# Southwest Chief Reroute News



## printman2000 (Nov 11, 2011)

Found this interesting article about the possibility of rerouting the SWC to stay on the transcon...

http://trinidad-times.com/reroute-plan-bypasses-city-ussubsized-amtrak-weighing-change-in-light-o-p2754-1.htm

The most interesting thing is it mentions a time for the switch...



> Cities all along the present route expressed concern about its modification, which has been given a timeline of one and a half to two years


----------



## icbrkr (Nov 11, 2011)

I hope this doesn't happen - my wife and I get off at the Trinidad station when we head to Colorado. The Hertz rental car place is just a few blocks into town so it's no problem getting a car and driving the rest of the way to wherever we're going.


----------



## bobnabq (Nov 11, 2011)

What would be the new route, and would it continue to stop in Albuquerque?


----------



## printman2000 (Nov 11, 2011)

bobnabq said:


> What would be the new route, and would it continue to stop in Albuquerque?


The new route would take the train through Witchita, Amarillo, Clovis, and Belen. There has been much talk on these forums in the past on how Albuquerque would be handled. I think most people feel it would still be served, but the train would have to be turned on a wye each time.


----------



## bobnabq (Nov 11, 2011)

printman2000 said:


> The new route would take the train through Witchita, Amarillo, Clovis, and Belen. There has been much talk on these forums in the past on how Albuquerque would be handled. I think most people feel it would still be served, but the train would have to be turned on a wye each time.


So it would skip the Santa Fe area? It'd replace the state capitol with a couple small towns.

I don't see the point of that.


----------



## printman2000 (Nov 11, 2011)

bobnabq said:


> printman2000 said:
> 
> 
> > The new route would take the train through Witchita, Amarillo, Clovis, and Belen. There has been much talk on these forums in the past on how Albuquerque would be handled. I think most people feel it would still be served, but the train would have to be turned on a wye each time.
> ...


Well, first off, it is not a reroute because they want to. It would happen because the tracks between Lamy and Newton are getting worse and worse and BNSF is not going to fix them.

Second, Amarillo and Wichita are not a couple of small towns. Wichita is 382,368 and Amarillo is 190,695. Santa Fe is only 143,937.


----------



## Gratt (Nov 11, 2011)

bobnabq said:


> printman2000 said:
> 
> 
> > The new route would take the train through Witchita, Amarillo, Clovis, and Belen. There has been much talk on these forums in the past on how Albuquerque would be handled. I think most people feel it would still be served, but the train would have to be turned on a wye each time.
> ...



First the SWC dose not stop in Santa Fe. It stops in Lamy which has a bus connection to Santa Fe and Albuquerque which has commuter rail to Santa Fe.

Also in terms of population

Santa Fe- 67,947

Wichita- 382,368

Amarillo- 190,695


----------



## NY Penn (Nov 11, 2011)

printman2000 said:


> Santa Fe is only 143,937.





Gratt said:


> Santa Fe- 67,947


Who's right?


----------



## printman2000 (Nov 11, 2011)

NY Penn said:


> printman2000 said:
> 
> 
> > Santa Fe is only 143,937.
> ...


Well, Google Census data from 2008 shows 143,397.

Wikipedia shows 67,947 from 2010.

Citydata show 73,720 from 2009.

Who knows for sure.


----------



## printman2000 (Nov 11, 2011)

My bad, the 143,397 is from Santa Fe COUNTY. So the other numbers would be correct.


----------



## Gratt (Nov 11, 2011)

NY Penn said:


> printman2000 said:
> 
> 
> > Santa Fe is only 143,937.
> ...



Good point. The second is the city, the first is the metropolitan area.

but the metros for Amarillo and Wichita are 249,881 and 630,721 respectively


----------



## the_traveler (Nov 11, 2011)

And isn't Wichata the capital of KS?


----------



## printman2000 (Nov 11, 2011)

the_traveler said:


> And isn't Wichata the capital of KS?


No. Topeka


----------



## OlympianHiawatha (Nov 11, 2011)

the_traveler said:


> And isn't Wichata the capital of KS?


Owen: I'm to drive you to Wichita to catch a train?

Del: Yeah, we'd appreciate it.

Owen: Train don't run out of Wichita... unlessin' you're a hog or a cattle.

[Clears his throat]

Owen: People train runs out of Stubbville.


----------



## printman2000 (Nov 11, 2011)

OlympianHiawatha said:


> the_traveler said:
> 
> 
> > And isn't Wichata the capital of KS?
> ...


One of my all time favorite movies.


----------



## bobnabq (Nov 11, 2011)

printman2000 said:


> Second, Amarillo and Wichita are not a couple of small towns. Wichita is 382,368 and Amarillo is 190,695. Santa Fe is only 143,937.


I was referring to Clovis, and Belen.


----------



## MikeM (Nov 11, 2011)

My question on all this is how long would it really take to do a reroute?

The economics of moving the train are pretty clear financially -- the cost of refurbishing the SantaFe tracks are really high, compared to the ridership. And unfortunately, the SWC financial performance isn't in the same league as the Empire Builder or Coast Starlight. (I suspect the economics could be much better, with more capacity and strategic schedule tightening and shifts).

Right now, Wichita is somewhat served by the Newton station, located about 30 miles from Wichita. That station is reasonable - historic, ok parking, a bit frayed around the edges - but the train comes through in the middle of the night. Catching the train at 2:30am really isn't the most attractive option to most travelers. So the shift to get Wichita probably won't drive much higher ridership. If there were some way to improve the time to Wichita it would help ridership considerably, but unclear what impact that might have on equipment turns, utilization, etc.

Politics could be interesting. Several of the western Kansas towns served by the SWC have dumped considerable funds into station rehabs and used the train as a big plug for local development. Raton and the Boy Scout camp would really take a hit - buses vs. train really isn't that great of a change. Then again, Kansas' congressional delegation isn't exactly falling all over their selves to help get more funding for Amtrak, even in the good times.

I do wonder if this move happens, it would happen sooner rather than later - as the original article points out, the train transit time is up 10 hours since 1971, and it'll only get slower as more deferred maintenance piles up on the original route. If Amtrak finds itself under the gun on the budget, it's entirely possible they'll just say to heck with it, reroute, and let the chips fall where they may.


----------



## printman2000 (Nov 11, 2011)

It would not be any easy move. Coming up with stations on the new route may be a challenge. If I were running Amtrak, I would be tempted to tell towns if you want us to stop, provide a station.

I would also assume Amarillo would take the place of La Junta as a crew change point. Probably make for a better stop since it is a larger town and a huge BNSF infrastructure.


----------



## gswager (Nov 11, 2011)

bobnabq said:


> printman2000 said:
> 
> 
> > Second, Amarillo and Wichita are not a couple of small towns. Wichita is 382,368 and Amarillo is 190,695. Santa Fe is only 143,937.
> ...


Clovis- in town is about 37,000. Two counties- Curry (Clovis) & Roosevelt (Portales) is about 63,000. The distance between Clovis and Portales is 20 miles.


----------



## AlanB (Nov 11, 2011)

Gratt said:


> NY Penn said:
> 
> 
> > printman2000 said:
> ...


I go right to the US Census Bureau for info like this. They report that Santa Fe has a population of 67,947. The county has a total population of 144,170.


----------



## sechs (Nov 11, 2011)

printman2000 said:


> the_traveler said:
> 
> 
> > And isn't Wichata the capital of KS?
> ...


You mean Google.


----------



## sechs (Nov 12, 2011)

MikeM said:


> Catching the train at 2:30am really isn't the most attractive option to most travelers. So the shift to get Wichita probably won't drive much higher ridership. If there were some way to improve the time to Wichita it would help ridership considerably, but unclear what impact that might have on equipment turns, utilization, etc.


Has anyone determined about how much faster the Southern Transcon would be versus over Raton?


----------



## jdcnosse (Nov 12, 2011)

As long as it still goes through Flagstaff I don't mind if they re-route it 

Although some of the best scenery on the SWC in my opinion is that stretch between the Kansas/Colorado border and Albuquerque.


----------



## LWBaxter (Nov 12, 2011)

sechs said:


> MikeM said:
> 
> 
> > Catching the train at 2:30am really isn't the most attractive option to most travelers. So the shift to get Wichita probably won't drive much higher ridership. If there were some way to improve the time to Wichita it would help ridership considerably, but unclear what impact that might have on equipment turns, utilization, etc.
> ...


