrastructure and returning it to working condition. Some of that cost is likely to be added into the fees involving trackage rights for Amtrak.



gmushial said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > The Davy Crockett said:
> ...


As I recall there was a request by Amtrak for a one time schedule change involving the Sunset Limited. The route would remain the same but the timing would change and the frequency would increase to once per day. In reply to this request UP came back with a fee of _seven hundred million dollars_. Again, this was for a one time schedule change involving what would become a single daily train. Many of us saw this as nothing more than a middle finger extended in Amtrak's direction. The figure itself was a leak but I don't recall either party challenging the figure after it came out. Union Pacific (and other massive class ones) have been known to play hardball when they perceive themselves as having the upper hand, but the size of this fee appeared to be completely detached from reality. How do you continue to negotiate in good faith after receiving an offer that appears designed strictly to bankrupt you?


----------



## AlanB (Jan 26, 2014)

Devil's Advocate said:


> gmushial said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe I'm the only one here that isn't aware of the details of UP vs. The Sunset Ltd - might somebody that knows, shed some light on said details?
> ...


Your recollection is partially correct. Amtrak wanted to run the Eagle daily to LA, run a stub train NOL to SAS to connect with the daily Eagle. A plan that some of us were against.

Amtrak & UP upper level Exec's wrapped up a deal for that plan; only to have some underlings at Amtrak blow the deal while trying to cross the T's and dot the I's. After that, UP came out with its outrageous $750M number to put an end to all further negotiations.


----------



## Aaron (Jan 26, 2014)

AlanB said:


> Your recollection is partially correct. Amtrak wanted to run the Eagle daily to LA, run a stub train NOL to SAS to connect with the daily Eagle. A plan that some of us were against.


Running the risk of taking this further off topic, I'm curious as to what about that plan rail fans might have been against. Surely not the daily running... Is it the breaking off of NOL-SAS as the stub train? If so, is just turning the existing routing into a daily train a better option? Does it provide the same equipment savings as the stub train plan in the PIP?


----------



## Aaron (Jan 26, 2014)

gmushial said:


> 'Cause if the western LDs are being subsidized by the eastern trains and there is no way to trim costs when the western LDs run half empty, then it might become tempting to reduce the schedule or worse eliminate them/some. ... let's hope the ridership continues to grow and this doesn't come up.


A half empty train is going to have the same track costs as a full train, but there are other ways to theoretically save costs when the trains run empty. If Amtrak dropped cars from the consist, they could save on labor costs of attendants, fuel costs, and any mileage related maintenance or wear costs for the cars that aren't running. Of course, that's not likely to happen that often, since it becomes a logistical nightmare with cars not where they need to be and unions crying over their members not working. So, we only really see that kind of thing with the extra cars that get added on some routes seasonally then dropped when the expected demand is over.


----------



## AlanB (Jan 27, 2014)

Aaron said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > Your recollection is partially correct. Amtrak wanted to run the Eagle daily to LA, run a stub train NOL to SAS to connect with the daily Eagle. A plan that some of us were against.
> ...


Aaron,

I don't think that most rail fans were opposed to the idea, although I never conducted a poll; certainly those in California were not. But I was very opposed to it as it would have killed the Sunset Limited IMHO. There would have been a big revenue loss for the Sunset NOL-SAS with passengers needing to change trains, and currently there is far more ridership west of SAS coming from the Sunset as opposed to the Eagle. I believe that overall revenue would have been greatly impacted by a daily Eagle plan vs. a daily Sunset plan; the latter of which doesn't exist.

And the plan would have brought PRIIA into the equation, requiring that Texas and/or Louisiana fund the stub train since it would have been under the 750 mile limit.

I'm not really sure about equipment; but I believe that it would have required more equipment than either the current plan or the daily Eagle plan. I also didn't like the fact that it would have used extra equipment repaired with Stimulus monies that was originally supposed to have gone to the EB expanding that consist and at least back then, generating far more revenue from said equipment than the daily Eagle would have. Right now with time keeping issues those extra cars might have been a waste.

The big issue here remains the fact that most people near or already coming through Chicago aren't looking for an extra night on the train. Only railfans want that; most people are going to board the SW Chief.


----------



## cirdan (Jan 27, 2014)

gmushial said:


> You almost make it sound like the fees border on arbitrary and capricious, or maybe based on what the market will bear, vs. some computable induced cost an artifact of having the Amtrak trains use the rails.


Costs delivered to host railroads are not just for wear and tear. I guess wear and tear are but a small part of the costs. Costs also cover the inconvenience of having to accomodate an extra train, congestion this may cause and delays to freight trains as well as the general and overhead costs of planning and accomodating for such trains, paperwork etc.

Think of it like paying for a taxi? What percentage of your taxi fare genuinely covers gas and wear and tear versus general costs of opportunity?


----------



## Paulus (Jan 27, 2014)

cirdan said:


> gmushial said:
> 
> 
> > You almost make it sound like the fees border on arbitrary and capricious, or maybe based on what the market will bear, vs. some computable induced cost an artifact of having the Amtrak trains use the rails.
> ...


Nope. By law Amtrak only pays for incidental MoW; though they've signed for some minor bonuses for OTP. True slot payments are significantly higher (X-Train was around $130/mile iirc).


----------



## jis (Jan 27, 2014)

When Amtrak was created the host railroads were itching to get rid of their passenger trains and there was oodles of excess capacity. So they had readily agreed to a basic MoW based trackage charge scheme. Of course since then they have shed capacity and demand for capacity has gone up and the results of that are visible in many places. Now they are sort of stuck with the flat rate scheme whereas they would all (ironically even Amtrak on the NEC) dearly love to have a scheme which takes into account opportunity costs and not just maintenance costs. And well here we are with the endless arguments and bickerings that follow from it.


----------



## VentureForth (Jan 27, 2014)

How did Amtrak muck up the deal?


----------



## gmushial (Jan 27, 2014)

To all those that have chimed in on this over the last 24 hours: many thanks - clearly yet again demonstrated the very high level of knowledge in this forum - which for the rest of us has provided an opportunity to learn a lot about the inner workings of Amtrak and the rail system in general, ie, don't stop this discussion now... there's still more for the rest of us to learn 

Clearly: many thanks,

greg


----------



## anir dendroica (Jan 27, 2014)

gmushial said:


> Devil's Advocate said:
> 
> 
> > One car is the same as a dozen cars from the perspective of the host. Once you start exceeding the size of the average platform then the station stops start taking longer for double or triple spotting but so long as Amtrak is able to clear a station in within an agreed upon window the host probably doesn't care about the size of the train itself. If you keep increasing the length of the consist then at some point you'd eventually risk exceeding the size of the average siding for a given route, but we're so far from that point that I doubt we'll ever see such a thing in any of our lifetimes. You could double or triple or even quadruple most Amtrak trains before the host would be incapable of dispatching them due to issues with length.
> ...


Amtrak's impacts on the freight railroads, especially on busy routes, are almost 100% time-domain. Wear on the tracks is negligible compared to 18,000 ton freights.

Every time a freight pulls into a siding for Amtrak, costs start adding up.

Let's say the average siding dwell time of a freight is 30 minutes, including the time lost during deceleration and acceleration. That's one hour of crew time plus benefits ($150?), 30 minutes of three locomotives idling (3.1 gal/hr * 3 * 0.5 hr *$3/gal = $14), and about six minutes of three locomotives in Notch 8 getting the train back up to speed (185 gal/hr * 3 * 0.1 hr * $3/gal = $166). So that's about $330 in cost to the railroad every time a freight meets Amtrak on a passing siding, or a freight traveling the same direction takes a siding to allow Amtrak to pass.

From Seattle to Minot is roughly 1200 miles, with passing sidings every ~8 miles and freights in at least half of the sidings. That means that over the course of an Empire Builder run, roughly 75 freights need to stop in sidings. At $330 per siding stop, that comes to nearly $25,000 in time-domain and fuel-domain cost.


----------



## PRR 60 (Jan 27, 2014)

VentureForth said:


> How did Amtrak muck up the deal?


By having contracts people take what was an agreement in principle and begin adding in various terms and conditions one-by-one until they rendered the original agreement unrecognizable. At that point, a thoroughly disgusted Union Pacific reinstated the original $750 million capacity enhancement requirement and walked away. The perception by some Amtrak fans that the UP is the villain in the Sunset Limited saga is not 100% correct.


----------



## amtkstn (Jan 27, 2014)

The SWC is lucky with most of it's route either double track or void of freights. Until just recently had of of the best on time performance. Also helps is the 90 mph running in places.


----------



## Nathanael (Jan 27, 2014)

AlanB said:


> And the plan would have brought PRIIA into the equation, requiring that Texas and/or Louisiana fund the stub train since it would have been under the 750 mile limit.


I've mentioned it before, but this isn't actually what PRIIA says. The text of the PRIIA rules is substantially weirder than most people think it is. Amtrak could fund the stub train on its own, because it isn't on a federally designated high-speed rail corridor. (Note that



> I'm not really sure about equipment; but I believe that it would have required more equipment than either the current plan or the daily Eagle plan.


I believe this is part of why Amtrak proposed a daily Eagle/Sunset combo with a stub from San Antonio to New Orleans; it used less equipment than a simple daily Sunset.


----------



## Nathanael (Jan 27, 2014)

PRR 60 said:


> VentureForth said:
> 
> 
> > How did Amtrak muck up the deal?
> ...


Sure. Until you name what these supposed provisions were, I'm going to guess they were things like "Union Pacific will run the trains on time, or pay penalties".
Most of the Class Is have been balking at the FRA's recent requirement that government-funded track upgrades have enforceable performance classes in the contracts with the freight railroad. The executives of the Class Is apparently think it's unreasonable to be asked to run the trains on time. The rest of us think the executives of the Class Is are unreasonable people.



> At that point, a thoroughly disgusted Union Pacific reinstated the original $750 million capacity enhancement requirement and walked away. The perception by some Amtrak fans that the UP is the villain in the Sunset Limited saga is not 100% correct.


So far the evidence I've seen points towards the idea that there never was a real agreement in principle. The UP execs probably had a different interpretation of what they'd agreed to than Amtrak did. And given the unreasonable and irrational attitude they've shown elsewhere (50 foot separations and concrete walls) I am not inclined to consider their interpretation reasonable without proof. I'm sure they thought it was reasonable.


----------



## Nathanael (Jan 27, 2014)

jis said:


> When Amtrak was created the host railroads were itching to get rid of their passenger trains and there was oodles of excess capacity. So they had readily agreed to a basic MoW based trackage charge scheme. Of course since then they have shed capacity and demand for capacity has gone up and the results of that are visible in many places.


What drives me nuts is the attitude of CSX when New York proposes reinstating the third and fourth track on the Empire Corridor, at New York State's expense, to get the passenger trains clear of the freight tracks.
50 foot horizontal separations! Concrete walls! This is nonsense, but this is the sort of hysterical garbage which has come out of the CSX and UP boardrooms in response to proposals to restore capacity, get the passenger trains out of the way of the freight trains, and do it at public expense. NS and BNSF have responded somewhat more appropriately, with "Thank you."


----------



## AlanB (Jan 27, 2014)

Nathanael said:


> So far the evidence I've seen points towards the idea that there never was a real agreement in principle. The UP execs probably had a different interpretation of what they'd agreed to than Amtrak did. And given the unreasonable and irrational attitude they've shown elsewhere (50 foot separations and concrete walls) I am not inclined to consider their interpretation reasonable without proof. I'm sure they thought it was reasonable.


Since there is no evidence to be seen, you have nothing to base any conclusion on. But one doesn't send in underlings to dot the i's and cross the t's unless there is an agreement in principle at the top level.

As for UP's so called unreasonable and irrational attitude, let me direct your attention to the Capital corridor where UP has been a very willing partner in things. They've been more than reasonable about everything, which blows your theory out of the water.


----------



## Nathanael (Jan 27, 2014)

The Capitol Corridor, sure, that's a partial counterexample. But when you hear complete craziness about concrete walls out of UP when dealing with multiple separate agencies, there's something funny going on. Maybe it's UP's inappropriate way of saying "We don't want to discuss things, go away."

To be fair, we've heard less of this sort of nonsense from UP in recent years; we've even heard less of it from CSX than we used to.


----------



## Swimmingcat (Jan 28, 2014)

This will be interesting to watch.

I've ridden the SWC in the past (mostly taking the "Thruway" bus (a regular Greyhound run) from C Springs to Raton to connect there, & vice versa). I can see everyone's point -- concern over loss of service to Colo & NM communities vs faster routing on the Transcon, vs costs, vs scenery. Proposals about rerouting the SWC thru Pueblo have been made before -- you might pick up passengers there, plus be closer to Denver & C Springs as well (But, then there is the longer route time . . ). However if BNSF really wants to abandon the line (is that a 'done-deal'?) then costs for Amtrak to maintain it may be prohibitive.


