# A Texas to Colorado Train



## henryj (Jun 14, 2009)

This is my pet peave and the big hole in Amtrak's network for those of us down here in Texas. Up until the big train-offs in the late sixties we had excellent service with the Texas Zephyr running an overnight service between Dallas/Ft Worth and Denver serving Amarillo and Colorado Springs along the way. We had two trains a day between DFW and Houston and between SAS and DFW that connected. Colorado is the number one vacation destination for Texas both winter and summer. It's an obvious ready made market.


----------



## bretton88 (Jun 14, 2009)

Well if the Rocky Mountain Rail Authority has its way, there will be 220mph rail service from Trinidad to Cheyenne by 2022. Then New Mexico has expressed interest in a rail link from El Paso to Trinidad via Railrunner. El Paso-Cheyenne could happen, but its a distance away. The website for RMRA is: Colorado High Speed Rail The site is hard to navigate but the formal study which i summarized here (5.8 billion $, finished by 2022) is to be released this month. The reason we don't have train service now is the existing line from Pueblo to Denver is really congested with coal trains.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Jun 14, 2009)

Try the service gaps in Ohio, or South Dakota...


----------



## Upstate (Jun 14, 2009)

cry me a river, atlanta only has two trains a day.


----------



## bretton88 (Jun 14, 2009)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> Try the service gaps in Ohio, or South Dakota...


Well, Ohio I can understand the service gaps there need fixing. South Dakota just doesn't have the population to justify dedicated service, hence the service gap there. I think Colorado is the worst service gap in the western system and a train from Texas to Denver will get lots of riders. Thats why I like what RMRA is doing (see post above).


----------



## printman2000 (Jun 14, 2009)

henryj said:


> This is my pet peave and the big hole in Amtrak's network for those of us down here in Texas. Up until the big train-offs in the late sixties we had excellent service with the Texas Zephyr running an overnight service between Dallas/Ft Worth and Denver serving Amarillo and Colorado Springs along the way. We had two trains a day between DFW and Houston and between SAS and DFW that connected. Colorado is the number one vacation destination for Texas both winter and summer. It's an obvious ready made market.


Few years back there was a serious push for a Caprock Express.

Txarp Site


----------



## jphjaxfl (Jun 15, 2009)

If Amtrak had been started 10 years earlier on May 1, 1961 instead of 1971, we would have a lot fewer gaps in service. There were also many more passengers riding trains 10 years earlier. In the early 60s, many trains carried Railroad Post Office cars which made a profit, even if the train lost money on passengers. With the wholesale discontinuance of RPOs in the mid 60s came train off petitions to the ICC because Railroads could justify discontinuances because of balance sheets that showed red ink for the passenger trains. In the late 1960s, Penn Central petitioned to discontinue all passenger service west of Buffalo and Harrisburg. By 1970s, the politicians finally woke up to the fact that they had problem. Amtrak was formed to continue passenger service a few more years, but the ultimate plan was to discontinue all passenger trains with the exception of a few corridors such as the NEC. Fortunately, rail passenger advocates have kept the skelatal nationwide Amtrak system going, but it will take significant amounts of investments to bring back the great passenger system that US once had.


----------



## amtkstn (Jun 15, 2009)

One thing that will prevent this is the route is heavy with coal trains.


----------



## MikeM (Jun 15, 2009)

Not that this is optimal, but there's continuing discussion about extending the Hearland Flyer to Kansas City. If that happened, at least you could hit the SWC from your location. Or go west on the SWC and then the connecting bus from Raton?


----------



## coxm50 (Jun 15, 2009)

This would be great, because we really do need a western north south connection.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jun 16, 2009)

Colorado, last time I checked, is served by 4 trains daily. Why is this a service gap compared to various other states I could mention?


----------



## lrdc9_metroplitan_sub (Jun 16, 2009)

I see the string of towns Denver south and I see a huge $$ (okay maybe half-a-$, but still). It should definatly be served, if not by a N-S Train w/ connections to either the CZ or SWC. At least the local gov't should invest some cash into a tourist-y commuter type train to connect to both the CZ and SWC to expand the ease of travel in that area, and to bump up potential for ski traffic in the area. (Cities such as Denver, Colorado Springs, Pueblo, etc.). Not to mention some of the great destinations to the NW of DEN.