Looking at old timetables: the train should be able to match the pre-30 minute slowdown schedule of a couple of years ago. Bypassing Topeka and Albuquerque could potentially yield a 38 hour Chicago to LA schedule which is faster than theold Santa Fe Super Chief. Makes a one night out westbound schedule possible, but with no connections in Chicago.

LWBaxter


----------



## WhoozOn1st (Nov 12, 2011)

The run over Raton is looking increasingly like an endangered route to ride, before it goes away. Hmmmm!


----------



## MikeM (Nov 12, 2011)

LWBaxter said:


> sechs said:
> 
> 
> > MikeM said:
> ...


I would think Topeka would remain on the route, the city is on a major BNSF line so it isn't endangered quite like towns on the Raton line. If memory serves me right, when the Texas Chief was killed off, the SWC was rerouted to take in Topeka, which was previously on the TC routing. Before that, the SWC went through Emporia on the Transcon. But I do agree that with all of the work BNSF has done on the Transcon, and the amazing condition of the track, it would be an exciting (but scenically challenged) ride.


----------



## sechs (Nov 12, 2011)

Emporia is on the Southern Transcon. The split going west is at Elinor, which is southwest of Emporia; although, BNSF runs trains via Newton to Mulvane, to make up for the fact that the line in single track.

The Transcon is the route between Holliday and (East) Emporia via Lebo; that's the Emporia Subdivision. The Southwest Chief takes the Topeka Subdivision through Google. The split going east is at East Emporia.

http://www.bnsf.com/customers/pdf/maps/div_ks.pdf


----------



## MikefromCrete (Nov 12, 2011)

LWBaxter said:


> sechs said:
> 
> 
> > MikeM said:
> ...


Albuquerque wouldn't be bypassed. All previous reroute talks have involved the train detouting from Belen to Albuquerque and back with some kind of wying or locomotives on both ends of the train. I would hate to see the reroute take effect since the ride over Raton Pass and the stop at Lamy always seemed the heart and soul of the whole operation. Amarillo might have more people but the scenery would be deadly dull (although I understand Abo Canyon is scenic in its own right.)


----------



## FunNut (Nov 12, 2011)

Lamy, the stop for Santa Fe, is about 20 miles from the capital of New Mexico. Connection to town is via a privately owned shuttle service (cost $20) which handles both east and westbound trains, since they pass each other at about the same time daily.

Santa Fe is a major tourist destination, it would be bad news if the re-routing takes place and Lamy/Santa Fe no longer has rail service. Connection can be made from ABQ to Santa Fe using the RailRunner commuter trains, but the previous poster is correct that some of the most beautiful scenery on the SWC route is from Lamy to just past Raton Pass.

I live about 20 miles from Lamy and it's my "home" station. I've been following the news about the re-routing closely. The bottom line is Amtrak is at the mercy of the freight railroads and other owners of track.


----------



## guest (Nov 12, 2011)

*I do wonder if this move happens, it would happen sooner rather than later - as the original article points out, the train transit time is up 10 hours since 1971, and it'll only get slower as more deferred maintenance piles up on the original route. If Amtrak finds itself under the gun on the budget, it's entirely possible they'll just say to heck with it, reroute, and let the chips fall where they may. *

I don't know where this 10-hour running time increase comes from. I have a schedule of the Super Chief from July 1, 1970, and it shows the Super Chief leaving LA at 7:30 p.m. and arriving in Chicago at 1:30 p.m. two days later. That compares with the SWC leaving LA at 6:15 p.m. and arriving in Chicago at 3:15 p.m. The times work out to a three-hour running time increase.

Perhaps part of the increased times comes from the running of the SWC southeast from LA through Fullerton and Riverside into the Cajon Pass rather than the more direct routing northeast through Pasadena straight east to San Bernardino and to the Cajon Pass.

The Super Chief made a stop in Gallup NM which the SWC no longer makes and a few other stops that have been eliminated or replaced with other towns by the SWC.

So where does the assertion of a 10-hour running time increase come from?


----------



## railiner (Nov 13, 2011)

MikefromCrete said:


> LWBaxter said:
> 
> 
> > sechs said:
> ...


Don't be so sure that Albuquerque wouldn't be bypassed....just ask the folks at Phoenix, which is larger than Albuquerque. And not even a thruway connection to Maricopa. Bypassing Albuquerque would save considerable time and money.


----------



## MattW (Nov 13, 2011)

Unless I'm badly misunderstanding the track configurations, Phoenix would have required a massive move out of the way whereas Albuquerque, once you've turned the train, you're only a few miles out of the way.


----------



## bretton88 (Nov 13, 2011)

MattW said:


> Unless I'm badly misunderstanding the track configurations, Phoenix would have required a massive move out of the way whereas Albuquerque, once you've turned the train, you're only a few miles out of the way.


Though it is indeed shorter than Phoenix, 35 miles each way is not "nothing." The more likely option is a cross platform transfer to the Railrunner in Belen to get to ABQ. Probably in the form of a free transfer with your Amtrak ticket.


----------



## jdcnosse (Nov 13, 2011)

guest said:


> The Super Chief made a stop in Gallup NM which the SWC no longer makes and a few other stops that have been eliminated or replaced with other towns by the SWC.


Unless the Super Chief made two stops in Gallup, that stop is still there, at least from when I took the SWC about a month ago. I remember because it's two stops before Flagstaff, and just before the clock changed (again, since at the time the rest of the country besides Hawaii and the Hopi Indian Reservation were on DST)


----------



## George Harris (Nov 13, 2011)

The fastest ever time for the Super Chief was something on the order of 36 1/2 hours, so 38 hours does not beat the old SC's best time. At the time of the 36 hour schedule, much of the ATSF main that is now limited to 90 mph and some that is now limited to 79 mph allowed 100 mph.

Don't know the exact distance, but it is less than 35 miles. Albuquerque to Dailes is 27 miles, and Belen to Albuquierque is somewhat less, probably under 20 miles.


----------



## printman2000 (Nov 13, 2011)

bretton88 said:


> MattW said:
> 
> 
> > Unless I'm badly misunderstanding the track configurations, Phoenix would have required a massive move out of the way whereas Albuquerque, once you've turned the train, you're only a few miles out of the way.
> ...


I would think Albuquerque would still be served. It is a major service stop where all cars get rewatered and the locomotives get refueled. They also store a backup locomotive there. I do not know of any other place nearby all this can happen without some new infrastructure built.

Over the past few years, when the SWC was temporarily rereouted, they have always made the Albuquerque stop. There is a wye just a short distance from the station.


----------



## railiner (Nov 13, 2011)

bretton88 said:


> MattW said:
> 
> 
> > Unless I'm badly misunderstanding the track configurations, Phoenix would have required a massive move out of the way whereas Albuquerque, once you've turned the train, you're only a few miles out of the way.
> ...


A cross platform transfer to the Railrunner would be nice, but considering the timekeeping of Amtrak long distance trains, it would probably not be a viable solution.

A dedicated thruway bus to/from Belen would be a more practicle solution.

Anytime you have a backup/wyeing move on a route, even for just a short distance, can prove to be troublesome and subject to all sorts of delays.

I can just see it now.....new Amtrak timetable for SWC that has been rerouted thru Belen to serve Albuquerque, would have a little footnote saying: "Service to Albuquerque to be provided at a date to be determined"......

You know how that goes....


----------



## guest (Nov 13, 2011)

jdcnosse said:


> guest said:
> 
> 
> > The Super Chief made a stop in Gallup NM which the SWC no longer makes and a few other stops that have been eliminated or replaced with other towns by the SWC.
> ...


Sorry don't know how Gallup got typed. Meant to put in Seligman, Arizona as the stop of the Super Chief that SWC doesn't make. Super Chief also stopped at Victorville Ca. It also spent only 10 minutes at Albuqerque instead of the half-hour there by the SWC.


----------



## printman2000 (Nov 13, 2011)

railiner said:


> A cross platform transfer to the Railrunner would be nice


Not if you had several large checked bags to haul with you.

Course, if they do not serve Albuquerque, not sure they would even let you check bags.


----------



## bretton88 (Nov 13, 2011)

printman2000 said:


> railiner said:
> 
> 
> > A cross platform transfer to the Railrunner would be nice
> ...


Well, those Bombardier cars are outfitted with luggage racks. Amtrak would probably let you check a bag to Belen and then you're on your own. Hope for some friendly railrunner conductors.


----------



## printman2000 (Nov 13, 2011)

bretton88 said:


> printman2000 said:
> 
> 
> > railiner said:
> ...


That would require staff at Belen. Also require a significant station be built at Belen.