----------



## greatcats (Jan 28, 2014)

I too am watching this with great interest and am one of those who would prefer to see the train remain where it is. The reasons for re-routing it are valid and there are some positives that would result. But many people are getting all hysterical and the story is anything but over, certainly not a " done deal " and who knows what else may be going on behind the scenes. What we certainly do not want to see is the train discontinued, which I would think unlikely, as it is a primary long distance route. I agree with one of the previous posters that the idea of one of the Colorado officials of routing it into Pueblo does not hold water, as it needs the cooperation of two other states, whose interest seems to have gone south. The impracticality of paying out big bucks to maintain over 200 miles of track from Lamy to Trinidad does seem ridiculous for only one train in each direction. Meanwhile, the friend and I will be on Train 4 late next month to Chicago and return, and I we look forward to that historic ride through northern New Mexico and over Raton Pass.


----------



## 7deuceman (Jan 28, 2014)

The front range of Colorado as we know has grown substantially. I may have missed this part of the conversation, but is there is possibly a need for a substantial new service in Colorado south and northbound.

Perhaps a bus service to/from Wyoming connecting to a front range train serving Ft Collins, Longmont and Denver to/from ABQ via Castle Rock/Colorado Springs/Pueblo/Trinidad/Raton/Las Vegas is an option.

Perhaps ABQ has the potential to become a mini hub...Could a proposed front range train create a good SWC connection at ABQ: west to LAX and east for Amarillo and OKC connecting to the HLF down to Dallas and then on to Houston and Corpus Christi?

Denver is becoming more rail-oriented... could that initiative spread to the entire front range and beyond?


----------



## railiner (Jan 28, 2014)

What will be interesting in the Colorado Front Range, is how well the Denver RTD's entry into the commuter train business goes....

I would guess that if initially successful, it will be RTD, and not Amtrak that will expand into a growing network along the Front Range cities....


----------



## Nathanael (Jan 29, 2014)

7deuceman said:


> Perhaps a bus service to/from Wyoming connecting to a front range train serving Ft Collins, Longmont and Denver to/from ABQ via Castle Rock/Colorado Springs/Pueblo/Trinidad/Raton/Las Vegas is an option.


Unfortunately Front Range passenger rail has been discussed repeatedly and the Colorado state government just never seems willing to commit to it. It would definitely be a good idea.


----------



## jis (Jan 29, 2014)

railiner said:


> What will be interesting in the Colorado Front Range, is how well the Denver RTD's entry into the commuter train business goes....
> 
> I would guess that if initially successful, it will be RTD, and not Amtrak that will expand into a growing network along the Front Range cities....


Irrespective of what outfit does it, it is primarily the State of Colorado which will have to fund it. And given that the focal point of the service is going to be Denver, I agree with you that if anyone does it, it will most likely be RTD and not Amtrak.


----------



## Eugene Small (Jan 30, 2014)

gmushial said:


> Nathanael said:
> 
> 
> > Checking my handy railroad atlas, it would be pretty easy to detour the train via Pueblo. Slower, certainly.
> ...


It is contract time. Before New Mexico got involved in the track issue BNSF (then Santa Fe) made known through published materials , they wanted Amtrak to move to the new Transcon route. Article stated they wanted to abandon the part from La junta to Trinidad and might sell Trinidad to Albq. Amtrack said NO we are not moving we have a contract. Rail merger takes place creating BNSF. So what is end game.--- To get Southwest Chief off present route between Newton and Albq onto TransCon. Also don't forget that Congress has mandated that as 1/1/16 (12/31/15) all passenger trains can travel only on tracks that have PTC. So contract time and PTC at same time. The line between La junta and Pubelo is full of oil tank cars and coal cars,do you really think that BNSF would allow Amtrak on that line with that kind of risk to passengers since it is only a single track? If Colorado passes their bill it will guarentee the reroute.


----------



## AlanB (Jan 30, 2014)

Eugene Small said:


> Also don't forget that Congress has mandated that as 1/1/16 (12/31/15) all passenger trains can travel only on tracks that have PTC. So contract time and PTC at same time.


That same Congressional mandate requires PTC on lines where freight companies move hazardous materials, and oil tank cars AFAIK are still considered hazmat.



Eugene Small said:


> The line between La junta and Pubelo is full of oil tank cars and coal cars,do you really think that BNSF would allow Amtrak on that line with that kind of risk to passengers since it is only a single track?


BNSF allows Amtrak to run on the Empire line, which is also full of oil tank cars and largely single tracked.


----------



## Crossover (Feb 8, 2014)

BNSF has recently doubletracked Abo and Alameda Corridor tripled tracked . LA is near the western terminus of the Southern Transcon Corridor may be the reason for the future abandonment of Raton . Recently , Berkshire Hathaway (BNSF) planned to invest $500 Billion to repair and improve the system. They could decide to degrade Raton and not abandon or sell it making it a more intermodal gateway route . Lots can happen between now 2016 . For Amtrak to continue on that original portion , for instance , a company like UP could invest on that route which could keep Amtrak on it because UP is explosive in the growth of the intermodal market and is always looking for avenues of expansion . CNW used to run Falcon Service Piggyback trains on that route which is why it is still feasible so it also possible UP could buy that portion . Another possibility is Amtrak needs to reopen Phoenix by putting a major station in downtown on a major line connecting it even if it has to follow a major interstate with one continously operated in Flagstaff . The thing is that that portion of the route can be added to making it more profitable . Amtrak can add to the route by expanding in that region . You'll never know they may bring Acela in that region and they have the room to do it to all that open desert and mountain space .


----------



## Ryan (Feb 8, 2014)

Crossover said:


> You'll never know they may bring Acela in that region and they have the room to do it to all that open desert and mountain space .


I'm pretty sure we know that is never going to happen.


----------



## sechs (Feb 9, 2014)

Crossover said:


> BNSF has recently doubletracked Abo and Alameda Corridor tripled tracked . LA is near the western terminus of the Southern Transcon Corridor may be the reason for the future abandonment of Raton . Recently , Berkshire Hathaway (BNSF) planned to invest $500 Billion to repair and improve the system. They could decide to degrade Raton and not abandon or sell it making it a more intermodal gateway route . Lots can happen between now 2016 . For Amtrak to continue on that original portion , for instance , a company like UP could invest on that route which could keep Amtrak on it because UP is explosive in the growth of the intermodal market and is always looking for avenues of expansion . CNW used to run Falcon Service Piggyback trains on that route which is why it is still feasible so it also possible UP could buy that portion . Another possibility is Amtrak needs to reopen Phoenix by putting a major station in downtown on a major line connecting it even if it has to follow a major interstate with one continously operated in Flagstaff . The thing is that that portion of the route can be added to making it more profitable . Amtrak can add to the route by expanding in that region . You'll never know they may bring Acela in that region and they have the room to do it to all that open desert and mountain space .


BNSF doesn't own the Alameda Corridor. It goes directly to the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, and, so, really has nothing to do with passenger rail.

The western terminus of the Southern Transcon *is* Los Angeles. In fact, it's Redondo Junction, where access to the Alameda Corridor starts.

Berkshire Hathaway treats BNSF like a utility and does not "invest" in its infrastructure. BNSF sells its own bonds on its own credit to finance capital projects -- which it was already planning to do before being purchased by Berkshire.

None of this has anything to do with use of Raton, which has no customers and is much slower than the route through Texas. They've already degraded and sold portions of the route. Except for the portion that is part of the Boise City Subdivision, BNSF doesn't maintain any of the route from Dalies to Newton more than is necessary to accomodate Amtrak and the very limited local traffic they may send.

Union Pacific does not want or need the route through Raton. UP already owns a parallel route to the south. They haven't even finished double tracking the Sunset Route, which, as their southern transcontinental line, is far more useful to them.

If I recall correctly, UP abandoned the route out of Phoenix, requiring a long backtrack to get back to the main line. This would make serving the city directly not worth the effort.


----------



## Crossover (Feb 10, 2014)

For those that misinterpret my response . I'm breaking down my response in segments and explain what I mean.

1. "BNSF has recently doubletracked Abo Canyon and Alemeda Corridor tripledtracked. "

I did not say that BNSF owned the Alemeda Corridor .

2."LA is near the western terminus of the Southern Transcon Corridor and maybe the reason for the future abandonment of Raton."

The key phrase is "maybe" . LA is near or is the western terminus is likely the same thing .

3. "Berkshire Hathaway (BNSF)is planning to invest $500 Billion to repair and improve the system ."

BNSF is planning to invest (correction not $500 Billion ,but $5 Billion ) to repair and improve the system . This is happening at this time . Whenever you hear Warren Buffet or Berkshire Hathaway, you will most likely hear BNSF.

4. "They could decide to degrade Raton not abandon or sell it making it a more profitable intermodal gateway route."

The key word is could .

5. "Lots can happen between now and 2016."

Meaning much can take in this two year time period . There is a great possibility much can take place meaning second guessing or other ideas or decisions

6. "For Amtrak to continue on that original portion , for instance a company like UP could invest on that route which could keep Amtrak on it because UP is explosive in the intermodal market and is always looking for avenues for expansion."

Again , the key word is could . The phrase for instance meaning example . I said a company like UP . I didn't say that UP will buy the portion .

7. "CNW used to run Falcon Service piggyback service trains on that route which is why it is still feasible so it's also possible UP

could by that portion."

The CNW fragment is fact . The key word again is could and possible is a key word .

8."Another possibility is Amtrak needs to reopen Phoenix buy putting a major station in downtown connecting it even if it has to follow a major interstate with one continously operated in Flagstaff."

The key word is is possibility . Amtrak could build a spur and add a segment from anorther connecting mainto that Phoenix portion that UP Abandoned or refurbish one leading out of the city in another westerly direction .

9."The thing is that that portion can be added to making it more profitable."

In other words , the area can still can be usable by adding i.e amenities , Expansion for the city of Raton, NM . Bring intermodal to that territory .

10. "Amtrak can add to the route by expanding in that region. "

Like Beech Grove , Raton can be a good place for a repair shop especially for Superliner and Surfliner traffic . Coach Yard (Food and Janitorials), Track House (track gang) . Instead of having to travel to Beech Grove , that same work can be done there . It would bring jobs to that region . Just sayin , could be a possibility .

11."You'll never know they may bring Acela in that region and they have the room to do it to all that open desert and mountain space ." Just sayin .

12 . Raton pass is apart of the Santa Fe Trail . Raton NM was a stop on the Santa Fe RR which is a parent company of BNSF.

I'm not trying to change the subject or take away from the subject . My response is a opinion and possible solutions on how to save Raton and SWC and keep them viable . I'm only brainstorm solutions surrounding Raton and SWC . The idea of this topic is keeping Raton viable and saving SWC .


----------



## Crossover (Feb 11, 2014)

I understand that the pass is on the border between the cities of Trinidad and Raton which are very close in similarity to DFW. I-25 runs through it .


----------



## Chas (Feb 13, 2014)

Apologies if this was already posted — I was away for a few days — but here is a brief television news story about the economic impact of the Southwest Chief in southern Colorado and the proposed routing through Pueblo. 

It starts,

Colorado State University-Pueblo Professor of Economics Kevin Duncan unveiled a cost-benefit analysis in regards to bringing Amtrak to Pueblo.

During a meeting with community leaders, Duncan said extending the Southwest Chief Rail Service to Pueblo would have a positive impact on the economy.

The Southwest Chief has about 13,000 passengers in Colorado per year. More than half come from out-of-state.


----------



## jis (Feb 13, 2014)

Did the good professor actually look at a map before giving his expert opinion?


----------



## Bob Dylan (Feb 13, 2014)

jis said:


> Did the good professor actually look at a map before giving his expert opinion?


Nope, he uses a GPS to get around! ("Follow the Yellow Brick Road!") :giggle:


----------



## 7deuceman (Feb 14, 2014)

There appears to be quite a value in bringing the SWC to Pueblo, Colorado from the (east) La Junta and (west) Trinidad. Not only is Pueblo a reasonable bus-ride feeding travelers to/from the Colorado Springs area, the city has the possibility to become a gateway to southern and southwest Colorado.

Pueblo is the perfect transit hub for vacationers enjoying the train ride and then seeking the solitude and reasonable prices of southern and southwest Colorado resorts. Access to the southwest mountains is much easier through Pueblo, without going through the busier alternative with Denver and Interstate 70 traffic to the balance of the state.