----------



## birdy (Jun 16, 2009)

Colorado just is too isolated, I think. If you look at a map, its the most isolated of our big cities. Its very easy to fly into their nice new airport, and that is what most people do. I just don't see slow speed LD trains having a significant future anywhere.


----------



## sldispatcher (Jun 16, 2009)

I am all for either a Houston or New Orleans originating train that traverses Dallas / Denver/ Pacific Northwest.

It is a huge gap....and one that needs fixing. But if we keep spending ourselves further into a hole, we probably wont' be worrying about train service...more like what are we going to eat?


----------



## Bob Dylan (Jun 16, 2009)

birdy said:


> Colorado just is too isolated, I think. If you look at a map, its the most isolated of our big cities. Its very easy to fly into their nice new airport, and that is what most people do. I just don't see slow speed LD trains having a significant future anywhere.


Well Phoenix and Salt Lake City are pretty isolated, not many people want to pay to see the desertso flhying there might be better but Denver has THE scenery, hence the CZ is very popular!(not to men tion

the EB which goes nowhere near a big city between Seattle and the Twin Cities!!Lots of folks use the

train since there are no airports nor even roads in some cases to get to the city!You could look it up

as Casey Stengel ised to [email protected]  :lol:


----------



## wrjensen (Jun 16, 2009)

Were they looking at a train to run from ABQ (and points South) to Denver? Or did I just dream that.


----------



## henryj (Jun 17, 2009)

birdy said:


> Colorado just is too isolated, I think. If you look at a map, its the most isolated of our big cities. Its very easy to fly into their nice new airport, and that is what most people do. I just don't see slow speed LD trains having a significant future anywhere.


They are popular as a tourist attraction mostly. Similar to cruise ships. It's a land cruise and that's how Amtrak has to approach it. They also provide basic transportation to many isolated small towns along the routes. Are they totally essential to the US transportation system? Probably not. However, as gasoline prices continue to escalate they may become more attractive verses flying or driving. But to really excel they need to become more punctual with improved scheduling. The schedules have become too padded and the freight railroads treat them like step children.


----------



## henryj (Jun 17, 2009)

wrjensen said:


> Were they looking at a train to run from ABQ (and points South) to Denver? Or did I just dream that.


Colorado is looking at service down the 'front range' along I25 to serve Denver to Colorado Springs, Pueblo and Walsenberg. New Mexico already has the railrunner coming the other way from ABQ as far as Santa Fe. The long term plan is to someday go the whole distance. They are also looking at service from El Paso north to Denver. The Texas Assoc of Rail Passengers(TXARP) came up with this boondoggle called the Caproc Express that wandered all about the state to serve Lubbock, Amarillo, then connecting with the SWC at La Junta and finally running up the front range to Denver. Timing was almost 24 hours to go 900 miles often on unsignalled freight only track north of Lubbock whereas the old Texas Zephyr route up the BNSF from Fort Worth through Amarillo was only 800 miles and took only 18 hours. Problem with both these routes is they have to go up the front range which is plugged with coal trains. As it stands now the trains would never run on time and the service would be unreliable. The BNSF in a short sighted economy move years ago single tracked the line south of Palmer Lake before the coal business became what it is today and created a huge bottle neck that is still unsolved to this day. There have been plans circulated to reroute these coal trains east of Denver away from the Palmer Lake joint line, but nothing has come of it. It takes $$$$$ and so far no one thinks it is a priority.


----------



## wrjensen (Jun 17, 2009)

henryj said:


> wrjensen said:
> 
> 
> > Were they looking at a train to run from ABQ (and points South) to Denver? Or did I just dream that.
> ...


I thought the Caprock Express was a waste. It seem to be to political based. A train to hit every city on Texas and it could never compete with Southwest Airlines. If you ever drive from Lubbock to Amarillo the 100 ish miles can be done in 90 min no problem (It can be done in it in about a hour if you have a lead foot) and the plainview sub is not that fast BNSF for a while (I do not know is the still to do but was runing north on the boise city sub and south on the Dahart sub). This does not means train go the the out way but a Amtrak train would be backflowing in one direction. If you wanted to do trains in west texas the TZ from DFW to Denver, a train from DFW to El Paso and maybe a train from Houston to ABQ.