----------



## Casinocim (Nov 13, 2011)

I don't like this talk.


----------



## bretton88 (Nov 13, 2011)

printman2000 said:


> bretton88 said:
> 
> 
> > printman2000 said:
> ...


, Good point, I have no clue what the facilities are at Belen. Apparently the old station is still there, but it isn't the same as the railrunner station. Railrunner does this segment in 40 minutes, so take off some station stops, amtrak could probably do it in 30-35. Google puts it at 35 miles Belen-ABQ transit station. So it is not an insignificant detour into ABQ.


----------



## The Chief (Nov 13, 2011)

So I checked some AT&SF timetables from the 19*60*s, re: from Chicago, time and distance, the Western Kansas/Raton route to Albuquerque vs. Wichita-Amarillo route to Belen. The former was *The Chief, Super Chief, El Capitan* and is the current *SWC* route. The latter was *The San Francisco Chief* and is the *BNSF* Southern Transcon.

No. 19, *The Chief*, left Chicago at 09:00 (CST) and arrived Albuquerque next day at 07:45 (MST), so 23 hours 45 minutes, over 1335.5 miles.

No. 1, *The San Francisco Chief*, left Chicago at 15:15 (CST) and arrived Belen next day at 15:45 (MST), so 25 hours 30 minutes, over 1352.1 miles.

During some of the 1960s, No. 19 bypassed Topeka via the Ottawa cutoff, then later was rerouted to stop at Topeka.

During the 1960s No. 1 stopped at Topeka.

The Chief and SF Chief are compared as they were more comparable in number of stops, class, and service. San Francisco Chief included stops at (but not limited to) Newton, Wichita, Amarillo, and Clovis. Its western terminus was Richmond. The Chief went to LA.


----------



## gswager (Nov 13, 2011)

I think Belen station is on other side of the yard, away from the RailRunner station. So it may not be feasible to use it. I'm pretty sure that SWC will continue to stop at ABQ station.


----------



## JeffW (Nov 13, 2011)

Casinocim said:


> I don't like this talk.


I agree with you there... I've got friends at four different stops along this route that I enjoy visiting.

One couple of friends is in LaJunta, near the Raton Pass, which I still want to see someday soon!

Of course, this is the sort of news I usually think that "Once it happens, then I'll pay attention." ...or perhaps it's more "If I ignore it, nothing will change."


----------



## printman2000 (Nov 13, 2011)

Since I live in a place that would get Amtrak service for the first time ever, I have to admit I like to think about it.


----------



## VentureForth (Nov 13, 2011)

The Belen station was purpose built for the NM Railrunner. At least when I lived near by in Los Lunas 5 years ago, the track was a new spur that deadends on the South end. The old ATSF station is on the other side of the yard. In fact, if memory serves, the Railrunner can't even cross over to the Westbound Dailies sub from it's station.

Back to the ATSF station. It is a beautiful, unrestored but in good condition Harvey House. A model railroad club and a quilting group use the facility. There are some museum artifacts there. I went upstairs while an AA meeting was going on downstairs and the rooms were as they were 60 years ago. Time doesn't decay much in NM.

I don't remember much about the platform so can't say if it could physically handle an Amtrak train set. There are some benches for watching the trains enter the main line after a crew change and a fueling stop.

Any Railfan could spend hours there.

That bring said, the station could handle passenger service, but parking is all but nil. A transfer to the NM Railrunner would require a bus to get you up and over the yard. Not a practical junction to take the NM Railrunner to points South of ABQ.

I've seen the wye, and it's a painful backup move. Not Ft Worth Tower 55 bad, but still a pain. I believe the wye is in the midst of several gas/oil storage tanks.

Frankly, I would live to see the SWC serve Amarillo, but only if it could still come through Trinidad. I hope they restore this track to it's full glory.

Oh, btw, Belen has quite a quaint rail fan friendly coffee shop on the other side of the Railrunner parking lot.


----------



## FunNut (Nov 14, 2011)

The little Lamy station is wonderful inside, like stepping back 60 years. The ladies restroom has gorgeous Talavera hand-painted tiles all over the walls and a sign that says the plumbing was built in 1897 and is very delicate. I was there a few days ago to pick up a new system timetable book and there's a bookstore in the station that wasn't there the last time I was in the station. The agent was extremely friendly and told me to call him to check on the train status the next time I ride the SWC, he even wrote the station phone number down inside the timetable. Just imagine someone at an airport doing that...


----------



## manchacrr (Nov 14, 2011)

railiner said:


> MikefromCrete said:
> 
> 
> > LWBaxter said:
> ...


Instead of turning the train on a wye in Albuquerque, why not just have the engines run back to back instead of elephant-style. Since there are multiple tracks at the station, Amtrak could just run the locomotives around the train and hook up to the other end. I would assume that this would be faster than wying the train as Albuquerque is a major service stop anyway.


----------



## VentureForth (Nov 14, 2011)

Because few people like riding backwards, or being disturbed to have their seats rotated. Not to mention, the crew doesn't want to turn 150 seat sets around and won't let the pax do it.

But that's just my guess.


----------



## guest (Nov 14, 2011)

VentureForth said:


> Because few people like riding backwards, or being disturbed to have their seats rotated. Not to mention, the crew doesn't want to turn 150 seat sets around and won't let the pax do it.
> 
> But that's just my guess.


But the backwards ride would only last about 30 minutes from Albuquerque back to the main line, right? Not a big deal esp. if explained by the conductor in an announcement?

Similar in a way to what the Canadian does when it arrives in Saskatoon. It backs up into a Y to get to the station. No big deal to ride backwards for a few minutes.


----------



## VentureForth (Nov 14, 2011)

That would be true in just a wye move, but not in a move the loco to the other end move to which I was replying.

A wye move would be suitable, but sill a huge pain.


----------



## henryj (Nov 14, 2011)

The wye is located just south of the Albuquerque station. At times when the SWC has had to detour using the transcon this wye is used to turn the train. The train does not have to go all the way back to Belen to rejoin as the wye is between the Albuquerque station and the Dalies to Isleta cutoff. Eastbound the train would take the usual route via the Dalies cutoff to Albuquerque, then back down and turn on the wye and proceed south to Belen and join the transcon. Westbound the train would turn north at Belen and go into the Albuquerque station then back down to the wye, turn and take the cutoff at Isleta to continue west. There is no turning the seats, switching ends with the engine or anything like that. Since the transcon will probably be considerably faster the time penalty to turn the train would have minimal effect.

The Railrunner station at Belen is separate from the BNSF tracks and there is no way that a SWC could use that station without making some changes to the track and station structure, it could to use the old original station at Belen which still exists I believe as a museum, but it is on the opposite side of the tracks and a major highway from Railrunner. The only way to connect between the two stations in Belen is to walk or take a cab and neither would be very easy as there are busy streets and tracks between the two.

Passengers wishing to go to stations east as far as Santa Fe could take a Railrunner connection. Those wishing to go to destinations east of Santa Fe would just be out of luck or have to take a bus.


----------



## SarahZ (Nov 14, 2011)

Urrrgghhh. I'd rather get off at Belen than ride backwards for 30 minutes. Riding backwards causes motion sickness. :unsure:


----------



## jis (Nov 14, 2011)

guest said:


> VentureForth said:
> 
> 
> > Because few people like riding backwards, or being disturbed to have their seats rotated. Not to mention, the crew doesn't want to turn 150 seat sets around and won't let the pax do it.
> ...


Actually, a westbound SWC coming out of Albuquerque can head off directly towards LAX through Dailies, so no, most likely if the loco is hitched onto the back of the train, that is how it will go all the way to LAX (or Chicago in case of the eastbound).

Wye-ing near ABQ is the best choice for that reason, specially since a Wye is available anyway.

Indeed the backup move to the Wye would be sort of like the backup move that the Canadian has to make at Edmonton, or the trains arriving into Tampa or New Orleans make.

Because of the nature of the service stop at ABQ, I do not expect the stop to be dropeed should a reroute via the Trans-con takes place.


----------



## gswager (Nov 14, 2011)

I don't know how long it takes to do wye trip. I think 30 minutes is "over-statement" due to low speed and stops. Even in LAX for non-revenue runs, Amtrak long distance trains have to back up from the shop to the station, or using switcher locomotive. I don't know who do the front (last car of train) while in reverse, maybe the conductor using radio with engineer in locomotive. Problem with wye at ABQ is you'll need one more crew- hand-thrown switch, about 3 switches or so in the wye area. Upgrading to remote control is possible, but expensive.