The SWC could become as popular as the CZ to/from Colorado and marketed as the cost-effective choice to southwestern Colorado for skiers and snowboarders who want to visit Telluride, Purgatory, Monarch, Crested Butte and other areas. Such areas are essentially 100-150 miles from Pueblo, a distance essentially equal to the distance from Denver to Vail, Aspen and other places on the I -70 corridor. In the summer, SWC could service campers, hikers, bikers and other vacationers from the east and west,

I envision the increase in SWC ridership from an Amtrak stop in Pueblo. I'll bet that resorts and other businesses in southern and southwest Colorado will be very interested to promote opportunities and value that coincide with Amtrak servicing the area. Ridership will have to be earned, but it is doable. 

Pueblo could be the golden goose that SWC needs to be profitable and compete with CZ and EB.

Of course this brings to mind a question... How many skiers and snowboarders are riding SWC to/from New Mexico?


----------



## 7deuceman (Feb 14, 2014)

*Chas,* thank you for the reference to the television coverage by KOAA and the presentation by Mr. Duncan. I'm wondering out loud if he has spoken to the folks over at Colorado Ski Country USA, ski areas, hoteliers and other tourism supporters?


----------



## Eric S (Feb 14, 2014)

Pueblo would be a good addition to the Southwest Chief, if it didn't add something like an 80ish mile detour (looks to be in the neighborhood of 160 miles La Junta-Pueblo-Trinidad, versus about 80 miles La Juanta-Trinidad). I'll leave it others more familiar with the rail lines in question to estimate the added travel time (but I'd assume it would be something like 1-2 hours, or more).

If the desire is to save the current route between Newton and Albuquerque through KS, CO, and NM, then it seems the focus should be on just that, not on add-ons and route deviations that will likely increase the cost. Once there is general agreement between the 3 states (and Amtrak and BNSF, and whatever other entities or agencies might be involved), then CO could decide to increase its contribution to cover the costs of a Pueblo detour. But I don't see much value in complicating the current issue (current/existing/northern route versus a possible southern/Transcon re-route).

Personally, I have mixed feelings about the better option. I certainly see value in maintaining service to communities currently served (Dodge City, Garden City, La Junta, Raton, etc.). But, at what cost? And, there would be benefits of adding Wichita and Amarillo to the Amtrak system.


----------



## Eugene small (Feb 15, 2014)

_Pueblo's big tourist trade is to the south to the Gulf of Mexico. Mountain people love to vacation on the coast and costal people love the ski slopes in winter and the mountains and trees in the summer. It is a built in conveyor opportunity._


----------



## sechs (Feb 15, 2014)

Eric S said:


> Personally, I have mixed feelings about the better option. I certainly see value in maintaining service to communities currently served (Dodge City, Garden City, La Junta, Raton, etc.). But, at what cost? And, there would be benefits of adding Wichita and Amarillo to the Amtrak system.


It seems like this has been in the works for over a hundred years, since Santa Fe opened the Belen Cutoff.

Unless somebody steps up with money, there's really no chance for the route over Raton Pass. With the current batch of Republicans, I really don't see that happening. And, like you, I'm not sure that it's even worth it.


----------



## Eugene Small (Feb 17, 2014)

Take into account the fact that State of Illinois has upgraded track from Chicago To St. Louis( even with PTC) and now BNSF is trying to purchase the line between Dell City (a suburb of Oklahona City) and Sapulpa (just southwest of Tulsa). Just a small step to connect to the Transcon at Avard via Enid. Intresting question-- Could this be a new route for the Southwest Chief or even a new name for the new route?


----------



## Eric S (Feb 17, 2014)

Not sure how a (near) Tulsa to (near) Oklahoma City rail line is or would be related to the Southwest Chief.


----------



## Nathanael (Feb 17, 2014)

Eugene Small said:


> Take into account the fact that State of Illinois has upgraded track from Chicago To St. Louis( even with PTC) and now BNSF is trying to purchase the line between Dell City (a suburb of Oklahona City) and Sapulpa (just southwest of Tulsa). Just a small step to connect to the Transcon at Avard via Enid. Intresting question-- Could this be a new route for the Southwest Chief or even a new name for the new route?


You're suggesting a completely different, and slower, route. First of all, there's no good way to get from Oklahoma City to Albuquerque. Second, one of the biggest markets of the SW Chief is express from Kansas City to Chicago, for which it takes the most direct possible route; nobody wants to change that.

If we were adding lots of new train services, sure, I'd say a separate St. Louis-Tulsa-OKC train would make sense. But we're not, not unless Oklahoma's government changes massively.


----------



## Eugene Small (Feb 17, 2014)

The present Southwest Chief route in all probability will be no more after Dec. 31 2015. That is when the contract ends. Now Amtrak is paying extra for maintance and upkeep,between La Junta and Lamy, but they do have option of moving over to the transcon any time and not pay the extra. Fact is that option could expire with the contract. Presently if a bridge fails, a derailment happens, rail down graded to exempt status Southwest Chief would be rerouted over Transcon. from Albuquerque,NM To Newton,Ks. So what is Amtrak going to be offered by BNSF-- no body knows. If Amtrak has to change routes where will it want to change to----no body knows. A Question I see is does BNSF want to seperate its Oil traffic from Passenger (in light of Oil wrecks and explosions.)? The Sooner Sub-- BNSF wants that line--will they get it? If or when they take it over what are they going to do with it?


----------



## Ryan (Feb 17, 2014)

I'm not sure what you mean by "nobody knows", considering that its detoured over the transcon on many occasions and the route is pretty well know.


----------



## railiner (Feb 17, 2014)

Eric S said:


> Not sure how a (near) Tulsa to (near) Oklahoma City rail line is or would be related to the Southwest Chief.


Sounds like he means it to follow the historic highway US-66 route.....the historic railways that most closely paralled it were the Alton, Chicago to St. Louis, the Frisco, St. Louis to Oklahoma City, the Rock Island, Oklahoma City to Tucumcari, the Southern Pacific, Tucumcari to Vaughn, and finally, the Santa Fe, the rest of the way...


----------



## Nathanael (Feb 18, 2014)

The abandonment of most the Rock Island route from OKC to Tucumcari pretty much scotches that idea.


----------



## Eric S (Feb 18, 2014)

RyanS said:


> I'm not sure what you mean by "nobody knows", considering that its detoured over the transcon on many occasions and the route is pretty well know.


This.

And, other than the recent talk of a Pueblo detour (still just talk, nothing resembling a concrete proposal), it has been portrayed as an either/or proposition, either come up with funds to upgrade/maintain the current route or reroute via the Transcon. Tulsa and Oklahoma City have never factored into the discussion of the Southwest Chief.


----------



## haolerider (Feb 18, 2014)

There is a good article in today's New York Times regarding the SW Chief and the states involved in the funding issues,,plus they have accurate photos!


----------



## greatcats (Feb 18, 2014)

Pretty accurate article for the most part. While BNSF does run some freight over portions of this route, the 200 or so mile stretch from Lamy to Trinidad is only used by the Amtrak train for the past several years. The Lamy stop does serve the Santa Fe area, but I question whether the train really makes much difference to the sleepy community of Lamy. Maybe some local residents do use the train, but they can't consist of very many. I do know that I will be on Train 4 from Flagstaff next Wednesday morning enroute to Chicago, and I've become very partial to the route through northern New Mexico. I see that today's westbound is around 5 hours late, evidently having a tough time departing Chicago yesterday. The other western trains left in good shape, except for #5, which left over two hours late. What is going on, Chicago?


----------



## afigg (Feb 18, 2014)

haolerider said:


> There is a good article in today's New York Times regarding the SW Chief and the states involved in the funding issues,,plus they have accurate photos!


Link to the NYT article: Small Towns in Southwest Fear Loss of Cherished Train Line.


----------



## Ryan (Feb 18, 2014)

The "it receives Federal funding so we shouldn't have to pay" argument only holds water when that federal funding is sufficient. Since it isn't, that's not really a good argument.


----------



## jis (Feb 18, 2014)

RyanS said:


> The "it receives Federal funding so we shouldn't have to pay" argument only holds water when that federal funding is sufficient. Since it isn't, that's not really a good argument.


People pay for highways all the time over and above federal funding. But logic and consistency are incompatible with political posturing anyway.


----------



## George Harris (Feb 18, 2014)

Considering how many "small towns in <name any part of the country> " have lost their "cherished train line" that arguement holds almost no water. There are plenty of places far beyond the small town category that have lost train service. If we start talking some serious restoration in other places this arguement MIGHT begin to have some validity for this line.


----------



## trainaddict (Feb 18, 2014)

It would be interesting to know if this is a profitable route and not another boondoggle. As usual these "little details" are not clearly explained. Almost as if they don't want us to know.

By the way how old is this track? And will it crack?


----------



## Ryan (Feb 18, 2014)

trainaddict said:


> It would be interesting to know if this is a profitable route and not another boondoggle.


False dichotomy.


----------



## Nathanael (Feb 19, 2014)

greatcats said:


> Pretty accurate article for the most part. While BNSF does run some freight over portions of this route, the 200 or so mile stretch from Lamy to Trinidad is only used by the Amtrak train for the past several years. The Lamy stop does serve the Santa Fe area, but I question whether the train really makes much difference to the sleepy community of Lamy.


There's basically nobody in Lamy proper. As for Santa Fe, since RailRunner was established between Albuquerque and Santa Fe, Lamy isn't very important for serving Santa Fe any more.

The communities which would be bypassed by the reroute are small. The three in Kansas have meaningful population but low ridership rates. The ones in Colorado have high ridership rates but low population. The ones in New Mexico are *miniscule* and the most heavily used station is the one for the Boy Scout camp.

Hutchinson, KS: ~42,000 people (though they could drive to Newton or Wichita), ridership 5303

Dodge City, KS: ~28,000 (ridership 5149)

Garden City, KS: ~27,000 (ridership 7355)

Lamar, CO: 7836 (ridership: 1823)

La Junta, CO: 7046 (ridership: 6711 -- nearly half the population, assuming round trips)

Trinidad, CO: 8771 (ridership: 4765 -- a quarter of the population)

Raton, NM: 6607 (ridership 15733. Half of this is, according to Amtrak, the Boy Scouts for the Philmont Ranch. The other half is partly the bus connections to Pueblo/Colorado Springs/Denver.)

Las Vegas, NM: 13539 (ridership 5376)

Lamy, NM: 218 (ridership 12551, basically all connecting to Santa Fe; this ridership would move to Albuquerque)

By contrast,

Wichita, KS: 385,577

Amarillo, TX: 195,250

Even if Wichita and Amarillo had ridership, as a percentage of city size, like Hutchinson (the weakest on this list), this would still be more ridership than the existing route, with just two stations -- there could of course be more stations. And the route should be faster.

All three governors are refusing to fund the existing route. And it needs all three states in order to get funded. And the localities haven't raised any money for it, let alone enough money. Meanwhile Amarillo just bought its former station, while Wichita's station is in passenger-rail-friendly hands and being renovated, and Wichita has been pushing for rail service (albeit to OKC) and spending its own money on studies.

Just move it already. I know Amtrak is giving the communities on the existing route until the end of 2014 to come up with the money, and is refusing to talk to Amarillo or Wichita until then, but frankly I wish Amtrak had given them a shorter deadline, so that Amarillo and Wichita could get going.


----------



## jis (Feb 19, 2014)

IMHO this is no different than the San Francisco/California Zephyr being rerouted off of the UP Overland Route to the D&RGW through Colorado, which caused Wyoming to lose all Amtrak service. And that was merely as a matter of convenience, not even because a route was being downgraded. And nobody expressed outrage about a bunch of small towns losing service etc. So what is different this time? In this case no state is losing all service either.


----------



## greatcats (Feb 19, 2014)

True, the Wyoming situation did not create such an uproar. But that was over 30 years ago and the attitudes have changed and passenger trains are regarded as more important. From a tourist or railfan standpoint, there was excitement about having a daily train through scenic Colorado. And I recall for awhile - maybe I am wrong - the Pioneer continued to run through Wyoming.


----------



## jis (Feb 19, 2014)

greatcats said:


> True, the Wyoming situation did not create such an uproar. But that was over 30 years ago and the attitudes have changed and passenger trains are regarded as more important. From a tourist or railfan standpoint, there was excitement about having a daily train through scenic Colorado. And I recall for awhile - maybe I am wrong - the Pioneer continued to run through Wyoming.


The sequence of events was that San Francisco Zephyr was renamed and moved to the Colorado route as California Zephyr and the 5/25/35 split was moved from Ogden UT to Salt Lake City UT. Then after several years it was decided to move the 5/25 split to Denver and run 25/26 on the Overland route. But initially when CZ started running on the Colorado route there was several years when there was no service through Wyoming before 25/26 was restored through there. And then of course both 35/36 and 25/26 were canceled.