----------



## MikeM (Jun 17, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> Colorado, last time I checked, is served by 4 trains daily. Why is this a service gap compared to various other states I could mention?


*FOUR* trains???? The California Zephyr serves the state, and that's it. Unless we're counting tourist trains, which I don't think we should. It also used to have the tail end of the Pioneer route when that left from Denver and crossed Wyoming, but that's more of an honorary mention since it only stopped in Denver and Greeley.


----------



## Ispolkom (Jun 17, 2009)

MikeM said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > Colorado, last time I checked, is served by 4 trains daily. Why is this a service gap compared to various other states I could mention?
> ...


Southwest Chief.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jun 17, 2009)

MikeM said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > Colorado, last time I checked, is served by 4 trains daily. Why is this a service gap compared to various other states I could mention?
> ...


Last time I checked, the Southwest Chief serves Lamar, La Junta, and Trinidad.


----------



## henryj (Jun 17, 2009)

wrjensen said:


> If you wanted to do trains in west texas the TZ from DFW to Denver, a train from DFW to El Paso and maybe a train from Houston to ABQ.


The last train you mention, Houston to ABQ was run by the Santa Fe up until everything fell apart in the late 60's. It was called the California Special and ran overnight between Houston and Lubbock both ways and then continued on to Clovis where it exchanged cars with the San Francisco Chief and the Chief for ABQ(via Belen) and California. A lot ot TT students used the service from Houston to Lubbock. The T&P of course ran the Eagle and another train out to El Paso from DFW. You could reroute the Eagle out that way again someday perhaps but right now we are doing good just to get daily service out of the Eagle/Sunset proposal as it stands.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Jun 17, 2009)

attn henry I: did you happen to see my post about resuming the old Eagle stub train from DFW to

Hoouston, as you know currently pax have to catch a bus in East Texas off the TE for Houston,

with the millions of folks in both areas it should be a hit,maybe just a cafe car and a coach to start,

perhaps BC if a good schedule (daily/on time/return)could be worked out!


----------



## printman2000 (Jun 17, 2009)

jimhudson said:


> attn henry I: did you happen to see my post about resuming the old Eagle stub train from DFW toHoouston, as you know currently pax have to catch a bus in East Texas off the TE for Houston,
> 
> with the millions of folks in both areas it should be a hit,maybe just a cafe car and a coach to start,
> 
> perhaps BC if a good schedule (daily/on time/return)could be worked out!


I think the only hope for DFW-Houston rail service is high speed rail.

The old TE took 6 hours to get between the two.


----------



## birdy (Jun 17, 2009)

jimhudson said:


> birdy said:
> 
> 
> > Colorado just is too isolated, I think. If you look at a map, its the most isolated of our big cities. Its very easy to fly into their nice new airport, and that is what most people do. I just don't see slow speed LD trains having a significant future anywhere.
> ...


No, Denver is really by itself. Salt Lake City is about 350 miles to Las Vegas, which is in the HSR sweet spot. Phoenix is actually unique in that it is in the HSR sweet spot for no less than 5 major metropolitan areas: Los Angeles, San Diego, Las Vegas, El Paso and even Albuquerque. Of course there is absolutely no Amtrak of any kind for Phoenix nor any plan to have any, let alone any discussion of HSR. No discussion, nothing.

Those LD trains might be successful by various measures but they aren't ever going to be more than niche operations.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Jun 17, 2009)

birdy said:


> jimhudson said:
> 
> 
> > birdy said:
> ...


  Well Ill disagree, actuallt these trains make a profit for Amtrak and are more popular all the time,check the reservation systemand try to book a sleeper to SEA or PDX w/o doing it months in advance!Two of the

prettiest rides in America, Denver needs a train south, its not that hard to do as various pont out!

If Im wrong, Ill defer to the "experts", Ive driven many times from Texas and NM to Colorado and

a train this way would be heavily ridden by folks in the winter and summer from Texas!!!!(Hi speed Rail ids not

practical of course from the south except maybe to Col,orado Springs !


----------



## haolerider (Jun 17, 2009)

jimhudson said:


> birdy said:
> 
> 
> > jimhudson said:
> ...