----------



## jis (Nov 14, 2011)

gswager said:


> I don't know how long it takes to do wye trip. I think 30 minutes is "over-statement" due to low speed and stops. Even in LAX for non-revenue runs, Amtrak long distance trains have to back up from the shop to the station, or using switcher locomotive. I don't know who do the front (last car of train) while in reverse, maybe the conductor using radio with engineer in locomotive. Problem with wye at ABQ is you'll need one more crew- hand-thrown switch, about 3 switches or so in the wye area. Upgrading to remote control is possible, but expensive.


2 or 3 hand thrown switches is what it takes to get the _Adirondack _properly into Canada, and it is Amtrak crew that does the switch changing. So it is pretty much par for the course, if it must be done. So I don't see that a showstopper. SWC already has a Conductor and an Assistant Conductor. That is all it takes.


----------



## VentureForth (Nov 14, 2011)

It actually looks like that wye has 7 relavant switches that need to be visually verified - three that must be thrown each trip. Again, not saying that it can't be done because it is done when necessary, but on a daily basis it would be a tremendous headache - especially if there is any delay and Amtrak gets in the way of Railrunner traffic.


----------



## MattW (Nov 14, 2011)

What about spring switches? Could one or more of those be used on a particular track to avoid having to throw so many switches?


----------



## johnny.menhennet (Nov 14, 2011)

guest said:


> jdcnosse said:
> 
> 
> > guest said:
> ...


Southwest Chief did used to stop at Seligman. I think it was back when the train was the Southwest Limited... Victorville IS a station stop... Seligman stopped being served within a few years of when Williams Jct. started getting served


----------



## henryj (Nov 14, 2011)

MattW said:


> What about spring switches? Could one or more of those be used on a particular track to avoid having to throw so many switches?


All these things could be easily worked out once a decision is made to reroute. The SWC now is only rerouted in emergency situations such as the washouts last spring and the fires so there is no need to make any improvements. Since the BNSF is eager to get this done so they can stop maintenance on the Raton Pass line I am sure they would pick up part of the tab and cooperate in any way they can. The only other option for Amtrak is to start paying for maintenance on the current line which would cost them many millions of dollars they don't have. The Raton Pass line could just be banked and not abandoned until such time as the states see fit to fix it up and use it for something similar to what has been done with the Tennessee Pass line. The line from Trinidad and La Junta east is still in use by the BNSF so some extent I believe. If Amtrak is going to stay in the LD business the BNSF routes could easily support two trains on different timings, one via Raton and one via the Transcon. However if Romney gets elected in 2012 and goes through with his promise to defund Amtrak then all this discussion is moot as there won't be any LD trains.


----------



## VentureForth (Nov 14, 2011)

I just don't see how running on the Transcon on a daily basis would be allowed by BNSF. That us a BUSY line. It would almost spell certain doom for Amtrak with delays rivaling the Sunset.


----------



## printman2000 (Nov 14, 2011)

VentureForth said:


> I just don't see how running on the Transcon on a daily basis would be allowed by BNSF. That us a BUSY line. It would almost spell certain doom for Amtrak with delays rivaling the Sunset.


BNFS has offered the transon so them allowing it is not even a question. Also, we are talking BNSF here nor UP. They have shown they can handle Amtrak very well. Even when they have temporarily detoured, it has run very close to the same time every day.


----------



## Oldsmoboi (Nov 14, 2011)

Why are they so eager to reduce capacity by dumping Raton? I thought they were starving for capacity already?


----------



## johnny.menhennet (Nov 14, 2011)

henryj said:


> MattW said:
> 
> 
> > What about spring switches? Could one or more of those be used on a particular track to avoid having to throw so many switches?
> ...


This is true. BNSF does still slightly use the line east of La Junta, because whatever traffic they have in Trinidad generally goes up north through Walsenburg and Pueblo. However, BNSF has stated that although they will maintain the track, it is a low priority to them, and it will only be maintained at Class 2 levels, so 79 and 90 mph running will not be anywhere close to possible.


----------



## johnny.menhennet (Nov 14, 2011)

Has anybody mentioned the fact that Amtrak has taken the Devil's Lake approach to the matter and said that they will pay for whatever maintenance is needed to keep the line with what it's at currently if BNSF decides to abandon?


----------



## sechs (Nov 14, 2011)

VentureForth said:


> Because few people like riding backwards, or being disturbed to have their seats rotated. Not to mention, the crew doesn't want to turn 150 seat sets around and won't let the pax do it.
> 
> But that's just my guess.


I'd say that it's not a very good guess. They turn the seats on the through coaches on the Texas Eagle three times a week. Albuquerque is usually in the middle of the day, so they don't even have to do it while the train is moving. The TE passengers have to travel backwards until the morning.
It is going to make the stop even longer, since it seems that they need most of the currently allotted time to fuel the engines.


----------



## anir dendroica (Nov 15, 2011)

VentureForth said:


> I just don't see how running on the Transcon on a daily basis would be allowed by BNSF. That us a BUSY line. It would almost spell certain doom for Amtrak with delays rivaling the Sunset.


The Transcon is probably the fastest freight line in the country - double track with hotshot intermodals doing all of the 70 mph speed limit. While it's true that BNSF would probably not run the SWC around hotshot trains, running at 70 mph will not incur much in the way of delays.


----------



## VentureForth (Nov 15, 2011)

Maybe things will improve with the opening of Abo Canyon. I can still see the HUGE line up of trains waiting to get through.

Meanwhile, what does BNSF have to maintain on the current route? I was under the impression that the track from Belen to Trinidad was owned by the State (current "renegotiations" not withstanding). I would imagine that once brought up to standard ($$$) the track would need relatively minimal maintenance because the only traffic would be at most a couple light weight passenger trains a day, funded by Amtrak and (when applicable) BNSF user fees.

Y'all say BNSF wants Amtrak on their Transcon, but when the economy (thus freight traffic) picks up, they could sing a different tune.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Nov 15, 2011)

VentureForth said:


> Meanwhile, what does BNSF have to maintain on the current route?


If they decide to abandon it, nothing. If they decide to keep using it then they could simply allow it to deteriorate further.



VentureForth said:


> I was under the impression that the track from Belen to Trinidad was owned by the State (current "renegotiations" not withstanding). I would imagine that once brought up to standard ($$$) the track would need relatively minimal maintenance because the only traffic would be at most a couple light weight passenger trains a day, funded by Amtrak and (when applicable) BNSF user fees.


Don't know what the current status is, but with tax revenues dropping I wouldn't expect the state to pay for much. Current political representation is not pro-rail.



VentureForth said:


> Y'all say BNSF wants Amtrak on their Transcon, but when the economy (thus freight traffic) picks up, they could sing a different tune.


From my understanding BNSF is making this offer themselves. If they didn't want Amtrak on the Transcon then presumably they would not have made the offer.

All I know is that this route is probably going to be on my radar sometime soon so I can check it out before it's modified.


----------



## printman2000 (Nov 15, 2011)

VentureForth said:


> Maybe things will improve with the opening of Abo Canyon. I can still see the HUGE line up of trains waiting to get through.
> 
> Meanwhile, what does BNSF have to maintain on the current route? I was under the impression that the track from Belen to Trinidad was owned by the State (current "renegotiations" not withstanding). I would imagine that once brought up to standard ($$$) the track would need relatively minimal maintenance because the only traffic would be at most a couple light weight passenger trains a day, funded by Amtrak and (when applicable) BNSF user fees.
> 
> Y'all say BNSF wants Amtrak on their Transcon, but when the economy (thus freight traffic) picks up, they could sing a different tune.


Abo Canyon has been open since June. http://www.bnsf.com/employees/communications/bnsf-news/2011/june/2011-06-06-a.html

On the current route, we are talking about rails that were laid in the 50's (I think I heard) so it does not seem they have much life left in them. Speeds will only go down.

Again, BNSF is a company who knows how to handle traffic and Amtrak. They can put them on the schedule for twice a day and be good to go.

I live less than a mile from the Transcon here in Amarillo and can tell you the tracks are not full.


----------



## printman2000 (Nov 15, 2011)

I forgot to mention, the New Mexico purchase was to only include the tracks up to Raton. Since NM now wants their money back from BNSF, they are certainly not going to put any money into the maintenance of those rails.


----------



## printman2000 (Nov 15, 2011)

sechs said:


> VentureForth said:
> 
> 
> > Because few people like riding backwards, or being disturbed to have their seats rotated. Not to mention, the crew doesn't want to turn 150 seat sets around and won't let the pax do it.
> ...