----------



## henryj (Feb 19, 2014)

They should have done this re-route long ago. The difference in population density is almost a million people if you throw in a thruway bus to Lubbock, just a couple of hours south. It's a no brainer. The scouts can take the CZ and a bus to Raton or a bus from Albuquerque or they can just take a bus all the way or drive which most of them probably do anyway. The major cities which can be served include Wichita, pop 636k, Amarillo, pop 249k, Lubbock(by bus) pop 298k and Clovis, NM pop 38k. I assume that Amtrak would have the good sense to include Albuquerque as a stop and use the wye south of the station, but who knows. They don't serve Phoenix just 35 miles from Maricopa with even a bus.


----------



## Karl1459 (Feb 19, 2014)

Nathanael said:


> greatcats said:
> 
> 
> > Pretty accurate article for the most part. While BNSF does run some freight over portions of this route, the 200 or so mile stretch from Lamy to Trinidad is only used by the Amtrak train for the past several years. The Lamy stop does serve the Santa Fe area, but I question whether the train really makes much difference to the sleepy community of Lamy.
> ...


Nice research. The low Kansas numbers and the relativly high numbers trending to Pueblo/Denver (Raton/La Junta) suggest a "Front Range" service (Combine LAX-Belen with the SWC, DEN-CHI with the CZ) in addition to the Transcon reroute. Big issues are as always funding upgrade/maintainance Alberquerque-Trinidad and the UP/BNSF single track through Colorado Springs.


----------



## George Harris (Feb 19, 2014)

Remember that the City of New Orleans was moved from its traditional route through Grenada to the freight route through Yazoo City which was longer and slower and had less population and ridership with very little outcry because ICG quit maintaining the passenger route. Here we are talking about moving a train to a shorter, faster, and higher populated routing. Why was this not done long ago?

By the way, by the time the CNO was moved the ride quality could best be described as exciting. A look at the track near a road crossing showed rail so worn the tops of the joint bars were shiny from wheel flange contact, and the tie conditions was just barely meeting the FRA track class necessary to run at the 79 mph speed limit permitted by the signal system.


----------



## Swimmingcat (Feb 19, 2014)

jis said:


> greatcats said:
> 
> 
> > True, the Wyoming situation did not create such an uproar. But that was over 30 years ago and the attitudes have changed and passenger trains are regarded as more important. From a tourist or railfan standpoint, there was excitement about having a daily train through scenic Colorado. And I recall for awhile - maybe I am wrong - the Pioneer continued to run through Wyoming.
> ...


I believe that the 5/25 (Pioneer) split started taking place in DEN in 1991 (I have an old Trains mag on it - "Amtrak returns to WY"). I rode DEN - Ogden in 1993 IIRC. 25/26 (& 35/36) ended in 1997. For many of those towns along the I-80 corridor -- Amtrak was a nice alternative to Greyhound or air. As for this SWC reroute -- many of the points in this thread are good ones! I'm wondering however, if this occurs, would there still be "Thruway" (in reality a regular Greyhound run) service from DEN or C Springs to ALB so I could ride the SWC?


----------



## jis (Feb 19, 2014)

Your are correct. I got the numbers mixed up. It was the 5/25 split that moved to Denver., and it happened around 91. So there was quite some time between the move of 5/25/35 to the Colorado route and 25 moving back to the Wyoming route.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Feb 19, 2014)

jis said:


> IMHO this is no different than the San Francisco/California Zephyr being rerouted off of the UP Overland Route to the D&RGW through Colorado, which caused Wyoming to lose all Amtrak service. And that was merely as a matter of convenience, not even because a route was being downgraded. And nobody expressed outrage about a bunch of small towns losing service etc. So what is different this time?


Who is expressing outrage now?


----------



## Nathanael (Feb 19, 2014)

Amtrak currently has a Thruway bus from Raton to Denver, which is actually Greyhound.

I looked at the well-hidden Greyhound map again, and Greyhound's route "578" already runs Denver-Raton-Albuquerque (and onward to El Paso). There seems to be little difficulty in extending this to create a Thruway bus route from ABQ to Denver via Raton, though it would require tweaking the SW Chief's schedule to make the westbound connection. (When on time, the SW Chief arrives too early in the morning in LA anyway.)

Or a separate bus run could be run under contract to Amtrak, which would allow for stops in Las Vegas NM and Trinidad CO.

On another point, I am quite sure Amtrak will continue to stop at Albuquerque.

The situation at Phoenix is different. I believe there actually used to be a van service which connected Maricopa to Phoenix, correct me if I'm wrong. But with triweekly service, it's barely worth the effort of running connecting service -- the Sunset needs to go daily ASAP.

As for the Scouts, they already take a bus for nearly an hour from the Raton station to Philmont. According to Google Maps, it would be ~3:15 to bus to Philmont from Albuquerque or 4 hours to bus from Denver (though the existing buses seem to add a lot of padding time). Philmont can either provide more of its own chartered bus service or simply keep pointing Scouts to the existing charter options (there is, for example, a *daily* bus service from Denver Union Station to Philmont, albeit quite expensive and slow). Or if they're really serious scouts they can hike in. ;-)


----------



## Ryan (Feb 19, 2014)

Philmont also already offers a bus from Denver for people that want to fly there.

That said, I'd much rather spend an hour on the bus like I did, than 4 hours.


----------



## Eugene Small (Feb 19, 2014)

It is 230/240 miles from Amarillo to Boy scout camp by way of Tucumcari; by way of Clayton it is little further. Out here it is nothing to drive a 100 miles to the next town.


----------



## Ryan (Feb 19, 2014)

OK?


----------



## rrdude (Feb 20, 2014)

As much as I *hate* to lose service over the Raton Pass, (one of my all time favorite sections of Amtrak, seriously) the numbers, the support, and the reality dictate moving to the Transcon. It really, really bites for the the small communities and Raton and Philmont. (Yea! I'm going back to Philmont in 2015 with my twins!) If the service is still running then (doubtful) we'll prolly catch the Chief to Cali, or maybe home)

But, as much as I don't like it, the Transcon makes better economic sense. Too bad the states can't come up with a "connector" train, but those days are long gone too.


----------



## Just-Thinking-51 (Feb 20, 2014)

Southwest Chief to the Transcon.

The "Wheat Field Express Service" from Denver to Kansas City via Dodge City.

Sure it would have to directional running in Colorado, and a very long day run. Cover the town and community along the way. Be much easier to sell to the states.


----------



## Andy (Feb 20, 2014)

Nathanael said:


> greatcats said:
> 
> 
> > Pretty accurate article for the most part. While BNSF does run some freight over portions of this route, the 200 or so mile stretch from Lamy to Trinidad is only used by the Amtrak train for the past several years. The Lamy stop does serve the Santa Fe area, but I question whether the train really makes much difference to the sleepy community of Lamy.
> ...


You made many excellent points in this post, but it should be pointed out that the Railrunner does not connect in any remotely convenient way to the SW Chief in ABQ. The connection times at ABQ station vary from many hours to overnight, depending on the day and the direction. Although I can't find any statistics for connections between Railrunner and Amtrak, I would be astonished if they were higher than a few people per week.

To the extent that the Railrunner was designed with any purpose in mind, it was designed for weekday work commuters, not for connections with Amtrak (or airplanes).

Take care.


----------



## jis (Feb 20, 2014)

The Bill to save the Southwest Chief has essentially died in the NM Senate. The Senate has adjourned to Jan 2015 without considering the bill.


----------



## SarahZ (Feb 20, 2014)

The SWC gets into ABQ at 3:55 PM (westbound) and 11:42 AM (eastbound).

The Northbound Rail Runner to Santa Fe leaves Downtown ABQ at the following times (I'm not including early morning hours that don't fall within the SWC's schedule):

Weekdays - 4:26 PM, 5:34 PM, 6:48 PM

Saturdays - 1:46 PM, 6:28 PM, 8:19 PM

Sunday - 1:46 PM, 6:28 PM

While it's not as optimal as taking the shuttle from Lamy, it's still possible to get to Santa Fe using the RailRunner if you ride the SWC.

Edit: This is in reply to Andy.


----------



## Andy (Feb 20, 2014)

SarahZ said:


> The SWC gets into ABQ at 3:55 PM (westbound) and 11:42 AM (eastbound).
> 
> The Northbound Rail Runner to Santa Fe leaves Downtown ABQ at the following times (I'm not including early morning hours that don't fall within the SWC's schedule):
> 
> ...


Possible yes, but hours to overnight connection, as I said. (Remember, the westbound SWC just left Lamy an hour or so before... so even that one, best, connection adds hours of backtracking to the trip.)

If you drive to Santa Fe, you will be there before the Railrunner _departs_ Albuquerque, in virtually every case.

And it is even worse in the other direction.

I have lived in Santa Fe for the entire history of the Railrunner's existence, and since I also work in the SF area, I have never yet found a reason to ride the Railrunner except as a tourist. I would like to see the Railrunner improved (double tracked, hourly service, extended to Los Alamos, eventually extended to Denver), but the present service is useless to me, and I am guessing, most other people who don't commute to 9 to 5 jobs in ABQ.

Maybe the Railrunner has some value as a connection for those arriving on the SWC who do not have access to a car in ABQ. But there is no question it is tres inconvenient as a connecting service. Admittedly, I am coming at this from the perspective of a Santa Fe resident, so I have a car available: things might look different to someone from out of town. But then, I suspect that the great majority of people getting on and off the SWC in Lamy and ABQ are New Mexicans. Perhaps that's a mistaken impression, based on projection from my own case?

Take care.


----------



## Andy (Feb 20, 2014)

SarahZ said:


> The SWC gets into ABQ at 3:55 PM (westbound) and 11:42 AM (eastbound).
> 
> The Northbound Rail Runner to Santa Fe leaves Downtown ABQ at the following times (I'm not including early morning hours that don't fall within the SWC's schedule):
> 
> ...


Rereading these posts, I guess I now see that we basically agree, anyway: it is possible to get to Santa Fe using the Railrunner if you ride the SWC, but it's not as optimal as taking the shuttle from Lamy, just as you said (to the tune of several to many hours less optimal). So I think we can agree that Nathaniel is mistaken in saying that in the presence of the Railrunner, Lamy "isn't very important for serving Santa Fe." Although his other points and his overall message remain completely valid, in my opinion. Sigh.

Take care.


----------



## SarahZ (Feb 20, 2014)

Yeah, my confusion was over the "overnight" portion of your post. I couldn't figure out where that came into play, given that the RR runs throughout the afternoon and evening, unless the westbound SWC was super late or something. Then people would be stuck overnight.


----------



## Eugene Small (Feb 20, 2014)

If jis is correct thenThe guessing is over. New Mexico down, Kansas down both govt. sessions over and no money, Colorado still in session but no money yet, bil loaded with demands. If you were in BNSF shoes what would do with that line?


----------



## Nathanael (Feb 21, 2014)

Just-Thinking-51 said:


> The "Wheat Field Express Service" from Denver to Kansas City via Dodge City.
> 
> Sure it would have to directional running in Colorado, and a very long day run. Cover the town and community along the way. Be much easier to sell to the states.


Problem for this excellent proposal is finding slots from Pueblo to Denver. Pueblo to Denver, on its own, is a good proposal and one worth spending money on. But for some reason that proposal hasn't gone anywhere yet, and is now on the back burner. :-( It was anticipated that there would be enough room if the through N-S freight trains were moved out east to a freshly-constructed bypass route, but that has dropped to "low priority" in the state rail plan and basically been forgotten about too.



Guest_Andy said:


> But then, I suspect that the great majority of people getting on and off the SWC in Lamy and ABQ are New Mexicans. Perhaps that's a mistaken impression, based on projection from my own case?


I always thought Santa Fe was much more of a "destination city", based on general vibes regarding tourism trends -- I'd expect Albuquerque is probably mostly locals. But I don't know how to get hard facts on that. Railrunner was specifically set up to get residents from Albuquerque to jobs in Santa Fe because Santa Fe has a lot more jobs than residents; a place with more jobs than residents is often more of a destination than a source of travellers.

I was definitely looking at it from the point of view of people visiting Santa Fe; I assumed that everyone who was coming from Santa Fe was already driving their car to either Lamy or Albuquerque! I guess since the Shuttle Service provides "door to door" service it is more attractive for locals than I expected.


----------



## Nathanael (Feb 21, 2014)

Eugene Small said:


> If jis is correct thenThe guessing is over. New Mexico down, Kansas down both govt. sessions over and no money, Colorado still in session but no money yet, bil loaded with demands. If you were in BNSF shoes what would do with that line?


OK, so Amtrak said the states would need to come up with the money by the end of 2014. New Mexico has not only said no, its legislature has adjourned until 2015. Kansas has been doing nothing, though its legislature doesn't adjourn for a while.

How much longer does Amtrak have to give before it can start talking to Amarillo and Wichita and Clovis and so forth? Given the current situation, it seems silly to wait until January 2015 to start talking to them.