Where you get the idea that these trains make a profit for Amtrak? Just because you may not be able to book a trip on the day that you want is no indication that there is a profit being made, it just means that there is not enough equipment to meet the demand on that particular day. Amtrak publishes facts and figures that you can acess that show profit and loss and I don't recall the long distance trains making profits - with the possible exception of the Auto Train and when you allocate the overhead expenses that disappears as well.


----------



## McDougal (Nov 3, 2012)

Every time I have to take an airplane anywhere, I say to myself, "I'll never travel again"! Besides the long waits, being filed into the cabin like cattle and being stuffed in a seat that was built for children, it's not so bad, until you get stuck in a holding pattern and wait an hour for an opportunity to land. Then again, there's the lost or damaged lugage, the $8.00 hot dogs, $10.00 soda pops and cramps in your legs. Flying is ok. I'ld pay twice the price of an airline ticket if I could take a train from Texas to Denver! Mack in Amarillo


----------



## printman2000 (Nov 3, 2012)

Hey Mack. I also live in Amarillo. Good to know there are other Amtrak interested people here.


----------



## Nathanael (Nov 3, 2012)

McDougal said:


> Every time I have to take an airplane anywhere, I say to myself, "I'll never travel again"! Besides the long waits, being filed into the cabin like cattle and being stuffed in a seat that was built for children, it's not so bad, until you get stuck in a holding pattern and wait an hour for an opportunity to land. Then again, there's the lost or damaged lugage, the $8.00 hot dogs, $10.00 soda pops and cramps in your legs. Flying is ok. I'ld pay twice the price of an airline ticket if I could take a train from Texas to Denver! Mack in Amarillo





printman2000 said:


> Hey Mack. I also live in Amarillo. Good to know there are other Amtrak interested people here.


To the Amarillo residents:

It seems very likely that the Southwest Chief (Chicago-Kansas City-Albuquerque-LA) is going to have to be rerouted through Wichita and Amarillo in a couple of years, due to lack of any source of funding for the current route.

However, there seems to be no campaign right now to have a STATION in Amarillo. Certainly there have been no newspaper articles, and no local politicians looking into it. It might be worth starting a campaign! Given Amtrak's funding shortage, it is quite imaginable that the train could pass through Amarillo without stopping. There does seem to be a campaign starting to get the station in Wichita back. (And Wichita is already campaigning to get connected to Oklahoma City.) If you can get local support together for an Amarillo station -- perhaps funding for a design study, or a local funding match for station construction -- this might really help Amarillo's chances of getting Amtrak service.

It wouldn't get you to Denver initially... but having a station at all is the first step. It proves that people in Amarillo will ride trains. If the station is placed right so that trains can easily access all the train routes out of Amarillo, it can then be used for future service to Denver (and/or Fort Worth and/or Lubbock), once advocates manage to get those up and running.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Nov 4, 2012)

bretton88 said:


> Well if the Rocky Mountain Rail Authority has its way, there will be 220mph rail service from Trinidad to Cheyenne by 2022. Then New Mexico has expressed interest in a rail link from El Paso to Trinidad via Railrunner. El Paso-Cheyenne could happen, but its a distance away. The website for RMRA is: Colorado High Speed Rail The site is hard to navigate but the formal study which i summarized here (5.8 billion $, finished by 2022) is to be released this month. The reason we don't have train service now is the existing line from Pueblo to Denver is really congested with coal trains.


I doubt that HSR line will get built.



ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> Try the service gaps in Ohio, or South Dakota...


Ohio does need more service, but South Dakota didn't have much trains anyway and the only through trains operated by Milwaukee Road went on the northern edge. Trains went to Rapid City but ended in a stub, not through the state.



Upstate said:


> cry me a river, atlanta only has two trains a day.


Houston has less and it's bigger. Phoenix has none and it's even bigger. No reason to cry a river for that.



MikeM said:


> Not that this is optimal, but there's continuing discussion about extending the Hearland Flyer to Kansas City. If that happened, at least you could hit the SWC from your location. Or go west on the SWC and then the connecting bus from Raton?


Huge detour, though.



coxm50 said:


> This would be great, because we really do need a western north south connection.


Agreed. Same with MSP-KCY-DAL and CHI-MIA.


----------



## BNSFboy (Nov 4, 2012)

MikeM said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > Colorado, last time I checked, is served by 4 trains daily. Why is this a service gap compared to various other states I could mention?
> ...