I disagree. I do not think they will be turning the seats to keep from turning the train.

Remember, you don't have to come to the station, take the train back to the wye, then come back to the station. The wye can be done on the way in or out of Albuquerque. It would add time, but I don't believe it would be enough for them to reverse the train instead.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Nov 15, 2011)

printman2000 said:


> Since NM now wants their money back from BNSF, they are certainly not going to put any money into the maintenance of those rails.


Let's be clear on this point. This was not a case of split personality disorder. One party moved to purchase this line and take over the maintenance. Plans were drawn up. Agreements made. Money changed hands. All looked well and good. Then another party was voted into power and immediately began work on reversing the decision and dismantling the previous agreements, including demanding a refund from one of the few freight railroads that does not typically screw with Amtrak.


----------



## printman2000 (Nov 15, 2011)

Texas Sunset said:


> printman2000 said:
> 
> 
> > Since NM now wants their money back from BNSF, they are certainly not going to put any money into the maintenance of those rails.
> ...


I am sorry, but did something I say conflict with what you said?


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Nov 15, 2011)

printman2000 said:


> I am sorry, but did something I say conflict with what you said?


Nope, I'm just trying to explain what happened so folks who may not be aware of the situation don't think it was just some random unexplained flip-flop. ^_^


----------



## sechs (Nov 15, 2011)

printman2000 said:


> sechs said:
> 
> 
> > VentureForth said:
> ...


I'm not sure with what you're disagreeing.
Your "disagreement" seems to have something to do with how long it takes to wye the train. I honestly don't know enough about how long it would take to either run the engines around *or* wye the train to make a determination as to which one is faster. I simply stated that your assertion that running the engines around the train was problematic because of issues with the facing of the seats was not a good guess, and gave a counterexample. I went on to say that this process (running the engines around the train) would make the stop longer, which seems to me like it would be a much bigger issue.


----------



## sechs (Nov 15, 2011)

anir dendroica said:


> The Transcon is probably the fastest freight line in the country - double track with hotshot intermodals doing all of the 70 mph speed limit. While it's true that BNSF would probably not run the SWC around hotshot trains, running at 70 mph will not incur much in the way of delays.


I'm not so sure of that. Given that passenger trains should be able to go 79 or faster on most of the line, if there's passing room, they'll surely do it.


----------



## jis (Nov 16, 2011)

sechs said:


> Your "disagreement" seems to have something to do with how long it takes to wye the train. I honestly don't know enough about how long it would take to either run the engines around *or* wye the train to make a determination as to which one is faster. I simply stated that your assertion that running the engines around the train was problematic because of issues with the facing of the seats was not a good guess, and gave a counterexample. I went on to say that this process (running the engines around the train) would make the stop longer, which seems to me like it would be a much bigger issue.


It would appear that trains like to Crescent are given may be 15 additional minutes in the schedule to back into NOL. So that is probably a reasonable ballpark figure for how long it takes. The advantage of wye-ing is that you don't have to unhook the engine and all its HEP and other stuff and hook up everything at the other end and test everything all over again. This could be quite a chore specially in the winter. Also, engines running back to back are a problem if the front facing engine fails in some way that makes it impossible for it to continue as the first engine. Since the other engine is facing back it cannot be switched to the front position to carry on. So any operation that requires engines to be back to back would probably be undesirable.

My guess is that since the net running time on the transcon will be considerably shorter the additional time taken to wye would be a wash and still the net running time of the train end to end would probably be shorter.


----------



## henryj (Nov 16, 2011)

sechs said:


> Your "disagreement" seems to have something to do with how long it takes to wye the train. I honestly don't know enough about how long it would take to either run the engines around *or* wye the train to make a determination as to which one is faster. I simply stated that your assertion that running the engines around the train was problematic because of issues with the facing of the seats was not a good guess, and gave a counterexample. I went on to say that this process (running the engines around the train) would make the stop longer, which seems to me like it would be a much bigger issue.



I don't know where all this stuff about switching engines and rotating seats comes from, but the wye is just south of the station in albuquerque. The train will(and does now)just back into the wye and go back out in the opposite direction. There is no switching or turning seats involved. The whole affair would not take more than 15 minutes.


----------



## printman2000 (Nov 16, 2011)

sechs said:


> I'm not sure with what you're disagreeing.
> 
> Your "disagreement" seems to have something to do with how long it takes to wye the train. I honestly don't know enough about how long it would take to either run the engines around *or* wye the train to make a determination as to which one is faster. I simply stated that your assertion that running the engines around the train was problematic because of issues with the facing of the seats was not a good guess, and gave a counterexample. I went on to say that this process (running the engines around the train) would make the stop longer, which seems to me like it would be a much bigger issue.


Sorry about that, I took your reply to someone else post as an argument FOR running the engines around. Obvious to me now, that is not what you were saying.


----------



## printman2000 (Nov 16, 2011)

johnny.menhennet said:


> Has anybody mentioned the fact that Amtrak has taken the Devil's Lake approach to the matter and said that they will pay for whatever maintenance is needed to keep the line with what it's at currently if BNSF decides to abandon?


No one has mentioned it because Amtrak has not mentioned it. From everything I have read, Amtrak has stated they do not have the money.

Of course, that could just be a bluff to try and get states to pay for it.


----------



## printman2000 (Nov 16, 2011)

Oldsmoboi said:


> Why are they so eager to reduce capacity by dumping Raton? I thought they were starving for capacity already?


Not sure what you are saying. Who is trying to reduce what capacity?

Are you talking about BNSF? If so, they have not used this line for years. The transcon seems to be plenty of capacity for them.


----------



## MikeM (Nov 16, 2011)

henryj said:


> The Raton Pass line could just be banked and not abandoned until such time as the states see fit to fix it up and use it for something similar to what has been done with the Tennessee Pass line.


Whoa doggies! Last I knew, Tennessee Pass was predominately out of service, except for a gravel train and Royal Gorge tourist train on the eastern side. Otherwise, some cars were being stored at one time on the western slope, but no through trains, signal systems abandoned in place, etc.


----------



## zephyr17 (Nov 16, 2011)

MikeM said:


> henryj said:
> 
> 
> > The Raton Pass line could just be banked and not abandoned until such time as the states see fit to fix it up and use it for something similar to what has been done with the Tennessee Pass line.
> ...


Tennessee Pass still has rail down, but it is in terrible shape, unused, and would require major work to put back into service. Technically, it is not abandoned, and is still owned by UP, but it is embargoed.


----------



## MikeM (Nov 16, 2011)

That's what I was thinking. There really isn't any local industry on the line, and the rock trains only use part of the eastern side of the route. When SP had it, they used the routing in conjunction with trackage rights on a MoPac line east from the front range to create a shipping corridor to Kansas City. UP severed the MoPac route shortly after they bought up SP, and now I don't see anyone being interested in Tennessee Pass. Had hopes at some point BNSF might try to get it as a way to take their overhead traffic off central corridor trackage rights, but that would really be a long shot. Plus getting UP to sell anything that could be used by anyone else successfully... hah!

Let's hope Raton has better luck. Depressing part about being a rail fan is looking back at all the rail lines, passenger trains, and infrastructure that is no longer there.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Nov 16, 2011)

MikeM said:


> Depressing part about being a rail fan is looking back at all the rail lines, passenger trains, and infrastructure that is no longer there.


Yeah, here in North America rail fans don't have much to cheer about over the last forty years or so of unchecked consolidation and abandonment. South America has it even worse from what I understand. But in Europe and Asia they seem to be building and upgrading lines on a regular basis, so all is not lost!


----------



## George Harris (Nov 16, 2011)

sechs said:


> printman2000 said:
> 
> 
> > sechs said:
> ...


Wyeing the train would probably be faster than running the engines around it. Plus, you do not need to shut down train poiwer to wey it. In order to disconnect the engines from the train and reconnec them to it, the electric system of the train has to be shut down.

Where the time comes in with the engine runaround is the time it takes to diconnect the power, air lines, set brakes, etc, uncouple, run power around, recouple, connect air lines, connect electrical lines, brake test. You have to throw two switches to do the run around. You have to throw three switches to make a wye move. I see no real saving in labor or time by doing the wye move. In fat, I see the labor in making the power run around as being significantly larger than the labor in making the wye move.

As to the distance involved:

Here are the distance figures taken from an employee timetable of a few years back. (At that time they were available on a US DOT web site.)

Belen ot Dailies: 11.1 miles. This is the route that bypasses Albuquerque

Belen to Albuquerque: 30.7 miles

Albuquerque to Dailies: 27.7 miles

Total going through Albuq.: 58.4 miles.