----------



## railiner (Feb 21, 2014)

Nathanael said:


> Just-Thinking-51 said:
> 
> 
> > The "Wheat Field Express Service" from Denver to Kansas City via Dodge City.
> ...


This reference got me curious about that study, so I searched for, and found it on the web....http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&ved=0CD4QFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.coloradodot.info%2Fprojects%2Frailroadstudy%2Fdocuments%2Fexecsummary-final020609.pdf%2Fat_download%2Ffile&ei=gesGU8nqBurg0QHqmIDICg&usg=AFQjCNHZfHUxBpXcLpqA3DD6ETaBs9-HWg

Very interesting proposal and study, but you say it is basically dead?

Too bad they abandoned the old ATSF route thru Colorado Springs back when unit coal train were just really taking off in the seventies....

And this makes me think about the old original Colorado and Southern line that was abandoned way back in the early twentieth century as well.

And looking at the CDOT study, I wonder why they didn't consider a much easier and less costly third 'bypass'....simply using the existing UP Limon sub as far southeast as a point near Aroya, and then building a new line south to Las Animas as in "Study A", but without the new northern portion, would only be about 60 or so new miles to build...


----------



## afigg (Feb 21, 2014)

Nathanael said:


> OK, so Amtrak said the states would need to come up with the money by the end of 2014. New Mexico has not only said no, its legislature has adjourned until 2015. Kansas has been doing nothing, though its legislature doesn't adjourn for a while.
> 
> How much longer does Amtrak have to give before it can start talking to Amarillo and Wichita and Clovis and so forth? Given the current situation, it seems silly to wait until January 2015 to start talking to them.


Since Amtrak has given the states until the end of 2014, they can publicly still leave the door open to allow advocates and the political leadership a last chance opportunity to work out a funding deal. Meanwhile, Amtrak should, if they have not done so already, start to plan for the re-route with quiet conversations with BNSF, scouting out possible station locations, and low key meetings with the city officials along the trans-con route.
The Southwest Chief is fortunate that there is a viable alternate faster route of well maintained tracks that go through larger population centers than the deteriorating Raton pass route. Should improve the viability and cost recovery of the SWC over time.

There is also one fringe political benefit from the alternate route which is that it goes through Oklahoma which would add it to the list of states with LD trains. Adding stations at Wichita, Amarillo, Clovis would take priority, but adding a stop, even a lightly used one, in western Oklahoma would pull that (deep red) region into the national LD train system.


----------



## Eric S (Feb 21, 2014)

After Wichita (382,000; metro 623,000), Amarillo (191,000; metro 250,000), and Clovis (37,800), what other potential stops would be best? Some possibilities would seem to include:

Wellington, KS - 8,200

Alva, OK - 5,000 - home of Northwestern Oklahoma State University

Woodward, OK - 12,100

Pampa, TX - 18,000

Canyon, TX - 13,300 - home of West Texas A&M University

Hereford, TX - 13,400

I believe those are all the municipalities along the line with populations of about 5,000 or greater.


----------



## amtkstn (Feb 21, 2014)

Also can add all of us that live in north and western Oklahoma that will not have to drive to Newton to get on the Chief.


----------



## George Harris (Feb 21, 2014)

Nathanael said:


> Just-Thinking-51 said:
> 
> 
> > The "Wheat Field Express Service" from Denver to Kansas City via Dodge City.
> ...


I know I have said it before, and I am sure others have also. Denver to Pueblo aside from being congested with freight trains is slow due to curves and grades. Much work on these curves and grades would be necessary for a passenger train to have any sort of reasonable fast schedule. A look at some of the pre-Amtrak schedules will illustrate that.


----------



## TVRM610 (Feb 22, 2014)

Anyone heard anything at all about Iowa Pacific looking into the line? I haven't heard anything but I can't imagine they wouldn't be interested.


----------



## BNSFboy (Feb 22, 2014)

Eric S said:


> After Wichita (382,000; metro 623,000), Amarillo (191,000; metro 250,000), and Clovis (37,800), what other potential stops would be best? Some possibilities would seem to include:
> 
> Wellington, KS - 8,200
> 
> ...


While most of these stations are very possible I would eliminate Canyon as a stop as it is only 17 miles by road from Amarillo and shorter by rail. Actually if you drive between them you barely can see the transition between the towns. So its safe to say its a small metroplex.


----------



## Nathanael (Feb 22, 2014)

railiner said:


> This reference got me curious about that study, so I searched for, and found it on the web....http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&ved=0CD4QFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.coloradodot.info%2Fprojects%2Frailroadstudy%2Fdocuments%2Fexecsummary-final020609.pdf%2Fat_download%2Ffile&ei=gesGU8nqBurg0QHqmIDICg&usg=AFQjCNHZfHUxBpXcLpqA3DD6ETaBs9-HWg
> 
> Very interesting proposal and study, but you say it is basically dead?


That's the one. It was declared "low priority" in the Colorado state rail plan, which also said that BNSF and UP didn't seem interested in it, so although it could be revived, it doesn't seem to have any backers or any funding.



afigg said:


> Since Amtrak has given the states until the end of 2014, they can publicly still leave the door open to allow advocates and the political leadership a last chance opportunity to work out a funding deal. Meanwhile, Amtrak should, if they have not done so already, start to plan for the re-route with quiet conversations with BNSF, scouting out possible station locations, and low key meetings with the city officials along the trans-con route.


Amtrak has specifically refused to talk to the cities on the Transcon route while it's still talking to the cities on the Raton Pass route. And Amarillo has asked. BNSF has stated only that it is not discussing a reroute (probably following Amtrak's party line).
I hope that Amtrak does start to plan for the re-route because, well, time's a-wasting. The rejection from New Mexico and Kansas state governments was quite emphatic and final; I suppose Colorado could come up with all the money, but it seems unlikely. The lead time for building new ADA-compliant platforms is generally *more* than a year, so I worry that if Amtrak leaves the discussions too late, we'll end up with no stations between Newton and Albuquerque in January 2016.



Eric S said:


> After Wichita (382,000; metro 623,000), Amarillo (191,000; metro 250,000), and Clovis (37,800), what other potential stops would be best? Some possibilities would seem to include:
> 
> Wellington, KS - 8,200
> 
> ...


Running west from Wichita, we find:~30 mi to Wellington

+ ~90 to Alva

+ ~50 to Woodward

+ ~110 to Pampa

+ ~50 to Amarillo

You could probably justify stops at all of these locations; none are "too close together". And I doubt you'd really want to skip any of them for speed except possibly Wellington. Wellington would probably pick up traffic driving from Winfield, Arkansas City, and points south, and so is probably worthwhile in addition to Wichita.

However, the route would do OK even if it just had Wichita and Amarillo. The other stations would be "gravy".

Amarillo to Canyon is only 15 miles, which is probably too short a stop spacing; even I'd take a connecting bus that far without blinking, and I get motion sick on buses really easily. I'd put a station there only if the university really wanted one.

Amarillo to Clovis is about 100 miles, a totally reasonable distance between stops.

West of Clovis... Clovis to Albuquerque is something like 266 miles. There's something to be said for having an intermediate stop (or even two) in that 3+ hour trip, even with no population to speak of; people might want to drive north or south from somewhere in the middle.

I suggest a stop at Vaughn, which is at the intersection of many US highways (for those driving to Roswell, Carlsbad, Alamogordo, Santa Rosa). Or Fort Sumner would probably work too if Vaughn doesn't work out. In either case you'd probably want a separate station track for the train to get out of the way, since these are both right next to the remaining single-track bridges; that might help the BNSF dispatchers a lot.

I actually think Wichita Union Station is going to be the most trouble to build a platform at. You will need a platform siding here. You will need to displace part of the Great Plains Transportation Museum in order to rebuild a platform siding which can "roll in, roll out" rather than backing in. (And you don't want to stop on the mainline here. Apart from the fact that the old platforms and vertical access are all east of the mainline, the mainline is congested; see below.) You'll need to recheck the integrity of the bridge over Douglas Ave. And you need to construct ADA access to the new platform (which will need to be at a new height above top of rail, as well...) The Wichita station work may be expensive and complicated and involve acquisition of expensive land from multiple parties, and the design for it needs to start ASAP.

Mulvane to Newton (including Wichita) is also the only part of the Transcon where there are real capacity concerns about hosting the SW Chief. This is because it's got a lot of single track, and BNSF uses directional running here, running only its eastbounds along this route. The section through downtown Wichita is double track, but is also carrying the UP traffic through town. BNSF will want to be able to get the SW Chief off the mainline while it's doing station work at Wichita. The 2010 Heartland Flyer extension study indicated that some additional double-tracking was needed between Newton and Wichita for that train, and this will probably be highly desirable for a reroute of the SW Chief, as well.

This will all be expensive, though certainly cheaper than the $200 million necessary just to keep the Raton Pass route in minimal operable condition. It will also have a long lead time, which is what I'm worried about.


----------



## Eric S (Feb 22, 2014)

So, we're looking at something like this (and, yes, I realize we are getting ahead of ourselves here):

Newton, KS

Wichita, KS

Wellington, KS

Alva, OK

Woodward, OK

Pampa, TX

Amarillo, TX

Clovis, NM

potentially another stop (Vaughn, NM?)

Albuquerque, NM

I agree with Nathanael that none of the stops other than Wichita and Amarillo is critical, but they do seem like reasonable additions, assuming there is adequate local support. And, as he mentions, given how long station and platform work takes, there is not all that much time. I wonder if plans were put in motion today if Wichita, with its more complicated urban situation (as opposed to most of the other smaller town locations, at least other than Amarillo), could even be ready in 2016. At least in that situation, having a relatively-supportive city government might help things somewhat.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Feb 22, 2014)

Several points another advocate has been blasting through my ear so loud my drums are ringing.

Point 1: The Koch brothers will probably not be pleased with the idea of a train stopping in their hometown (Wichita), and may attempt to stop this from happening.

Point 2: The culture of the stops along the transcon are such that they are unlikely to ride the train even if it was provided. Therefore, perhaps, despite the population density, there may be less ridership.

Point 3: The Transcon line is very over crowded, and BNSF may refuse to run the train reliably over it. Remember that Amtrak is no longer legally entitled to priority on the tracks, and that BNSF is not legally required to run any train at all, on either line, after the end of that 2016 contract.

Point 4: Under the terms of PRIIA, the only routes Amtrak is required to run as funded with regards to the so-called National System are the precise trains that were operating on effect of that act. Technically, a rerouted Southwest Chief might be legally seen as not being part of that system, and can be discontinued easily.

I am not agreeing with any of the above points- or even supporting their legal legitimacy. I honestly have no idea. But they come from somebody who is reliably informed, if a little, uh, angry. I have enough respect for his sources (and the guy himself, actually) that I wanted to dump his thoughts in here and see what y'all make of them.


----------



## rrdude (Feb 22, 2014)

Green Maned Lion said:


> Several points another advocate has been blasting through my ear so loud my drums are ringing.
> 
> Point 1: The* Koch brothers will probably not be pleased *with the idea of a train stopping in their hometown (Wichita), and may attempt to stop this from happening.
> 
> I am not agreeing with any of the above points- or even supporting their legal legitimacy. I honestly have no idea. But they come from somebody who is reliably informed, if a little, uh, angry. I have enough respect for his sources (and the guy himself, actually) that I wanted to dump his thoughts in here and see what y'all make of them.


Why on earth would they give a rat's patootie?


----------



## WoodyinNYC (Feb 22, 2014)

Near Amarillo is Palo Duro Canyon State Park, an overlooked scenic treasure, that coulda, woulda, shoulda, still could be a major stop attracting many rides.

Soon after FDR took office at the bottom of the Great Depression, the National Park Service sent a guy to Texas prospecting. One stop was to look at Palo Duro Canyon, the second largest canyon in the US, which stretches into several counties. But the local guy who'd taken the role of guide, was strongly opposed to the idea of letting the feds come into his area. He steered the Parks guy to talk to other owners of big ranches who were also opposed -- but drove past any encounters with the many local supporters. As a result of the Parks guy's survey trip, he recommended new National Parks in Big Bend and the Guadalupe Mountains, and the National Seashore on Padre Island. He didn't recommend Palo Duro, due to the local opposition. So we got three fine and expansive National Parks -- and one very small, but glorious, Texas State Park at Palo Duro.

Guess it's off topic of me to conclude, Rot in Hell.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Feb 22, 2014)

rrdude said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > Point 1: The* Koch brothers will probably not be pleased *with the idea of a train stopping in their hometown (Wichita), and may attempt to stop this from happening.
> ...


Again, speaking from his mouth, the Koch brothers are Tea Party people, and are also in the oil business, and therefore opposed to funding public transportation.


----------



## afigg (Feb 22, 2014)

Eric S said:


> So, we're looking at something like this (and, yes, I realize we are getting ahead of ourselves here):
> 
> Newton, KS
> 
> ...