Don't forget the Southwest Chief they might have got the other two trains from there.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Nov 4, 2012)

BNSFboy said:


> MikeM said:
> 
> 
> > Green Maned Lion said:
> ...


I think that's what they meant, but the SWC is probably going to leave soon.


----------



## AlanB (Nov 4, 2012)

Guys,

Please take note that most of the posts that you're responding to are now 3 years old.


----------



## manchacrr (Nov 4, 2012)

MikeM said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > Colorado, last time I checked, is served by 4 trains daily. Why is this a service gap compared to various other states I could mention?
> ...


I believe you are forgetting the two daily trains (one in each direction) known as the Southwest Chief, which stops in Lamar, La Junta, & Trinidad.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Nov 4, 2012)

AlanB said:


> Guys,
> 
> Please take note that most of the posts that you're responding to are now 3 years old.


Oh, right!


----------



## henryj (Nov 4, 2012)

Swadian Hardcore said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > Guys,
> ...


It may be 3 years old, but it's still a valid topic and has been for all of Amtrak's 40 years of existence. By the way, this so called congested route is this weekend hosting the UP 150 Express with engine 844.


----------



## printman2000 (Nov 4, 2012)

Nathanael said:


> McDougal said:
> 
> 
> > Every time I have to take an airplane anywhere, I say to myself, "I'll never travel again"! Besides the long waits, being filed into the cabin like cattle and being stuffed in a seat that was built for children, it's not so bad, until you get stuck in a holding pattern and wait an hour for an opportunity to land. Then again, there's the lost or damaged lugage, the $8.00 hot dogs, $10.00 soda pops and cramps in your legs. Flying is ok. I'ld pay twice the price of an airline ticket if I could take a train from Texas to Denver! Mack in Amarillo
> ...


I think I have said this before, it is too early. Nothing will be done and no one will be interested in doing anything until it is more certain that the train will come through here. While we here might feel that it is certain, others will not even consider spending a dime until they know it is certain. And I don't blame them.


----------



## AlanB (Nov 4, 2012)

henryj said:


> It may be 3 years old, but it's still a valid topic and has been for all of Amtrak's 40 years of existence.


It's not a matter of the topic being valid or not. It's a matter of people answering questions that were asked 3 years ago by people who no longer visit the board and won't see the answers.

I have no problem with people discussing the topic, which is why the post that revived the topic wasn't deleted. I just don't want people to be wasting time answering questions that no longer need to be answered.


----------



## Nathanael (Nov 4, 2012)

printman2000 said:


> I think I have said this before, it is too early. Nothing will be done and no one will be interested in doing anything until it is more certain that the train will come through here. While we here might feel that it is certain, others will not even consider spending a dime until they know it is certain. And I don't blame them.


That's not a good attitude. Maybe nobody will put up any money yet, but if you get a group of people together saying "Well, we'd LIKE train service", and start figuring out where to put the station, you'll be far, far ahead if the train DOES get rerouted. People will be primed to consider the possibilty, and when the rerouting becomes certain, they may kick into gear.

Otherwise, the train could start running through Amarillo, and it could still take 20-30 years, or longer, before you get service, as people start to go "Huh, isn't it odd that the passenger train runs through here and doesn't stop. Oh well, I guess that's the way life is." A lack of local advocacy is a good way to get nothing. Does that sound like a nice outcome?

Places with "oh, let's not bother to do anything now" attitudes have been the cities which do NOT get train service, perhaps not ever. Places with "We want it now" attitudes have been the ones which get train service in 10-15 years (with the delays being quite frustrating to the advocates). Which attitude is preferable?


----------



## henryj (Nov 4, 2012)

Both the Santa Fe depot and harvey house and the FW&D depots are still in existence in Amarillo. Unfortunately neither is positioned to service both routes. BNSF has done a lot of track relocation in the area of the crossing. Because the BNSF owns both routes and another route north and uses the tracks directionally, the only place you could locate a new depot would be where the two tracks parallel each other somewhere around NE 3rd Ave and Bull Road between the tracks. But since service on the ex FW&D between DFW and Colorado is years away if ever, just use the old Santa Fe depot for now. Amtrak only needs a small part of it. The rest is a restaurant, I believe.