Therefore going through Albuquerque requires 47.3 more miles of running than bypassing it. This would probably represent about 40 minutes of extra run time over bypassing Albuquerque.

The line from Dailies to Albuquerque meets the line from Belen at East Isleta which is 12.6 miles south of Albuquerque.


----------



## sechs (Nov 16, 2011)

printman2000 said:


> Oldsmoboi said:
> 
> 
> > Why are they so eager to reduce capacity by dumping Raton? I thought they were starving for capacity already?
> ...


Well, two transcons, connected in the west via trackage rights on UP on the Inside Gateway.


----------



## printman2000 (Nov 17, 2011)

Let me ask a new question...

If BNSF did not want Amtrak on this portion of the transcon, do they have to let them on? Or can they go the UP route and say they have to pay a bunch of money to upgrade the lines if they want to use them?

If they do not have to, then that would mean the whole route would be at risk.


----------



## George Harris (Nov 17, 2011)

printman2000 said:


> Let me ask a new question...
> 
> If BNSF did not want Amtrak on this portion of the transcon, do they have to let them on? Or can they go the UP route and say they have to pay a bunch of money to upgrade the lines if they want to use them?
> 
> If they do not have to, then that would mean the whole route would be at risk.


This is not a question that anyone here could answer with any sort of certainty. In fact it would probably take a good deal of discussion, arguing between lawyers adn various andsundry government agencies before a conclusion would be reached.

It could be argued that this change would be much like the change from going through Phoenix to taking the primary freight route through Maricopa, except on a much larger scale. Did Amtrak have to kick in any moey to UP for that to happen?

But, that is just one of many points of discussion that could go on for multiple pages.


----------



## Karl1459 (Nov 17, 2011)

Perhaps a soulution would be a Denver-El Paso corridor service, connectiong to the CZ at Denver, the SWC at Belen, and the SL at El Paso. Getting NM and Colorado to play will, of course, be IFFY. As well with BNSF/UP on the joint use lines between Pueblo and Denver.


----------



## Mackensen (Nov 17, 2011)

I don't have my books in front of me but I'm pretty sure the move to get Amtrak off the Raton Pass and on to the Transcon started back in the 1970s with the old Santa Fe. To the best of my knowledge this remains the goal of the BNSF and far from making trouble would welcome the move. Compared to the UP and CSX BNSF has always been pretty accommodating toward Amtrak. Does anyone have any actual evidence that this is not so with regards to the Transcon move?

I also doubt that Amtrak would balk at a backup move to Albuquerque if the alternative was skipping the largest city in New Mexico (pop 545,000). In FY 2010 there were 72,000 boardings alone, and you have to figure in the event of a re-route at least some of the ridership from northern New Mexico would board there as well. The wye is only three miles from the station; compare this with the 2-mile (or so) backup move the City of New Orleans makes every day to get from ex-Illinois Central (St. Charles Air Line) to Union Station. What's the big deal?


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Nov 17, 2011)

My guess is that Amtrak WILL move to the BNSF Transcon, even though they have not acknowledged that as of yet. My guess is that Amtrak WILL also continue to serve ABQ, even if it requires a slightly more tedious approach and/or departure. I do not see any serious operational problems coming from BNSF regardless if Amtrak stays or moves. Remember, even if Amtrak is eventually forced to move it's not a result of Amtrak's fault or BNSF's fault in this case. Only the New Mexican state government had the power to write this ending.


----------



## MikeM (Nov 17, 2011)

Karl1459 said:


> Perhaps a soulution would be a Denver-El Paso corridor service, connectiong to the CZ at Denver, the SWC at Belen, and the SL at El Paso. Getting NM and Colorado to play will, of course, be IFFY. As well with BNSF/UP on the joint use lines between Pueblo and Denver.


Has anyone looked at how much traffic the Joint Line is currently getting these days? In days of old, it was totally jammed up with coal trains off the Power River Basin competing with Rio Grande traffic off the Mopac and Tennessee Pass lines. With one line gone, and the other effectively gone on the UP side, all they'd have left is traffic to Pueblo / Colorado Springs. Is it that busy now that a Passenger Train couldn't fit.

Of course, even if it could there's still the small issue of no spare Amtrak equipment, Management's desire to avoid any new trains at all costs, the unwillingness of the states to subsidize the route, etc... Hey, at least a boy can dream.


----------



## AlanB (Nov 17, 2011)

printman2000 said:


> Let me ask a new question...
> 
> If BNSF did not want Amtrak on this portion of the transcon, do they have to let them on? Or can they go the UP route and say they have to pay a bunch of money to upgrade the lines if they want to use them?
> 
> If they do not have to, then that would mean the whole route would be at risk.


My understanding of things is that they only reason that BNSF is allowed to let maintenance go on the current route is because they are offering to accommodate Amtrak on the Transcon. If BNSF were to withdraw the offer, then they would have to pay for the upkeep on the current line.

Now if Amtrak was requesting either to change the current routing on their own, or if they wanted a new service that used the Transcon, then that would be a horse of a different color and BNSF could demand major bucks for improvements. BNSF couldn't however out and out refuse either, as then the FRA would step in and order the change. This is why UP didn't say no to Amtrak's request for a daily Sunset. Instead they set a ridiculous price tag.

If Amtrak decides to pursue things further to force UP to agree, the odds favor that UP will still get a decent chunk of money to allow Amtrak to make the change. They won't get what they're asking for, but it wouldn't surprise me that the settlement gets close to half of what they're asking.


----------



## MontanaJim (Nov 17, 2011)

Here's another article on the subject, not sure if folks here saw it:

http://www.hutchnews.com/Todaystop/colo-seeks-SW-Chief-working-group


----------



## The Chief (Nov 17, 2011)

MontanaJim74 said:


> Here's another article on the subject, not sure if folks here saw it:
> 
> http://www.hutchnews.com/Todaystop/colo-seeks-SW-Chief-working-group


Thanks, *Jim*, this article has a lot of facts, including:

● "Our understanding is we have about a two-year window before they (
*Amtrak*
) can actually move it," said La Junta (Colo.) City Manager Rick Klein.
and

● The line, which was laid between 1940 and 1951, is composed of 39-foot segments of 132-pound jointed rail. As the rail ages, the ends of each piece begin to wear down and bend. So when a train car passes over, it hits a dip at each joint. The older the rail, the more pronounced the dip and rougher the ride so the slower the train has to go.


----------



## railiner (Nov 17, 2011)

George Harris said:


> printman2000 said:
> 
> 
> > Let me ask a new question...
> ...


This is an interesting subject in of itself. Through the years, how many times has Amtrak rerouted for operational convenience for itself, or its host railroad?

Remember when the SFZ ceased the 100 mile backwards running from Denver to serve Cheyenne, and built a new 'station' platform at Borie in the middle of nowhere with a Greyhound bus as the waiting room for passengers going in and out of Cheyenne? I believe Amtrak initiated that and paid for it, but more than made up the cost with the saving in time and crew expense.


----------



## MikeM (Nov 18, 2011)

railiner said:


> George Harris said:
> 
> 
> > printman2000 said:
> ...


It was a little different than that... Amtrak continued to maintain the waiting room and station agent in the Cheyenne depot at least in the CZ days. You boarded a bus then to Borie, and there was a metal building (looked like most UP MOW buildings) that was finished inside with heat and bathrooms. So it really wasn't all that bad.

Now, after the CZ moved to the D&RG routing, UP promptly tore that building down, so when Amtrak ran the Desert Wind Pioneer over the UP from Denver west, Borie was a paved pad with a flat concrete pad where the depot used to stand. UP also used the service interruption as an opportunity to basically kick Amtrak out of all their depots - places where Amtrak formerly had waiting rooms turned into "AmShacks", which in Wyoming in February really weren't that great.


----------



## bretton88 (Nov 18, 2011)

Amtrak apparently sees the maintenance cost for the transcon line over the next 10 years as similar to the cost to repair the trinidad route, where as the only train they will have to perform almost zero maintenance after fixing it. So BNSF will just send them the bill.


----------



## jis (Nov 18, 2011)

MikeM said:


> Now, after the CZ moved to the D&RG routing, UP promptly tore that building down, so when Amtrak ran the Desert Wind over the UP from Denver west, Borie was a paved pad with a flat concrete pad where the depot used to stand. UP also used the service interruption as an opportunity to basically kick Amtrak out of all their depots - places where Amtrak formerly had waiting rooms turned into "AmShacks", which in Wyoming in February really weren't that great.