I doubt if the re-route happens that we would see anywhere near that number of stops in the first decade of operation over the new route. Some have populations that are too small to support building a new station stop. I agree that the lead time for building new stations, given the many examples of taking years and years to build even a small station stop these days, is a concern.
It is possible that the re-route would start with no stops at all over the 600+ mile segment while Amtrak is working with the larger towns and cities to locate and build new stations. BNSF may want stations to be on pull-over tracks which could drive up the cost considerably, if there is not an active pull-over track at a suitable location for a station.

Since these stations will have to be ADA compliant, one source of funding that Amtrak can tap into to help defray the station costs is the ADA compliant funding which is $50 million for FY14. It won't pay for the whole station, but the ADA compliance funds could be used to pay for the platforms, access ramps, curb cuts, rest rooms in the station (if the stop gets a station with rest rooms).

The major unknown is what BNSF might demand to allow the SWC to run over that segment of their tracks. If BNSF wants $100 million in track upgrades over the 5 years of SWC operations, what does Amtrak do? Go to the states again and ask for them to chip in? Since Texas and Oklahoma are paying for the Heartland Flyer, at least their DOTs are used to providing funding for station and track projects.


----------



## afigg (Feb 22, 2014)

Green Maned Lion said:


> Several points another advocate has been blasting through my ear so loud my drums are ringing.
> 
> Point 1: The Koch brothers will probably not be pleased with the idea of a train stopping in their hometown (Wichita), and may attempt to stop this from happening.
> 
> Point 2: The culture of the stops along the transcon are such that they are unlikely to ride the train even if it was provided. Therefore, perhaps, despite the population density, there may be less ridership.


I'm aware of who the Koch Brothers are and I doubt that they would get involved in trying to block the SWC to re-route through Wichita. Really minor item at the political levels they are funding. But I could be wrong on that. Local Tea party types in Wichita who get funded by the Koch brothers might jump in and try to block spending any city funds on a train station.
On point 2, none of the stops on the current section that is threatened has that many passengers to begin with. The busiest is Raton with 15,733 passengers in FY13. Even if people in Wichita and Armarillo are not used to taking the train, even a tiny percentage of the population would be enough to exceed the current numbers. After a year or two, the numbers should grow.

A question for Armarillo is how many people who live there travel to Albuquerque, Wichita, Kansas City on a regular basis? The alternate route offers some new city pairs.


----------



## greatcats (Feb 22, 2014)

A few years ago when this matter came up, I recall the BNSF position was "Come on over to the other route , Amtrak, no extra charge ". Amtrak chose to remain on the Raton route. The matter is undoubtedly a little more complicated than that, but it would seem that some may be imagining more problems with this than May be the case. If a course of action is not decided upon until the end of this year it would be likely that some station facilities are going to be makeshift for awhile, as design and construction projects seem to take forever.


----------



## Eugene Small (Feb 22, 2014)

_In response to WoodyinNYC--In the summer in the canyon there is a musical at the Ampitheater " Texas". People come from all over the World to see it. In the winter--well??? It is like Carl Sandburg said in one of his poems as he stepped off train in Amarillo. "There is nothing between Amarillo and NorthPole except for a barb wire fence and somebody left it down."_


----------



## Andy (Feb 23, 2014)

SarahZ said:


> Yeah, my confusion was over the "overnight" portion of your post. I couldn't figure out where that came into play, given that the RR runs throughout the afternoon and evening, unless the westbound SWC was super late or something. Then people would be stuck overnight.


I was referring to the fact that on Saturday and Sunday, the first Railrunner from Santa Fe does not arrive at ABQ until 12:16 PM, 6 minutes after the eastbound SWC is scheduled to depart ABQ at 12:10. So that would be an overnight connection...

Take care.


----------



## SarahZ (Feb 23, 2014)

Andy said:


> SarahZ said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, my confusion was over the "overnight" portion of your post. I couldn't figure out where that came into play, given that the RR runs throughout the afternoon and evening, unless the westbound SWC was super late or something. Then people would be stuck overnight.
> ...


Oh! I was looking at northbound, as in passengers departing at ABQ to head to Santa Fe. I completely forgot about the southbound passengers coming to board the SWC.


----------



## airjnke (Feb 23, 2014)

Howdy folks;

Did anyone else see this? Perhaps if NM drops the ball on this one ICT can get the Amtrak service it has been wanting.

Take it EZ;

Airjunkie

http://www.kake.com/home/headlines/New-Mexico-legislature-takes-no-action-of-Amtrak-Southwest-Chief-line-246782981.html

http://ksn.com/2013/09/04/trio-to-join-talks-on-future-of-amtrak-line/


----------



## Nathanael (Feb 23, 2014)

Green Maned Lion said:


> Several points another advocate has been blasting through my ear so loud my drums are ringing.
> 
> Point 1: The Koch brothers will probably not be pleased with the idea of a train stopping in their hometown (Wichita), and may attempt to stop this from happening.


There's strong train boosterism from the Wichita City Council, who have pushed to spend money on the station before (in the context of an extended Heartland Flyer), and the station is owned by a developer (Gary Oborny) who wants trains to stop there and might even spend some of his own money. I doubt this will be an problem.



> Point 2: The culture of the stops along the transcon are such that they are unlikely to ride the train even if it was provided. Therefore, perhaps, despite the population density, there may be less ridership.


The same is arguably true of the existing route, with the exception of the Boy Scout ranch. I doubt this will be a problem, especially for stops in college towns (which tend to have better-than-normal train ridership). There are several college towns on the new route -- not on the old route.
Even with low ridership as a percentage of population, Wichita and Amarillo alone have *much* higher populations than the existing route. As I said, if they have the same percentage level of ridership as Hutchinson (which is poor), Wichita and Amarillo alone will provide about as much ridership as the whole existing route.



> Point 3: The Transcon line is very over crowded, and BNSF may refuse to run the train reliably over it. Remember that Amtrak is no longer legally entitled to priority on the tracks,


Yes, actually, Amtrak is still legally entitled to priority on the tracks. It's been made harder to *enforce* by some court rulings from the corrupt DC Circuit, but the legal priority entitlement is still there. Amtrak can still file STB complaints and can still sue, it's just a bit harder to prove the case.



> and that BNSF is not legally required to run any train at all, on either line, after the end of that 2016 contract.


Incorrect. Amtrak still has the right of "track access", which is the right to run trains on any route in the US. The only question is how much Amtrak will be charged for it (admittedly a huge question).
BNSF was pretty friendly about offering to host the SWC on the Transcon in the past. And it's not really that big a deal for them; they can run it right along with their "hot" intermodals at the same speed, which is a perfectly acceptable speed. There isn't so much congestion that there's an outright too-many-trains problem; these tracks are simply not used intensively the way tracks in Europe or even the Empire Corridor upstate NY are. (If they were used that intensively, a lot of cities along the route would be grade-separating their railroad crossings due to the gates basically *never opening*.)

Any serious disruption for BNSF comes, rather, from more specific sources:

- running the passenger train at a different average speed to the intermodals.

- the train being seriously off-schedule -- but BNSF can't really blame anyone else for that on this route, because it's all-BNSF except for RailRunner, Chicago station, LA station, and KC Terminal Railway (which is under partial BNSF control)

- the train criss-crossing both mainlines and blocking one in order to make a station stop

The ideal operating plan involves the SWC running slightly faster than the intermodals, getting ahead of them, then stopping for a station stop and getting "back in slot", rinse and repeat, giving the same *average* speed. This would, mind you, call for platforms on both tracks at most stations (to avoid blocking the opposing track), and it would call for station sidings at some stations in places where the railroad traffic is more complicated and multidirectional, like Wichita.

There's a reason I'm worried about the train running non-stop from Newton to Albuquerque; because this is an easy thing for BNSF to offer, while station stops cause BNSF a lot more trouble. BNSF might demand rather extensive station trackwork in order to make sure that the station stops didn't mess up its scheduling.



> Point 4: Under the terms of PRIIA, the only routes Amtrak is required to run as funded with regards to the so-called National System are the precise trains that were operating on effect of that act.


Wrong again! The national system is, officially, trains between the ENDPOINTS which were in use as of that date. Funny little distinction, eh? So pretty much any reroute is fair game -- and also a Chicago to Miami train would count as part of the national system, for instance. Also, Amtrak isn't actually required to run any of those trains specifically (as we see from the Chicago to Miami or New Orleans to Florida examples) -- Amtrak is merely told that running a "national system" is its mission. This leaves enough wiggle room to cancel any one route, unfortunately.



> But they come from somebody who is reliably informed, if a little, uh, angry. I have enough respect for his sources (and the guy himself, actually) that I wanted to dump his thoughts in here and see what y'all make of them.


Most people don't look up any of the legal details. They're weird and they're not what people think they are (for instance, did you know that Amtrak can run a train of <750 mi as long as it is NOT on a designated HSR corridor? which obviously excludes most of the good routes, of course) -- and I think they have little relevance to this current situation.
Regarding the political details -- like, how much money is BNSF going to ask for various operating scenarios on the Transcon? -- I think most of us are guessing. Unless someone has an "in" with the exact correct department at BNSF, we can't really know what they'll ask for, though we know that they offered the Transcon reroute "for the same price as the current route" in the past -- though AFAIK the offer didn't include any station stops! We know what we read in the newspapers about the views of Wichita City and Amarillo City government, or about developer Gary Oborny (who owns Wichita Union Station).

My guesses are based on compiling an awful lot of different newspaper reports and press releases. I think it seems *very* unlikely that the SW Chief would be discontinued completely -- Amtrak management really doesn't want to lose the train, refusing to accomodate Amtrak would be a declaration of war by BNSF against Amtrak, and I don't think they're going to do that.

But it does seem to me like we are at risk of getting a nonstop from Newton to ABQ if there isn't some effort put into stations pretty quickly.



afigg said:


> It is possible that the re-route would start with no stops at all over the 600+ mile segment while Amtrak is working with the larger towns and cities to locate and build new stations. BNSF may want stations to be on pull-over tracks which could drive up the cost considerably, if there is not an active pull-over track at a suitable location for a station.
> 
> Since these stations will have to be ADA compliant, one source of funding that Amtrak can tap into to help defray the station costs is the ADA compliant funding which is $50 million for FY14. It won't pay for the whole station, but the ADA compliance funds could be used to pay for the platforms, access ramps, curb cuts, rest rooms in the station (if the stop gets a station with rest rooms).


Unfortunately, I suspect the compliance funds can only be used to retrofit existing stations, not to build brand-new ones (which are supposed to be ADA-compliant from the getgo). Amtrak might possibly be able to apply some to stations like Wichita Union or Amarillo, which actually are old stations, but I'm not sure about that even.

I would expect Amtrak to offer some kind of "We'll pay some, you pay some" deal to cities along the route, as Amtrak has done this elsewhere, but Amtrak is always so money-constrained that the bulk of funding will have to come from other sources, probably mostly cities.



> The major unknown is what BNSF might demand to allow the SWC to run over that segment of their tracks. If BNSF wants $100 million in track upgrades over the 5 years of SWC operations, what does Amtrak do? Go to the states again and ask for them to chip in? Since Texas and Oklahoma are paying for the Heartland Flyer, at least their DOTs are used to providing funding for station and track projects.


BNSF really shouldn't be asking for that. In order to run the SWC at the same average speed as the intermodals on this route (which is fast enough for passenger service, though not ideal obviously), BNSF should need essentially no track upgrades -- maybe a little tiny bit of double-tracking near Wichita. This is probably within BNSF's level of generosity.
The request I'm expecting from BNSF is, indeed, pull-over tracks at every station. Possibly one on each side. This makes their dispatching a *lot* simpler. This also permits Amtrak to comply with the level-boarding regulation and therefore saves a lot of paperwork, so Amtrak would probably at this point also want that.

But it means that the stations are going to be rather expensive -- a pair of switches, track, and an 18" platform, maybe totalling $1 million per side... so maybe $2 million per station, *without* a shelter and assuming a grade crossing between tracks. Such a grade crossing will be no problem at most of the smaller cities which already have lots of road grade crossings. But shelters would be extra-cost.

Station renovations at Wichita would probably be much more expensive (I can see how to do it, but my ballpark estimates are already around $10 million and there's probably problems I haven't noticed) and Amarillo could be rather expensive too.