----------



## BNSFboy (Nov 4, 2012)

henryj said:


> . But since service on the ex FW&D between DFW and Colorado is years away if ever, just use the old Santa Fe depot for now. Amtrak only needs a small part of it. The rest is a restaurant, I believe.


Its not a restaurant anymore it is now an auction house.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Nov 4, 2012)

Nathanael said:


> printman2000 said:
> 
> 
> > I think I have said this before, it is too early. Nothing will be done and no one will be interested in doing anything until it is more certain that the train will come through here. While we here might feel that it is certain, others will not even consider spending a dime until they know it is certain. And I don't blame them.
> ...


I agree with this. You got to be active, not passive!


----------



## FriskyFL (Nov 5, 2012)

MikeM said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > Colorado, last time I checked, is served by 4 trains daily. Why is this a service gap compared to various other states I could mention?
> ...


Don't forget, the SWC still serves three Colorado cities.


----------



## Nathanael (Nov 5, 2012)

FYI, the hard part on getting a station is a *platform*. The rules on new platforms are very stringent, and it's basically impossible to just reuse one of the ancient, out-of-service platforms. (Platforms in continuous use were grandfathered.) In particular, platforms on curves are strongly disapproved of.

This is why it doesn't always make sense to "just use X building for now". You want to build the *platform* in the correct location so that you don't have to build the platform twice. There are, however, some places which have built the platform and "just used X building for now" even though X building is a couple of blocks walk away. Although, sometimes it seems to be wisest to go ahead and build a platform even if it's eventually going to end up in the wrong location for additional service, if that's going to get you a working station soonest and people are willing to pay for it.

Be prepared for the possibility that BNSF or the FRA will want platforms on a newly built passenger-only siding. Or BNSF may want the platforms to be directly on the mainline. It would be good to have multiple options sketched out so that you can follow the 'path of least resistance' when the time comes.


----------



## BNSFboy (Nov 5, 2012)

Nathanael said:


> FYI, the hard part on getting a station is a *platform*. The rules on new platforms are very stringent, and it's basically impossible to just reuse one of the ancient, out-of-service platforms. (Platforms in continuous use were grandfathered.) In particular, platforms on curves are strongly disapproved of.
> 
> This is why it doesn't always make sense to "just use X building for now". You want to build the *platform* in the correct location so that you don't have to build the platform twice. There are, however, some places which have built the platform and "just used X building for now" even though X building is a couple of blocks walk away. Although, sometimes it seems to be wisest to go ahead and build a platform even if it's eventually going to end up in the wrong location for additional service, if that's going to get you a working station soonest and people are willing to pay for it.
> 
> Be prepared for the possibility that BNSF or the FRA will want platforms on a newly built passenger-only siding. Or BNSF may want the platforms to be directly on the mainline. It would be good to have multiple options sketched out so that you can follow the 'path of least resistance' when the time comes.


For Amarillo they might want it on the main line. It would make it easier to switch out crews for there trains on a platform then on ballast.


----------



## henryj (Nov 5, 2012)

Nathanael said:


> FYI, the hard part on getting a station is a *platform*. The rules on new platforms are very stringent, and it's basically impossible to just reuse one of the ancient, out-of-service platforms. (Platforms in continuous use were grandfathered.) In particular, platforms on curves are strongly disapproved of.
> 
> This is why it doesn't always make sense to "just use X building for now". You want to build the *platform* in the correct location so that you don't have to build the platform twice. There are, however, some places which have built the platform and "just used X building for now" even though X building is a couple of blocks walk away. Although, sometimes it seems to be wisest to go ahead and build a platform even if it's eventually going to end up in the wrong location for additional service, if that's going to get you a working station soonest and people are willing to pay for it.
> 
> Be prepared for the possibility that BNSF or the FRA will want platforms on a newly built passenger-only siding. Or BNSF may want the platforms to be directly on the mainline. It would be good to have multiple options sketched out so that you can follow the 'path of least resistance' when the time comes.


This SWC reroute is going to be a mess based on this commentary if you can't use existing stations and platforms. And the Amarillo Santa Fe depot is on a curve and the tracks have been moved away from the platform and it's fenced off from the tracks anyway. For the reroute you are looking at a minimum of 7 stations, Wichita, Wellington, Waynoka, Pampa, Amarillo, Clovis and Belen. That's probably seven million just for platforms alone in addition to the station replacements or renovations or additional tracks. I have no way to guess at the costs but Amtrak is either going to have to spend millions or the towns will or the train will just run through without stopping. All of these towns appear to still have their historic Santa Fe depots. If they can't be grandfathered in or successfully modified, I visualize lots of 'amshacks'.