I know Amtrak ran the Pioneer on UP, but when, if ever, did it run the Desert Wind as a separate train via UP?


----------



## zephyr17 (Nov 18, 2011)

jis said:


> MikeM said:
> 
> 
> > Now, after the CZ moved to the D&RG routing, UP promptly tore that building down, so when Amtrak ran the Desert Wind over the UP from Denver west, Borie was a paved pad with a flat concrete pad where the depot used to stand. UP also used the service interruption as an opportunity to basically kick Amtrak out of all their depots - places where Amtrak formerly had waiting rooms turned into "AmShacks", which in Wyoming in February really weren't that great.
> ...


The Desert Wind never ran over Overland Route. However it was a separate train over the UP's former LA&SL mainline between Salt Lake (or Ogden, depending on the era) and Los Angeles.

During the Mercer cuts era in the 90s, when the CZ ran 4 days a week and the Desert Wind 3 days a week, they both ran via the D&RGW.


----------



## MikeM (Nov 18, 2011)

zephyr17 said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > MikeM said:
> ...


Yep, got whacked with the Stupid Stick. Meant to say the Pioneer, which did separate in Denver. The Desert Wind split off in Salt Lake and took the LA&SL line southwest.


----------



## jis (Nov 18, 2011)

MikeM said:


> Yep, got whacked with the Stupid Stick. Meant to say the Pioneer, which did separate in Denver. The Desert Wind split off in Salt Lake and took the LA&SL line southwest.


Well, when the Desert Wind was originally introduced it was an Ogden to Los Angeles train which originally just had cross platform transfer at Ogden from the San Francisco Zephyr.


----------



## railiner (Nov 19, 2011)

MikeM said:


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


Back when I lived near Denver, I made several trips on the SFZ west. Everytime I was at the Borie station stop, the chartered Greyhound MC-8 would be waiting for the train with the passengers from Cheyenne and even the UP/Amtrak station agent would ride the bus with the passengers. He would handle the checked baggage from the bus to the baggage car, and then do the same with the bags and passengers getting off the train going into Cheyenne. I do not recall passengers getting off the bus and waiting in any building at Borie. They would go from the bus right onto the train. IIRC, the bus made a couple of stops for different sections of the train.

This ended when the train was converted to the newly rerouted CZ. When the Pioneer started running through Wyoming several years later for a brief time, I was no longer around...


----------



## FunNut (Nov 19, 2011)

Karl1459 said:


> Perhaps a soulution would be a Denver-El Paso corridor service, connectiong to the CZ at Denver, the SWC at Belen, and the SL at El Paso. Getting NM and Colorado to play will, of course, be IFFY. As well with BNSF/UP on the joint use lines between Pueblo and Denver.


My personal dream. Too bad the prospects for this are so dim.


----------



## VentureForth (Nov 20, 2011)

FunNut said:


> Karl1459 said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps a soulution would be a Denver-El Paso corridor service, connectiong to the CZ at Denver, the SWC at Belen, and the SL at El Paso. Getting NM and Colorado to play will, of course, be IFFY. As well with BNSF/UP on the joint use lines between Pueblo and Denver.
> ...


This was plausible under Governor Richardson. He just ran into term limits. Ran out of political office before he ran out of dreams. Colorado would have been hard to bring on board. And todays NM Administration is trying to figure out how to pay for all the GRIPs (Governor Richardson's Improvement Projects or something like that). It was sort of a Pre Obama stimulus program.


----------



## bretton88 (Nov 20, 2011)

VentureForth said:


> FunNut said:
> 
> 
> > Karl1459 said:
> ...


Richardson was a visionary. But Colorado would never come on board. They have dreams too, but very different that conventional rail. Colorado wants their true HSR running 150mph up and down Pueblo-Ft Collins.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Nov 20, 2011)

bretton88 said:


> Richardson was a visionary. But Colorado would never come on board. They have dreams too, but very different that conventional rail. Colorado wants their true HSR running 150mph up and down Pueblo-Ft Collins.


Isn't Denver busy refurbishing and expanding their old conventional train station? That's not so bad in today's anti-rail environment. For all the knocking I give Texas we do have several old train stations that are still used as (gasp!) train stations. At least some of the time. Even some of our polluted podunks and outlet mall towns have nice million dollar stations. And even though SAS no longer uses the actual Sunset Station for ticketing and waiting you still get picked up and dropped off just a few feet away.


----------



## bretton88 (Nov 20, 2011)

Texas Sunset said:


> bretton88 said:
> 
> 
> > Richardson was a visionary. But Colorado would never come on board. They have dreams too, but very different that conventional rail. Colorado wants their true HSR running 150mph up and down Pueblo-Ft Collins.
> ...


Well, the problem with Denver is that they are building a wonderful station environment for their commuter system. Its terrible for any intercity rail. Amtrak still has to do a backing move to access it. Any HSR would require some very expensive work to use the station as it will be built. On the state level, the support for intercity rail has been focused on HSR on the front range pueblo to ft collins and to the ski resorts.


----------



## Anderson (Nov 21, 2011)

bretton88 said:


> Texas Sunset said:
> 
> 
> > bretton88 said:
> ...


Could I get a link to information on what CO has actually been pursuing? The Ski Train fiasco aside, I had not heard any news about Colorado doing _anything_ train-wise.

Also, while there's support for HSR along the Front Range, is there any support for doing a "demonstration train" of some sort to show that the market works and/or to get people used to the train being an option? Likewise, is there any support for 90-125 MPH trains on that corridor? The corridor is less than 200 miles long (assuming Pueblo-Fort Collins is the desired alignment, you get 178 miles by car), so an average speed of 60 MPH (probably close to the upper limit of 79 MPH tracks) would run the distance in three hours, while 70 MPH (which you'd get if you could manage a number of segments in the 90-110 MPH range, depending on conditions and so forth) would get you close to 2.5 hours and definitely be travel time-competitive with driving. Moreover, operations in this speed range would make catenary optional and allow existing engine types to be used (as well as allowing orders to be piggybacked on other states' bilevel orders, saving CO money in the process).


----------



## jis (Nov 21, 2011)

All the passenger rail development in CO at present is under the auspices of the Denver RTD, and includes introduction of several commuter lines and extension of the LRT system considerably too. The redevelopment of the Denver Union Station alludes to the various items in the plan. See for example: Denver Union Station Project Elements


----------



## afigg (Nov 21, 2011)

Anderson said:


> Could I get a link to information on what CO has actually been pursuing? The Ski Train fiasco aside, I had not heard any news about Colorado doing _anything_ train-wise.


Colorado has completed a feasibility study for conventional, HSR, and maglev alternatives and alternate routes for east-west I-70 and north-south I-25 corridor trains. The reports and various presentations can be found at the Rocky Mountain Rail Authority website.

A major driver for a HSR or passenger train line up into the mountains is that I-70 is fast approaching total congestion at peak periods and widening I-70 is very difficult and expensive. An advantage of an electrified HSR line is that it can handle steep grades which would allow the construction of a passenger rail corridor partially following I-70 with easier to build straighter tracks up the slopes rather than many miles of switchbacks and tunnels to minimize the grade.

Where the proposed HSR and intercity rail projects stand in the Colorado long range transportation plans and state politics, don't know.


----------



## VentureForth (Nov 21, 2011)

afigg said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> > Could I get a link to information on what CO has actually been pursuing? The Ski Train fiasco aside, I had not heard any news about Colorado doing _anything_ train-wise.
> ...


That's all plausible, but it doesn't make sense, so it won't work. They cannot afford HSR and they don't have the density to support it. For a fraction of the investment, they can get a very good, modern, conventional system compatible with the rest of the country.

Even Japan doesn't have HSR all over the place for as small and densly populated as country it is. For 3 decades, the Shinkansen only supported the Southern corridor between Tokyo and Hakata (with the Tokaido section from Tokyo to Osaka being the heaviest travelled).

Point is that HSR needs to start on the East Coast in the NEC on its own ROW, another one on the West Coast, and as time progresses, begin to connect the larger cities. Meanwhile, I hope that the states can do everything in their power to support 90 MPH service that can feed Amtrak across teh country.


----------



## bretton88 (Nov 21, 2011)

VentureForth said:


> afigg said:
> 
> 
> > Anderson said:
> ...


It won't be cheap either. No diesel train is getting over monument pass in good time. And conventional speed rail that is a decent alternative over the I70 corridor? Forget it. Colorado really wants this and has put forward money to do it. The problem is CDOT gets a budget of 1 billion a year. So any major rail projects on the state level is a huge budget buster. Oh, BNSF and UP have already said forget about any passenger trains on their front range line.