----------



## Eugene Small (Feb 23, 2014)

Amarillo will probably be expensive-- probably a new station. The old station (Santa Fe) has about 8-10 feet between the fence and actual rail. The platform is ground level. The top of rail (in the past was below the platform.such as one short step from train car to platform) now is about 30 inches above platform. Any platform higher than current will probable cause rainwater to flood station floor. The old Burlington station under the Pierce ST. bridge has an old side track with a missing switch (was cut to install switch for connection to Transcon) That siding if finished could be 1500-1600 ft long. Before city of Amarillo bought Santa Fe station, BNSF had ties on car parked on siding. That has been moved and is parkes else where in yard. BNSF is not talking until Amtrak does. My guess is Amarillo will build a new station but will probablely have a tempory station to begin with. Track can be ready in less than a week and a modular building set in. --a good excerise use google earth map and determine best place for rail station with above facts in mind.


----------



## Eugene Small (Feb 24, 2014)

Amarillo will probably be expensive-- probably a new station. The old station (Santa Fe) has about 8-10 feet between the fence and actual rail. The platform is ground level. The top of rail (in the past was below the platform.such as one short step from train car to platform) now is about 30 inches above platform. Any platform higher than current will probable cause rainwater to flood station floor. The old Burlington station under the Pierce ST. bridge has an old side track with a missing switch (was cut to install switch for connection to Transcon) That siding if finished could be 1500-1600 ft long. Before city of Amarillo bought Santa Fe station, BNSF had ties on car parked on siding. That has been moved and is parkes else where in yard. BNSF is not talking until Amtrak does. My guess is Amarillo will build a new station but will probablely have a tempory station to begin with. Track can be ready in less than a week and a modular building set in. --a good excerise use google earth map and determine best place for rail station with above facts in mind.


----------



## BNSFboy (Feb 24, 2014)

Eugene Small said:


> Amarillo will probably be expensive-- probably a new station. The old station (Santa Fe) has about 8-10 feet between the fence and actual rail. The platform is ground level. The top of rail (in the past was below the platform.such as one short step from train car to platform) now is about 30 inches above platform. Any platform higher than current will probable cause rainwater to flood station floor. The old Burlington station under the Pierce ST. bridge has an old side track with a missing switch (was cut to install switch for connection to Transcon) That siding if finished could be 1500-1600 ft long. Before city of Amarillo bought Santa Fe station, BNSF had ties on car parked on siding. That has been moved and is parkes else where in yard. BNSF is not talking until Amtrak does. My guess is Amarillo will build a new station but will probablely have a tempory station to begin with. Track can be ready in less than a week and a modular building set in. --a good excerise use google earth map and determine best place for rail station with above facts in mind.


They can use the station building and just put in a passenger siding and platform that conforms to the passenger requirements directly south of the station building.


----------



## Nathanael (Feb 24, 2014)

BNSFboy said:


> They can use the station building and just put in a passenger siding and platform that conforms to the passenger requirements directly south of the station building.


Amarillo. If I were to guess, I'd expect1) the demolition of the smaller building to the south of the Santa Fe station

(2) the construction of a "passenger siding" with its own compliant platform south of the station

(3) a walkway (rising up as needed) from the south end of the station building to the platform

It's the only design which makes sense to me. I'm not clear on who's using that southern building, but it will probably be necessary to buy it. And the adjacent empty lot. (They may have been part of the purchase of the Santa Fe station, I don't know.)

The Burlington station under the Pierce St. bridge is in some ways a better location, but it's a less attractive building and there's more freight activity....it's also on the wrong route, requiring backtracking.

Amarillo already bought the Santa Fe station building. But the station building is next to a sharp curve, which is undesirable for a passenger platform... but there's a long straight section just south of the station building. With lots of empty space on the west side.


----------



## Crossover (Feb 24, 2014)

Then again ,there maybe light at the end of the tunnel . Amtrak is coming back to Denver Union Station . Here is another possibility Denver could open a line to La Junta . Making Denver a diamond hub . Raton could see much traffic and may gain few or many customers on the business side . On the passenger side , Raton/Trinidad can be a major Amtrak hub being so close they have the ability to grow around the pass .Albuquerque can be a hub destination on the south end connecting to Phoenix/Maricopa and El Paso that could also be two hub destinations two connecting routes including the Sunset route . Giving customers for connections to other destinations as Denver being a hub destination on the north end .

Amarillo is south east of Raton/Trinidad . If possible it would be a east/west connection from Albuquerque to Tulsa . Because Amarillo is a major diamond , A best bet , It would be a good idea to find a huge or moderate size building abandoned but in great shape to be renovated that is directly near a major active diamond with several good abandoned lots with a couple of smaller buildings , one with a warehouse with a refrigerator And a private lavatory for engineers that has good plumbing A plus would be near a major interstate . That would be a ideal location for passenger traffic mainly near downtown . It would be the size of a greyhound station . Constructing a new one would be expensive unless there is an offer or opportunity to share space with other tenant carriers ie Greyhound or Megabus or other travel option or ammenties such as auto rental ie Enterprise , Budget , Hertz , Penske , Avis or Dollars . Another idea would be next door to a motel ie Motel 6 , Super 8 , Best Western , Days inn , etc .


----------



## Ryan (Feb 24, 2014)

If the money to keep the SWC on the current route can't be found, fantasy money like that is out of the question.


----------



## Eric S (Feb 24, 2014)

What is a diamond (hub)?


----------



## jis (Feb 24, 2014)

RyanS said:


> If the money to keep the SWC on the current route can't be found, fantasy money like that is out of the question.


Yeah. The thought that kept passing my mind is "and pigs will fly too!"


----------



## afigg (Feb 25, 2014)

jis said:


> RyanS said:
> 
> 
> > If the money to keep the SWC on the current route can't be found, fantasy money like that is out of the question.
> ...


That is a tad harsh. I can see Colorado pursuing intercity train service as the Denver transit system expands and is built out, but only to other cities in CO initially. To Fort Collins, Colorado Springs-Pueblo, Grand Junction. But CO has to work its way through the HSR ($$$$) vs several trains a day conventional service ($$) options first. That could take a decade. or longer. Then expansion of corridor train service outside the state, but it will be a long tedious series of studies, well after the Raton Pass route issue is settled one way or the other.


----------



## Crossover (Feb 25, 2014)

A diamond hub is a city or township where major rail corridors intersect each other connecting other major or prominent cities or townships on the lines .


----------



## Nathanael (Feb 25, 2014)

afigg said:


> But CO has to work its way through the HSR ($$$$) vs several trains a day conventional service ($$) options first. That could take a decade. or longer.


Oh, they've been arguing that for over a decade already. What *actually* happened, from what I can tell, is that all of the intercity proposals got put on the back burner while FasTracks was being built.
Regarding intercity rail, first there was the "east-west first vs. north-south first" argument; east-west was obviously much more expensive and had lower population. Then there was the "north vs. south" argument -- south was more expensive, had lower population, and had less local advocacy. Then there was "greenfield vs. UP vs. BNSF", but Fort Collins and Loveland and Longmont and Boulder obviously advocated for BNSF (which runs right through their downtowns), while Greeley (along UP) was less interested in rail and Cheyenne didn't care one way or another, so that settled that.

However, at this point, Boulder and Longmont got distracted by Fastracks, which offered them service -- but hasn't managed to provide it yet. So that's the big issue in the Denver area. "Higher-speed" service along the BNSF route is dependent on the Fastracks plan through Boulder and Longmont, so Fort Collins and Loveland kind of put rail service on the back burner. Fort Collins was also distracted by a "bus rapid transit" plan (which will have the usual poor-ROI result) and by BNSF's decision that it really needed to rebuild the BNSF line through downtown (which just happened, unfortunately without any station construction). So with everyone agreed that their rail service would come after something else happened, the urgency went away. Except in Boulder and Longmont, which are focusing their attentions on RTD and Fastracks.

Meanwhile, the state of Colorado is wasting money on redoing "high speed rail" studies where the outcome is already determined, by adding stupid options for people to reject. Oh well.

I expect that the momentum for intercity service in Colorado will come back shortly after Boulder-Denver rail is fully funded.

Boulder-Denver is also suffering from hostile competition within the government from another dumb "Bus Rapid Transit" project, which is funded, and will prove to be extremely underwhelming.


----------



## Crossover (Feb 25, 2014)

For example , Amarillo or Kansas City . Those are diamond hubs because they have many direct corridors that intersect .


----------



## trainman74 (Mar 2, 2014)

Yahoo Travel article on the Southwest Chief -- being highlighted on the yahoo.com homepage today.


----------



## Eugene Small (Mar 2, 2014)

Now we have 200 Million dollars back in the picture; but is it too late unless there is a" Warren Buffet" out there with really deep pockets. As of 1/30/09 new rail steel was 85 cents a pound. and it will take about 540,000 concrete ties. for 250 miles of track. Make it closer to 300 miles if include double track from Raton to Trinidad and sidings between Las vegas and Raton. This does not include the cost to remove old and install new nor does it include bridge replacement--there are several. So what is real dollar amount?


----------



## cirdan (Mar 3, 2014)

My understanding is that BNSF wants Amtrak to move. So any costly obstacles they put in front of Amtrak are actually going to strengthen the case for staying on the existing route. This basically puts an upper limit to what BNSF can ask Amtrak to pay for.


----------



## CHamilton (Mar 10, 2014)

Expert says bringing Amtrak to Pueblo will have positive economic impact



> Colorado State University-Pueblo Professor of Economics Kevin Duncan unveiled a cost-benefit analysis in regards to bringing Amtrak to Pueblo.
> 
> During a meeting with community leaders, Duncan said extending the Southwest Chief Rail Service to Pueblo would have a positive impact on the economy.


----------



## George Harris (Mar 11, 2014)

trainaddict said:


> By the way how old is this track? And will it crack?


This question as asked cannot really be answered. Also, do not know what you mean by "will it crack?" I am assuming you mean the rail break. There are specific requirements for rail condition including frequency of inspection in the FRA that have to be met for any track, which vary with the speed permitted on the track. You better believe that BNSF follows them. There are many other factors in track condition other than just rail, and not just track, think bridges, signals, etc, as well.

I am reasonably sure that the rail is fairly old and well worn. the tie condition is probably not the world's greatest either. However, the issue with the track is the need to maintain it for sufficient speed to make for a reasonable run time for the SW Chief. If the track were to be reclassified for a lower speed, it could be maintained much more cheaply. Look up 49 CFR 213. It gives the Federal Railroad Administration's requirements for track conditions for various speeds.

I could talk for quite a while about things going into getting the track to a good condition and keeping it there, but I think I will stop now.


----------



## neroden (Mar 12, 2014)

The track and ties have been allowed to deteriorate some, causing lower speed limits, and this would be expensive to bring back up to standard, but this isn't the biggest problem with the Raton Pass route.

The biggest problem is that the signal system is truly ancient (semaphores!) and really, really needs to be completely replaced in order to maintain passenger operation. That is expensive too.


----------



## railiner (Mar 12, 2014)

With only the Chief using much of the route, from LaJunta to Lamy, other than the speed restriction, it seems wasteful to have to maintain a signal system for only one train a day, each way.......


----------



## George Harris (Mar 12, 2014)

railiner said:


> With only the Chief using much of the route, from LaJunta to Lamy, other than the speed restriction, it seems wasteful to have to maintain a signal system for only one train a day, each way.......


If it is not maintained the speed limit drops to no more than 59 mph regardless of whether the track is good enough for a higher speed.


----------



## railiner (Mar 12, 2014)

George Harris said:


> railiner said:
> 
> 
> > With only the Chief using much of the route, from LaJunta to Lamy, other than the speed restriction, it seems wasteful to have to maintain a signal system for only one train a day, each way.......
> ...


That's what I meant in my statement "other than the speed restriction".....

Perhaps the FRA could issue a rules waiver in a case such as this, with only the one train each way daily....


----------



## George Harris (Mar 12, 2014)

railiner said:


> George Harris said:
> 
> 
> > railiner said:
> ...


When frogs fly. Last I heard the signal system was still intact and nominally functional on the Phoenix line west out of Phoenix despite much of it being either out of service or used for car storage.


----------



## AmtrakBlue (Mar 13, 2014)

> _This story is the first in a series of planned reports on the Southwest Chief._


http://krcc.org/post/railroad-west-southwest-chief-faces-possible-colorado-derailment

(3/13/14)


----------



## TVRM610 (Mar 13, 2014)

George Harris said:


> railiner said:
> 
> 
> > George Harris said:
> ...


Is the track good for anything over 59 on that line anyways? I know the line over the pass isn't high speed.. but I've only ridden through once and can't remember the speeds (or potential speeds.. ).


----------



## railiner (Mar 13, 2014)

Kind of sad how times change.....I used to ride from Lamar to Kansas City on Number Four back in the seventies, and IIRC, we flew over that well-maintained jointed rail at 90 miles per hour in the smooth riding Hi-Level's.....


----------



## XHRTSP (Mar 14, 2014)

CHamilton said:


> Expert says bringing Amtrak to Pueblo will have positive economic impact
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So yes I understand why Pueblo might want rail service, but wouldn't it be in their better interest to advocate a line to Denver with two or more trains a day? That would open up Colorado Springs, Denver, and anything the Zephyr touches.