----------



## AlanB (Nov 5, 2012)

henryj said:


> For the reroute you are looking at a minimum of 7 stations, Wichita, Wellington, Waynoka, Pampa, Amarillo, Clovis and Belen.


Belen will never become a stop for the train. It's way too hard to shoe horn anything in there in part to the existing Rail Runner station and the BNSF yard opposite; not to mention that the interlocking would prevent the train from using the Rail Runner station. So with all that going against it, I'm pretty sure that they'll just have people double back from Albuquerque on RailRunner since it's so close anyhow.


----------



## cirdan (Nov 6, 2012)

printman2000 said:


> I think I have said this before, it is too early. Nothing will be done and no one will be interested in doing anything until it is more certain that the train will come through here. While we here might feel that it is certain, others will not even consider spending a dime until they know it is certain. And I don't blame them.


Things don't just happen by themselves. In politics, things happen because sufficient numbers of people want them to happen and petition those in power until it does happen.

So the question here is, does Amarillo want Amtrak service? Or does it not care?


----------



## printman2000 (Nov 6, 2012)

cirdan said:


> Things don't just happen by themselves. In politics, things happen because sufficient numbers of people want them to happen and petition those in power until it does happen.
> 
> So the question here is, does Amarillo want Amtrak service? Or does it not care?


Truthfully, Amarillo as a whole does not care. They have never had Amtrak and have not seen a passenger train since 1971. Now, many, many people like the idea of having Amtrak and that option. But hardly anyone here is going to passionately start supporting and idea that may never happen.

Sorry, but I disagree with you (and apparently a couple of others). It is too early to begin rallying support for something that may never happen.

Now, I am open to being wrong, but no one here is giving me any reason to believe differently. Remember, it is not like we are trying to get Amtrak to start a route through here. If they come through here it will happen without any local support. At most, we would need to rally support for a place to stop in town. To choose that would require way more information than a few supporters can come up with.


----------



## henryj (Nov 6, 2012)

AlanB said:


> henryj said:
> 
> 
> > For the reroute you are looking at a minimum of 7 stations, Wichita, Wellington, Waynoka, Pampa, Amarillo, Clovis and Belen.
> ...


Actually I don't envision it backing into the RR station. More likely a second platform between the RR track and the BNSF main as it has to go right by there anyway. And according to the post above new platforms have to be installed at all the new stops anyway.


----------



## AlanB (Nov 6, 2012)

henryj said:


> Actually I don't envision it backing into the RR station. More likely a second platform between the RR track and the BNSF main as it has to go right by there anyway. And according to the post above new platforms have to be installed at all the new stops anyway.


The problem is that there is no room to put both another platform and a track at Belen. And BNSF will not want Amtrak stopping on the track that is right there because the train will be blocking part of their interlocking plant. Right at Belen there are two lines that are coming together from the south and then splitting up again into two lines to the north, one of which is the link to the RailRunner tracks. Any Amtrak train stopping there would effectively block probably half the switches in that area and would certainly cut off the SE line while stopped.

I just don't see BNSF accepting this idea and frankly I don't see Amtrak pushing for it, since Belen simply isn't big enough to warrant the effort and deal with the various problems, when ABQ is only a few minutes away and one can easily return on a RailRunner train.

I may be proven wrong! It is certainly possible that they'll try to do something; but I rather doubt it.


----------



## henryj (Nov 6, 2012)

AlanB said:


> Right at Belen there are two lines that are coming together from the south and then splitting up again into two lines to the north, one of which is the link to the RailRunner tracks. Any Amtrak train stopping there would effectively block probably half the switches in that area and would certainly cut off the SE line while stopped.


Yes, I know the layout as I have been there before. If they skip Belen it's no big loss. But they can do it if there is a will. The train would certainly not be stopping there for more than a few minutes anyway so they don't need another track.


----------



## Roy Waugh (Oct 6, 2014)

Elpaso to Denver would be nice.


----------