----------



## Jonathon (Nov 21, 2011)

Boy that would be HUGE for us folks in south central Kansas....no disrespect meant for those in southern Colorado or northern New Mexico. As it is now we have to drive to Newton to p/u Amtrak either going west or east. Here in Arkansas City we in a bit of a limbo with the possibility of the Heartland Flyer going north thru our town on the way to hook up in Newton.


----------



## Jonathon (Nov 21, 2011)

PS...in retrospect I guess I'd rather see the extension of Heartland Flyer than Amtrak in Wichita....I travel to Nawlins more than I'd want to go to Chicago or LA


----------



## Okie_Mon (Dec 8, 2011)

Why don't people from Alva-OK, Amarillo-TX, Belen-NM, Clovis-NM, Wichita-KS, Woodward-OK, etc. organize and coordinate a lobbying effort to get the SW Chief LD Train rerouted to the Transcon for their own passenger Rail access interests? And, would it be easier politically to connect the Heartland Flyer from Oklahoma City to Wichita instead of connecting it to Newton, KS or possibly route The Heartland Flyer North of OKC and Edmond to one of the NW Oklahoma stops of a rerouted SW Chief instead of to Kansas such as to Alva or to Woodward in order to remove reliance on the State of Kansas and Governor Brownback to provide any significant funding to support passenger rail? Isn't the State of Kansas already dragging their feet on completing the preliminary tasks needed to connect the Heartland Flyer from OKC North to Newton?


----------



## sechs (Dec 10, 2011)

Actually, there is some passenger rail group in Wichita. A year or so a go, they staged an event at Wichita Union Station when the Chief rerouted on the transcon and passed through during daylight hours.

My feeling is that the Republican governor in Kansas isn't for spending anything for passenger rail, but certainly not at the cost of the stops in the western part of the state.

I'm not sure the people would be wild about an early morning drop at a station and long layover for a connection.


----------



## guest (Dec 10, 2011)

sechs said:


> Actually, there is some passenger rail group in Wichita. A year or so a go, they staged an event at Wichita Union Station when the Chief rerouted on the transcon and passed through during daylight hours.
> 
> My feeling is that the Republican governor in Kansas isn't for spending anything for passenger rail, but certainly not at the cost of the stops in the western part of the state.
> 
> I'm not sure the people would be wild about an early morning drop at a station and long layover for a connection.


daylight hours?? really? normally the Transcon is quicker than the regular route...I was on the SWC during the Track Fire, and we sat in Newton for quite a while waiting for time...


----------



## henryj (Dec 10, 2011)

Okie_Mon said:


> And, would it be easier politically to connect the Heartland Flyer from Oklahoma City to Wichita instead of connecting it to Newton, KS or possibly route The Heartland Flyer North of OKC and Edmond to one of the NW Oklahoma stops of a rerouted SW Chief instead of to Kansas such as to Alva or to Woodward in order to remove reliance on the State of Kansas and Governor Brownback to provide any significant funding to support passenger rail? Isn't the State of Kansas already dragging their feet on completing the preliminary tasks needed to connect the Heartland Flyer from OKC North to Newton?


A Heartland Flyer that turns in Newton or Wichita either one is DOA. No one wants to change trains at 2 or 3am in the morning. That is worse than a Greyhound bus and at least it goes all the way to KC. Currently the 'dog' lists four through buses Okc to KC and the fastest takes less than 7 hours. The one that connects with the Flyer leaves OKC at 12:20am and arrives in KC at 6:40. It's about the same coming back. If the OKC travelers want to connect with the SWC going west they have a bus to Wichita also. The old Texas Chief took 3-4 hours to go to Wichita or Newton around 7 hours to make KC. I assume they want to turn the Flyer in Newton so they continue to only need one set of equipment. But they would be turning it at 2am and have to service it there. Basically, if they can't run all the way to KC and utilize two sets of equipment then they should just forget it. If they really want to make this train viable then continue it on the BNSF all the way south to Houston on the old Texas Chief route.


----------



## dart330 (Dec 10, 2011)

According to the Service Development Plan, they project an additional 111,300 people would ride the HF each year if it were simply extended to Newton. That is on top of the current ridership of 89,200. The Newton stop alone has projections of 64,049 people getting on and off there. Despite the horrible timing in the middle of the night, there are plenty of people who will use this service.


----------



## LWBaxter (Dec 10, 2011)

henryj said:


> [.... Basically, if they can't run all the way to KC and utilize two sets of equipment then they should just forget it. If they really want to make this train viable then continue it on the BNSF all the way south to Houston on the old Texas Chief route.


Actually no new equipment is required to run the heartland flyer through to Kansas City except for the additional traffic generated. Run the equipment through Ft Worth to Chicago via St. Louis using the existing schedules Heartland Flyer/Mo .River Runner/Lincoln service schedules.

LWBaxter


----------



## henryj (Dec 10, 2011)

dart330 said:


> According to the Service Development Plan, they project an additional 111,300 people would ride the HF each year if it were simply extended to Newton. That is on top of the current ridership of 89,200. The Newton stop alone has projections of 64,049 people getting on and off there. Despite the horrible timing in the middle of the night, there are plenty of people who will use this service.


I would believe that when I see it. If people wanted a 2am train to OKC they would be lining up at the bus depot. There are many corridors needing rail service between cities with populations in the multi-millions. Newton has only 19 thousand people. So you are telling me that 3 times the population of Newton will use this train and transfer in the middle of the night to the SWC or whatever. Like I said............. I thought Missouri was the 'show me' state. This proposal is a total waste of tax payer money.


----------



## dart330 (Dec 10, 2011)

Having a Northern connection to the national network would easily more than double the current HF ridership. The transfer in Newton would be a huge boost to the route which is why the projections are so high for such a small town. This connection will reduce the time it takes to get to Chicago from OKC by an entire day. There are plenty of people who would rather ride the train with a night transfer than have to do the same on the bus. Remember the first year the HF was put into service it more than doubled the predicted ridership estimates.


----------



## NY Penn (Dec 10, 2011)

Would a through car HF-SWC be feasible? It would greatly ease the complications of transferring.


----------



## dart330 (Dec 10, 2011)

They are not currently considering a through car. I agree the transfer is a hassle, but the HF currently sits for 11 hours in OKC each night. The tracks are there and the trainset is available. No reason not to run it up and make the connection.

If it actually happens and is successful, then there would be the possibility of a day train from KC to FTW, but that will require two additional trainsets and hundreds of millions more dollars to get up and running.


----------



## sechs (Dec 10, 2011)

LWBaxter said:


> Run the equipment through Ft Worth to Chicago via St. Louis using the existing schedules Heartland Flyer/Mo .River Runner/Lincoln service schedules.


I'm pretty sure that's a no-go for Missouri and Illinois. This is what lead to the demise of the Ann Rutledge


----------



## sechs (Dec 10, 2011)

henryj said:


> Newton has only 19 thousand people. So you are telling me that 3 times the population of Newton will use this train and transfer in the middle of the night to the SWC or whatever.


According to Amtrak, 13,890 people use that station now for just the two Chief stops each morning. That's more than any other Amtrak station in Kansas. Generally speaking, these are just people coming from the vicinity of Newton.
Taking into account new connecting traffic at Newton, new O&D traffic for all of the new Heartland Flyer stations, and new connecting traffic at FTW, it's not unbelievable that the route could add a pretty hefty number of riders.


----------



## guest (Dec 11, 2011)

sechs said:


> henryj said:
> 
> 
> > Newton has only 19 thousand people. So you are telling me that 3 times the population of Newton will use this train and transfer in the middle of the night to the SWC or whatever.
> ...


Newton is the station nearest Wichita, with a population around half a million...


----------



## AlanB (Dec 11, 2011)

sechs said:


> LWBaxter said:
> 
> 
> > Run the equipment through Ft Worth to Chicago via St. Louis using the existing schedules Heartland Flyer/Mo .River Runner/Lincoln service schedules.
> ...


The Ann Rutledge is gone in name only; the actual run still exists and it is a through train. So someone going from Kansas City (KCY), or any point between KCY and St. Louis, still has a one seat ride. But officially they now ride the Missouri River River and then the Lincoln Service trains. For those of us in AGR, it means extra points, which IMHO is a good thing however.


----------



## sechs (Dec 11, 2011)

I thought that the through equipment ended at one of the schedule changes. At any rate it *could* lead to the end of the through equipment at any point, should either of the states so decide.


----------