I'd imagine it'd be cheaper too, 115 miles or rail give or take to Denver vs 150 along the SWC to the Kansas border and another 90 to NM.


----------



## nmrxabqfan101 (Mar 15, 2014)

Ok I work for the Amtrak SWC coalition a organization working with leaders business leaders and citizens to save amtrak.

It has been anything but quiet since the end of the NM legislative session. Here is what I can report:



"To all friends and supporters of the Amtrak Southwest Chief Passenger Train:

A word of warning from the New Mexico Section of the Amtrak Southwest Chief Coalition:

There is a petition circulating on the web that originated with somebody named Alva Morrison and comes from MoveOn.org. It is entitled “Gov. Martinez, Save rail service to New Mexico”.

The information in this petition is totally false and deliberately inflammatory and the Coalition denounces this kind of "help". We do not want or need this kind of destructive "help". Please do not sign or in any way support this petition. It is included at the end of this email.

There are a number of people from, both political parties, who spent an enormous amount of time building a bi-partisan framework in New Mexico to allow the governor and legislature to actively support funding for keeping the Amtrak Southwest on its current route. We were pretty successful in the NM House and bot an authorization passed containing a $4 million/year for 10 years appropriation passed 47-12. That means it had significant bi-partisan support. It got to the senate too late to be passed and died. But were more successful than we had anticipated.

This petition is destructive of all that hard work. The Southwest Chief Coalition categorically rejects this petition and asks its member to refuse to sign it or associate with petition efforts like this in any way. The only way New Mexico as a state (legislature or governor) will support saving the train will be through bi-partisan compromise. Thus, the kind of hyper-partisanship represented by this petition will only help kill the train.

Gov. Susanna Martinez:
The Legislature has authorized our State to match the money contributed by Colorado and Kansas to save Northern New Mexico's only commercial rail line, allowing Amtrak to continue service to Albuquerque, Santa Fe, Las Vegas, and Raton. Please sign the legislation and allow this vital rail artery to remain open.

Colorado and Kansas have NOT contributed funding to be matched. The NM Legislature has NOT authorized any funding. The information in this petition is so totally false as to suggest that it is really deliberate misinformation. Please support the Amtrak Southwest Chief by rejecting this petition or any future uncoordinated efforts like this."

2. The Obama Administration has opened up another chance at TIGER Grants with a $600 Million set of programs. Information has been circulated to various agencies and economic development officers, with some supportive response. I hope to have more info in the near future.

3. There will be a telephone (remember those) conference call on Thursday, March 13th among the Three-State Coalition leadership and several NM Legislators. We have had some difficulty arranging this call in the past; if it takes place as scheduled, I will send out a report afterwards.

4. We again find ourselves in a period of relative quiet. That doesn’t mean nothing is happening, only that there hasn’t been much to report. Your continued efforts are very much appreciated. My expectation is that we will probably begin work on the next legislative session in April.


----------



## nmrxabqfan101 (Mar 15, 2014)

Keeping the Chief on the current route is about saving the communities in it serves. Amtrak has said specifically that they have no intention of running armarillo route at all and no do want to talk to the communities there and cause a expectation that they will get rail service at this time but BNSF has stated publicly that they want and prefer amtrak stay on raton pass. Amtrak has stated a re route will cost them double what they asking now. There is a solution in the works but I can't state the details. If the chief moved from the current route the Tourism and Local Economies would take a hit really hard is what your not understanding. UNM is going to be conducting a study a cost benefit analysis at the request of the nm legislature and the bill that passed to get that moving. Once complete it will be sent to governor Martinez office and if approved we can see some good things happen if the results show the chief is really needed in north central NM. Mayor Berry of Albuquerque is working on a economic package to keep the chief and also is in talks with Kansas Governor also about the situation. The pueblo re route would add 31 million estimate to the cost to keep the train. But the local nm rail runner express commuter train which runs from Belen NM to Santa Fe NM Would take a big hit cause they pay NMDOT fees to use there trackage which then goes to rail runner operations. Clovis NM and Belen NM are not liking and really don't want amtrak in there towns. And as far as BNSF keeping raton they are keeping raton as a safety valve in case the southern route keeps clogged. Also they will maintain raton to 30 from what I was informed. Pacer wants to build a plant in lamy NM to export oil by rail to ABQ and the San Miguel waste site near Las Vegas wants to start exporting by rail cause the costs of semi are too high for them. Also Tesla motors wants to build a plant in ABQ but there requirement is railroad tracks and BNSF has agreed to lay down new tracks if needed. So this all can help the chief is put into play soon. .


----------



## VentureForth (Mar 15, 2014)

nmrxabqfan101, first, welcome to the forums. This is a great place to discuss various ideas and thoughts. I appreciate your local access to the thinking that's going on in ABQ.

A lot of what you say is encouraging, but not consistent with what other discussions that we have seen around here. I think many of us would quite prefer to see Amtrak stay where it's at, but let's get real - there are no communities along the line that are going to dry up and whither away if Amtrak leaves. And, if they do, such is the way of life. Passenger service has been reduced by nearly 90% since its heyday but 90% of the communities haven't gone away. When Steam was converted to Diesel, yes, those many steam-servicing towns have been reduced but few lost completely.

I agree that the idea for a reroute through the Southern Transcon would be a difficult proposition for both BNSF and Amtrak. This is a very crowded line with trains going in both directions. It's hard to put an 80-90 MPH train out there with 60 MPH trains and expect one not to clog up the other. If I were BNSF, I would almost pay the maintenance on the current routing to a) Keep Amtrak off my main lines, and b) Maintain a solid secondary route in the event of an emergency and to increase capacity if needed.

This entire exercise has been entirely about money. The best solution is the one where the government(s) gives BNSF the most money. Period.


----------



## nmrxabqfan101 (Mar 15, 2014)

Well believe what you want to believe I have sat in some meetings talked with state reps plans drawn out plans already in the works sat in on transportation meetings cause I didn't see you there I saw my self in those meetings also with NM state governors office so I'm just on here to moderate what's fact from fiction cause allot of rail fans have this all backwards some have a good idea and some just throwing wild theory's. Yes a possibility of a re route is there but amtrak does not even want to touch the southern route they said at a public hearing In Santa Fe NM. I do know more details on this than you.


----------



## nmrxabqfan101 (Mar 15, 2014)

I've seen the pre luminary numbers of the total loss of the chief to the communities from raton to ABQ and what it would do to the local commuter rail service. So if you haven't seen them then there is no room to say otherwise what is happening if you don have all the information in hand like I and 78 other people. The official numbers are to be released later this year publicly. Which I will gladly share with you.


----------



## nmrxabqfan101 (Mar 15, 2014)

Remember I'm not saying the towns with die and be no more just there economies and tourism that the chief brings will be HIT HARD.


----------



## Just-Thinking-51 (Mar 15, 2014)

nmrxabqfan101 said:


> Yes a possibility of a re route is there but amtrak does not even want to touch the southern route they said at a public hearing In Santa Fe NM


Well best of luck, what they say in a public meeting mean nothing. Sorry but if you take it as fact, you will be quite unhappy at the end.

Too many upsides with the reroute. Sure if you provide the funds they take it, but get it in writing on what your paying for, and the time frame of the deal. Nice history of walking away from deals.


----------



## neroden (Mar 16, 2014)

nmrxabqfan101 said:


> Clovis NM and Belen NM are not liking and really don't want amtrak in there towns.


Citation needed.
http://www.cnjonline.com/2013/11/16/amtrak-move-makes-sense-for-clovis-taxpayers/



nmrxabqfan101 said:


> Keeping the Chief on the current route is about saving the communities in it serves.





> If the chief moved from the current route the Tourism and Local Economies would take a hit really hard


Yes, I understand that the local towns along the existing route (north of Lamy) would be hit very hard by a move. Have they offered up any money?



> Amtrak has stated a re route will cost them double what they asking now.


Citation needed. Previously, BNSF said it would cost Amtrak the same amount to reroute as to stay put. And there's no logical reason why it could cost more.



> Mayor Berry of Albuquerque is working on a economic package to keep the chief and also is in talks with Kansas Governor also about the situation.


The Kansas Governor -- the awful Sam Brownback -- is going to spend nothing whatsoever on passenger rail. And his administration has actually said so. Even Wichita can't get a dime out of him for rail service.



> But the local nm rail runner express commuter train which runs from Belen NM to Santa Fe NM Would take a big hit cause they pay NMDOT fees to use there trackage which then goes to rail runner operations.


All proposals I've seen regarding the reroute still have Amtrak running up to Albuquerque, and paying NMDOT for Belen-Albuquerque-Isleta instead of Lamy-Albuquerque-Isleta. It's 30 miles less. On the other hand, NMDOT wouldn't have to maintain Lamy-Waldo Canyon for passengers any more, which probably is a greater savings. So in short, this should be a net improvement for NMDOT's budget.



> And as far as BNSF keeping raton they are keeping raton as a safety valve in case the southern route keeps clogged. Also they will maintain raton to 30 from what I was informed.


Wise.... if true...



> Pacer wants to build a plant in lamy NM to export oil by rail to ABQ and the San Miguel waste site near Las Vegas wants to start exporting by rail cause the costs of semi are too high for them. Also Tesla motors wants to build a plant in ABQ but there requirement is railroad tracks and BNSF has agreed to lay down new tracks if needed. So this all can help the chief is put into play soon. .


Oil and waste are both slooooow traffic with low speed requirements, and so it's not at all clear that this helps keep the tracks in good enough condition for passenger speeds. Tesla's batteries would be slightly faster traffic, but they're probably going to locate very close to ABQ if they choose ABQ.
In short I don't really trust your information, because it doesn't fit with what I'm finding elsewhere. I do understand that a reroute would hurt the bypassed cities pretty hard, but they don't seem to be able to pay to maintain passenger speeds. Politically, it really looks like there's not going to be any change in Kansas before the end of the year.


----------



## neroden (Mar 16, 2014)

VentureForth said:


> I agree that the idea for a reroute through the Southern Transcon would be a difficult proposition for both BNSF and Amtrak. This is a very crowded line with trains going in both directions. It's hard to put an 80-90 MPH train out there with 60 MPH trains and expect one not to clog up the other.


Not as hard as you might think. It just requires some planning. Remember that the 80-90 mph train *stops for stations*. Add enough stations, spaced out right, and you're down to a 60 mph average.
More problematic are single-track areas and places where the passenger train would have to stop on the "wrong direction" line. I've noticed that new stations in "freight territory" lately have quite consistently been designed with platforms on both tracks, at a minimum. The preferred design appears to keep the passenger platforms entirely off the mainline *and* prevent the passenger trains from going on the "wrong main", with two separate passenger sidings in each direction.

This actually makes sense.



> This entire exercise has been entirely about money.


Of course it is.


----------



## henryj (Mar 16, 2014)

Isn't the SWC on the Transcon west of Albuquerque? I see no diff going east of there. I would think Chicago to KC is just as crowded.


----------



## printman2000 (Mar 17, 2014)

henryj said:


> Isn't the SWC on the Transcon west of Albuquerque? I see no diff going east of there. I would think Chicago to KC is just as crowded.


I hear the too crowded transcon argument all the time. I really do not understand it. As you said, the train already runs on the transcon for most of the route. Cannot see why the it would get more crowded between Belen and Witchita.


----------



## Eric S (Mar 17, 2014)

Perhaps referring to the single-track bottlenecks, not sure. I believe the ones in NM have had a second track added, and I think directional running might be used to bypass the other single-track stretch in KS, but I am not positive on that.


----------



## VentureForth (Mar 17, 2014)

Just-Thinking-51 said:


> nmrxabqfan101 said:
> 
> 
> > Yes a possibility of a re route is there but amtrak does not even want to touch the southern route they said at a public hearing In Santa Fe NM
> ...


nmrxabqfan101: Though I didn't sit in any meetings, I can tell you that what the Richardson Administration said publicly had very little correlation to reality when it came to the NM Railrunner. Also talked with several folks at NMCOG during development of the NM Railrunner who couldn't manage a rooster fight. I had friends who worked for Hertzog who wondered out loud how long their jobs would last.
If you pay attention to recent commuter efforts across the country, many have been designed to make life easier for the politicians. If not for the state government (ie: NM Railrunner, NC Rail services, etc), they cater to the government needs of the county (SunRail). These politicians really do care less about the Proles and will do whatever they can to benefit themselves.


----------



## jis (Mar 17, 2014)

It would be quite foolish of Amtrak to say publicly at the present time that they are eager to re-route, unless they want to pull the rug out from under the efforts to get funding to retain the current route. OTOH, it would also be foolish of them not to be privately working on contingencies should the states fail to come through.


----------

